Speaking in Tongues

[guanophore]

Everyone here is using the bible to justify tongues in some way or another. Could anyone provide some officaly Catholic material regarding the matter? What does the Church teach about it and what should we as catholics be carefull of?

Look over the thread again. there are some links to Catholic sites. If you don’t see, I can post them again. Use the thread tools to search the thread for catholic links. nsc-chariscenter.org/

I limit myself to Scripture often when conversing with Protestants because they don’t consider any other source authoritative.

 

[guanophore]

As for the CC stand on the subject, I don’t believe they discourage it. ’

This is quite true, heis, since the CC wrote the NT.

It seems that it is pretty clearly supported in the Catholic testimony about Catholics written in the NT by CAtholics.

 

[heiscominginthe]

This is quite true, heis, since the CC wrote the NT.

It seems that it is pretty clearly supported in the Catholic testimony about Catholics written in the NT by CAtholics.

Hum, I believe it was the apostles and deciples, who never called themselves catholic, wrote the NT. To call them catholic is to add to what they have written through the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Scriptures say they referred to themselves as the church of Jesus Christ and their message was called the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As for speaking in tongues in the CC, I suggest you look into the history of the CC. If I am not mistaken, there was a time in the CC that it was believed that the gifts of the spirit ceased in the church, believing it ceased once the Word of God came to be.

Yet, the view today is sketchy. Although it is condoned, there is no official stand from the vatican.

 

[CWBetts]

Hum, I believe it was the apostles and deciples, who never called themselves catholic, wrote the NT. To call them catholic is to add to what they have written through the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Scriptures say they referred to themselves as the church of Jesus Christ and their message was called the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As for speaking in tongues in the CC, I suggest you look into the history of the CC. If I am not mistaken, there was a time in the CC that it was believed that the gifts of the spirit ceased in the church, believing it ceased once the Word of God came to be.

Yet, the view today is sketchy. Although it is condoned, there is no official stand from the vatican.

You are just spouting nonsense…AGAIN! Color me stunned.

 

[guanophore]

Hum, I believe it was the apostles and deciples, who never called themselves catholic, wrote the NT. To call them catholic is to add to what they have written through the unction of the Holy Spirit.

You are correct, heis, it was the Apostles and the disciples who wrote the NT. They were Catholic, and the described the Church as Catholic. The first written use of this word is found, in fact, in the writings of Luke, a disciple of Paul.

Acts 9:31
" So the church throughout all…"

When you look at the Greek, it will be clear that the words for “church throughout all” are Kath holos, transliterated Catholic. This descriptor for the “church throughout all” was used by the early Christians to distinguish the One, Holy, Apostolic Church from heretical bodies.

Another early disciple of John the Apostle uses this term:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you 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 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.” Ignatius to Smyrna ch 8 110 AD

By the early second century, the use of the term Catholic, coined by Luke in the book of Acts, was commonplace.

Scriptures say they referred to themselves as the church of Jesus Christ and their message was called the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Certainly there were many ways to refer to the One Church. It is also called in Scripture “The Way”, a sect of the Jews, and in Antioch, the followers of Christ were first called “Christians”.

As for speaking in tongues in the CC, I suggest you look into the history of the CC. If I am not mistaken, there was a time in the CC that it was believed that the gifts of the spirit ceased in the church, believing it ceased once the Word of God came to be.

No, this has never been the belief or teaching of the Catholic Church. There are certainly persons who call themselves Catholic, some of them here on this Board, who deny that speaking in tongues is a valid present day gift of the HS. But the Church teaching has been consistent from the day of Pentecost until now.

Yet, the view today is sketchy. Although it is condoned, there is no official stand from the vatican.

This is a false statement, heis. It would be advisable for you to check your facts before you post such misinformation. Scripture is an “official statement” of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, as it was written by, for, and about Catholics. Nothing in Catholic teaching contradicts the scriptures.

 

[BRB1]

You are correct, heis, it was the Apostles and the disciples who wrote the NT. They were Catholic, and the described the Church as Catholic. The first written use of this word is found, in fact, in the writings of Luke, a disciple of Paul.

Acts 9:31
" So the church throughout all…"

When you look at the Greek, it will be clear that the words for “church throughout all” are Kath holos, transliterated Catholic. This descriptor for the “church throughout all” was used by the early Christians to distinguish the One, Holy, Apostolic Church from heretical bodies.

Another early disciple of John the Apostle uses this term:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you 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 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.” Ignatius to Smyrna ch 8 110 AD

By the early second century, the use of the term Catholic, coined by Luke in the book of Acts, was commonplace.

.

Thanxs for the history lesson.

 

[DemetriusRules]

What Does the Bible say about Speaking in Tongues?

I have spent the last 20 or so years studying the answer to that question.

I will tell you what I found…You had better make a cup of tea/coffee, sit down and get comfortable. This may a take a little while.

But when you finish, if you have any questions you can email me at luke7_35@yahoo.com.au

THE LATTER RAIN REVIVAL AT AZUSA

In the closing months of 1900 Pastor Charles Parham established the Bethel Bible School on the outskirts of Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A. It was there that he challenged his thirty-four students to search the Scriptures for evidence of receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

His students were soon in agreement that the outward physical evidence of such an experience was the glossolalia or speaking in tongues.

At a New Year Service to usher in 1901, Parham prayed for a young student named Agnes Ozman. He laid his hands on her and she began to speak in a language she had never learned or heard. Over the next few days Parham and other members of the student body had the same experience; the Pentecostal movement had begun.

The Azusa Street Revival (1906–1909) took place in Los Angeles, California, and was led by William Seymour (1870–1922), an African American preacher. Seymour preached that Glossolalia was evidence of Holy Spirit baptism; his first Los Angeles parish therefore expelled him. Seymour continued preaching until he and a small group experienced glossolalia. Crowds began to gather and a mission space was found on Azusa Street, in a run-down building in downtown Los Angeles. Worship there was frequent, spontaneous, and ecstatic, drawing people from around the world to a revival that lasted about three years and brought much attention to it. The Azusa revival was multi-racial, welcomed poor people, and encouraged the leadership of women, which was very controversial at the time. The location is part of Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, California. Pentecostalism has earlier roots, but the Azusa Street Revival launched it as a worldwide movement.

THE LATTER RAIN GOES GLOBAL
Soon the Pentecostal latter rain was to spread to the British Isles, Scandinavia and across the English-speaking world. Sadly after almost a century the concept of an experience subsequent to conversion, commonly known as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and accompanied by supernatural phenomena, remains a source of deep rooted division amongst Pentecostal, Evangelical and Fundamentalist believers. This has been exacerbated in recent years by the emergence of the Counterfeit Catholic Charismatic Movement, which together with the excesses of the inappropriately named “Toronto Blessing”, have helped to confirm the fears and prejudice of so many sincere Christians. At a time like this, when apostasy deepens almost daily it is more vital than ever that true Bible Believers be united to resist the advances of Romanism, Modernism and Ecumenism, I felt it needful to put these studies into one comprehensive work, not to create controversy but to explain to friends within the wider Pentecostal community what we are supposed to believe regarding this vital topic, ever mindful of the injunction:

“To give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” - (I PETER 3: 15)

BAPTISM IN THE HOLY GHOST AND FIRE

AS PREDICTED BY THE PROPHETS

In the Old Testament Prophecy of Jeremiah we read the wonderful promise that Almighty God was to make a New Covenant with His Israel people:

“Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers … which my Covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them saith the Lord. But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel, after those days saith the Lord: I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts: and will be their God and they shall be my people.” - (JEREMIAH 31: 31-33)

Jeremiah’s contemporary Ezekiel expands further by stating:

“A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you! and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you an heart of flesh, and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and ye shall keep my judgements and do them.” - (EZEKIEL 36: 26-27)

Just as there was a physical sign in the flesh of the Old Covenant, namely circumcision, so in like manner there is a physical sign in the flesh of receiving the New Covenant blessing of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is the Glossolalia or “speaking in tongues” even as Isaiah predicted:

“For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people.” - (ISAIAH 28: 11)

End of part 1 of 3

 

[DemetriusRules]

Continued…

PROCLAIMED BY JOHN THE BAPTIST

The Lord Jesus said concerning John the Baptist that there was no greater one, born of woman. He was full of the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb and was the Herald, preparing the way for the coming Messiah. This was what John proclaimed to those he preached to on the banks of the River Jordan, almost two thousand years ago:

“I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I. whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” - (MATTHEW 3:11)

“I have indeed baptised you with water: but He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and fire.” - (MARK 1: 8)

“John answered saying unto them all, I indeed baptise you with water, but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” - (LUKE 3:16)

John clearly pointed forward to the Lord Jesus not only as our Saviour/Redeemer - but also as our Baptiser with the Holy Ghost.

PROMISED BY THE LORD JESUS

If the word declared by John the Baptist and by the Old Testament prophets is not sufficient to satisfy the sceptic, surely the words of the Lord Jesus Christ should be enough to settle the matter once and for all. As you will see there is no doubt that Jesus promised the power of the Spirit to all who will believe.

Let us look at these precious promises.

(1) “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name(Jesus) shall they cast out devils, they shall SPEAK
WITH NEW TONGUES; they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not harm them; they
shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.” - (MARK 16: 17-18)

These words were spoken by the Lord Jesus in the context of the great commission to go and preach the Gospel. So that Gospel was obviously inclusive of the signs listed. The fact that miraculous signs would follow the preaching of the true Gospel is further alluded to by the writer to the Hebrews. He states that the spoken word was confirmed in the following way:

“God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to His own will.” - (HEBREWS 2: 4)

(2) ‘And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” - (LUKE 24: 49)

Here the Holy Spirit Baptism is spoken of by Jesus as the “promise of the Father” and He states that it will fill them with dynamic power.

(3) “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the Comforter (Holy Spirit) will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send Him unto you." - (JOHN 16: 7)

(4) “Verily, verily I say unto you that he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father … and I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive … I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.” - (John 14: 12-18)

(5) ‘And being assembled together with them (Jesus) commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith He, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptised with water; but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence … but ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” - (ACTS 1: 4-8)

These are unbreakable promises to every believer, to whom this same Jesus promised eternal life. Why must puny men seek to eliminate these promises in order to make the Bible conform to their own pre-conceived theological viewpoint?

WHY DIDN’T JESUS SPEAK IN TONGUES?

Although we have just read the words of Christ concerning the Baptism of the Spirit, there will be those who oppose the experience, who will say: “Then why did Jesus not speak in tongues Himself?’ Whether the question be genuine or not it needs to be answered and this we will seek to do.

(A) The Lord Jesus was the Son of God, the express image of the invisible God. The Bible tells me that: “in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” - (COLOSSIANS 2: 9)

As such therefore He knew all languages, for Him it was unnecessary, for He was all-knowing.

(B) Since the Gift of Tongues with Interpretation was given to operate within the Church which is the Body of Christ, of which He is the Head; and since the Church was not formed until the Day of Pentecost some fifty days after the Resurrection, the question of the Lord Jesus, speaking in tongues does not arise.

(C) The Lord Jesus had a perfect tongue without evil or guile. In contrast the Bible says that our tongues are full of unruly evil and deadly poison (JAMES 3: 9). Our tongues therefore need to be tamed. As a new creation we need a new tongue to praise our Lord. Jesus did not need this new tongue but you and I do.

(D) Finally as we have already seen, the prophets foretold and predicted the Baptism of the Spirit - with the “stammering lips and another tongue” to Israel not to Israel’s Messiah.

End of part 2 of 3

 

[DemetriusRules]

Continued…

WHAT DO YOU MEAN - INITIAL EVIDENCE?

In our accounts of the Pentecostal outpouring in the Book of Acts, I have referred to the Glossolalia or speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit Baptism. This is quite accurate, and Scriptural so to do. Just as circumcision of the flesh was the outward sign of the Old Covenant, so there is an outward visible manifestation of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, sealing us into the New Covenant. It is the speaking in tongues, the stammering lips of which the prophet spoke.

However let me stress that whilst tongues are the initial evidence they are not the final evidence. As we go deeper into our walk with the Holy Spirit, as we climb the ladder of spiritual maturity I would expect to see other gifts and graces being made manifest in the lives of Spirit-filled believers. I would expect to see a spiritual transformation of life conduct and character. The initial evidence of the Holy Spirit Baptism is certainly the tongues of I Corinthians 12, but the ultimate evidence is that the life of such a one measure up to the standards set in I Corinthians 13.

If the believer manifests all of the Spiritual Gifts listed in I Corinthians 12: 8-10 but fails to manifest the Spiritual Graces or Fruits listed in Galatians 5: 22-23, it would be rather like a bird trying to fly with one wing. The true Pentecostal message is one of balance rather than one of excess.
MANIFESTED AT PENTECOST

Let us now see how these wonderful promises were fulfilled. There are several incidents in the Book of Acts which tell us what happened when the Holy Spirit came.

(1) THE DAY OF PENTECOST

‘And when the Day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all of one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” - (ACTS 2: 1-4)

The one hundred and twenty obedient followers of Jesus, tarrying in the upper room at Jerusalem had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the outward sign or initial evidence was the speaking in other tongues.

DRUNK OR FULFILLING PROPHECY

So great was the commotion or disturbance that was created by this miraculous phenomena, that the crowds thought the Spirit filled Christians were drunk:

‘And they were amazed and were in doubt, saying one to another what meaneth this? Others mocking said these men are full of wine.” - (ACTS 2: 12-13)

However Peter was quick to respond to them by pointing out very forcefully that what they were seeing and hearing was the beginning of the fulfilment of the words of the Old Testament prophet Joel. Peter stated:

“Hearken to my words; for these are not drunken as ye suppose - BUT THIS IS THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET JOEL — and it shall come to pass in the last days (the Christian era of prophecy) saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days my Spirit.” - (ACTS 2: 15-18)

EVERY MAN HEARS EVERY LANGUAGE FROM EVERY BELIEVER

As a result of this first outpouring of Holy Spirit power, thousands of Israelites of the Diaspora, gathered in Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Pentecost, were able to hear in their own language the Gospel being preached:

“The multitude came together and were confounded because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled saying one to another; Behold ate not all these which speak Galileans? and now hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born.” - (ACTS 2: 6-8)

The result that they were pricked in their heart or as we would say they were convicted of their sinful lifestyles; religious though they might have been, Israelites though they might have been, it was not enough. They cried out: “Men and brethren what must we do?” and Peter replied using the keys of the Kingdom:

“Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (on account of) remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.” - (ACTS 2: 37-38)

As if in anticipation of those who would rise up to say that the experience of the Holy Spirit Baptism had ceased and was given only to convince the people of these days; Peter went on to say:

“For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off — even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” - (ACTS 2: 39)

Here we note the Holy Spirit Baptism was not limited to those present in Jerusalem at that particular Feast of Pentecost. It was to:

(A) Your children — descendants, succeeding generations up to and including the present time.

(B) All that are afar off — These were the divorced, dispersed and scattered Israelites of the Diaspora, the same people James
described in his Epistle as the “Twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad.”

(C) As many as the Lord our God shall call.

If God has called you, and drawn you by His Spirit to the experience of salvation by repentance and saving faith in the blood Christ shed at Calvary if you are indeed one of the elect — then this Pentecostal blessing is still for you today It was this old time Apostolic power preaching that saw three thousand saved in one day.

Part 3 of 3…But wait there’s more!

 

[DemetriusRules]

THE REVIVAL IN SAMARIA

In the eighth chapter of Acts we read of a great religious revival or spiritual awakening, taking place in the city of Samaria. It had resulted from Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and many had repented and been baptised in water in the name of the Lord Jesus. Mighty miracles of healing took place and when the news reached the church in Jerusalem, they sent the Apostles Peter and John to Samaria.

What was their purpose in going? To pray for the new Christians to receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. When we read the story it becomes quite clear, that we did not receive all God had for us, at conversion/repentance, or even when we were baptised in water. Let us see what the Bible tells us.
Peter and John when they were come down to Samaria:

“Prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost.” - (ACTS 8: 15-16)

So it is Scriptural for the ministry to pray for and lay hands on believing, baptised Christians that they might receive the Holy Spirit Baptism.

THE HOUSEHOLD OF CORNELIUS

In the tenth chapter of Acts we read the wonderful story of the conversion to Christ of the Centurion Cornelius and his household at the city of Caesarea. The very way in which Peter had been led to go from Joppa and preach the Gospel to him was miraculous in itself. Let us pick up the story as it reaches a dramatic climax. Peter has just proclaimed that sins can be forgiven those who believe on the Lord Jesus:

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word, and they of the circumcision were astonished as many as came with Peter that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” - (ACTS 10: 44-47)

Let me ask the honest seeker after truth just one simple question; How did Peter and his associates know that Cornelius and his household had received the Holy Spirit? What was the immediate, initial evidence?

Answer: THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES.

THE CHURCH AT EPHESUS

In the nineteenth chapter of Acts we read that when the Apostle Paul reached the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) he found a small number of people described as disciples. This would indicate that they were already Christian, certainly in the sense that they had repented, been converted and were seeking to follow the Lord. That being the case Paul put a strange question to them, but one we could repeat to so many dear people in the churches today.

“He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” - (ACTS 19: 2)

So much for receiving everything at repentance as so many claim and teach today. Having discovered that they were baptised after the manner of John the Baptist for repentance, Paul rebaptised in Jesus’ name.

“When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake in tongues and prophesied and all the men were about twelve.” - (ACTS 19: 5-7)

From these obedient Spirit-filled men grew the Church of God at Ephesus, as Paul’s anointed preaching turned the city upside down; converting the practitioners of magic, and the followers of Diana the Goddess/Queen of Heaven, in addition to many healing miracles.
Let me once again ask; how did Paul know that they had received the Holy Spirit after he prayed and laid hands on them?

Answer: He heard them SPEAK WITH TONGUES.

It was to this Ephesian church that Paul would later pen his Epistle in which he clearly taught a post conversion/repentance experience, which we know to be the Holy Spirit Baptism. Let us read what Paul said:

“That we should be to the praise of His glory who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted AFTER that ye heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation; in whom also AFTER that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory.” - (EPHESIANS 1: 12-14)

Remember all these events were happening at Ephesus, in 54 A.D. some twenty years after the Day of Pentecost.

God Bless

Luke 7:35

 

[DemetriusRules]

About Me: “Luke 7:35”

I thought it would be good to let you guys know a little about who I am. I first heard the gospel 20 years ago. That week I went from being a very active drug dealer, servicing a large customer base, to a completely changed person. This change occurred subsequent to me asking God the following question “If you are there, and Jesus Christ was your son, please fill me with the Holy Spirit". That moment I began to speak fluently in another language.

I spent the next month going around to my friends (other drug dealers) telling them what had happened to me. In total 22 of them had the same experience as I did, including my parents. I saw my father healed of debilitating illnesses, the deaf healed and the lame walk. I didn’t originally want to be a Christian but I found the evidence overwhelming.

I realised immediately that there were a myriad of ideas out there and all cannot be correct. I set about going around to all the groups I could find measuring what they said against the scriptures. I realised also that the simple King James Version was not enough of a resource to be solely reliable. (Though it is my favoured version) After three years of almost constant study trying to prove you ARE NOT required to speak in Tongues to be saved. I came to the opposite conclusion i.e. that ALL Christians do in fact speak in Tongues. I am glad I did this, because no one could say that I was intellectually biased.

**To summarise my thinking on tongues, please read the following: **

1) The Rest: God spoke of the Rest as something that we absolutely MUST enter. The only scriptural position I could find in response to the ABSOLUTE STATEMENT from GOD was found in Isaiah 28:9-12. This verse placed me in a position where Tongues was the only initial outward evidence to the individual where they could know with scriptural certainty that they had entered this place of Rest. I feel cornered by this statement. If I profess to be in agreement with Hebrews Chapter 4, which emphasises the requirement of entry into the/a Rest, but cannot say amen to “stammering lips and another tongue” where does that leave me. The 1st verse of Hebrews 4 states clearly that there was a “promise” of entry into a Rest. The only place this is found is in Isaiah 28:9-12

2) The 16th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, “Have you picked up snakes with your hands”??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term “Pick up” can be and indeed should be, given the context “make to doubt”. Equally to drink any deadly thing should be “imbibe, take in and keep mentally”. As you read through the book of Acts this interpretation of both “take up” and drink are supported. So in this regard I can identify with all five signs listed. Mark 16:15-20 as with any ONE scripture reference cannot however be regarded as your sole rationale for subscribing to the necessary tongues theology but combined with the entire scripture this position is the only consistent interpretation.

3) The Day of Pentecost: The day of Pentecost as fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy is often confused with communication between the Apostles and the people who made up the 17 different dialects. The scripture clearly says the EVERY MAN (unbeliever) heard EVERY MAN (Believer) in EVERY language in which he was born. Call me crazy but that to me says the EVERY ONE of the unbelievers heard all languages being spoken by each and every believer. (I stand to corrected) The closing section of scripture in Acts 2:37-44 is a verse that I agree with the RF captures the sum of the gospel message of Jesus Death, Burial and resurrection referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7

4) Jesus and Nicodemus: In John 3:8 we read that EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit will hear a (Vocal) sound, language. If I position myself; as I once did to say Tongues was just one off the gifts of the spirit then this becomes a hurdle.

5) Simon the Sorcerer: This story perhaps best sums up my position. When the Apostles arrived on the scene they knew that the new Christians were not in fact filled with the Holy Spirit Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) BECAUSE they had some sort of logical evidence that it had happened. I have prayed with many people who are seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit. What other reasonable response could I give them to the question, if they ask me: “have I received the Holy Spirit?”

Some would say “you will know them by their fruits” When I try to apply this rationale I find it floored when applied to Apollos and Cornelius to name just two.

6) The Conversion of Cornelius: When I pray with people the ONLY template I have you use as a guide that lets me know for certain that the person I am praying with had, with scriptural certainty is Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? These are but a fraction of my argument, 6 points will suffice for now.

I am aware that I am looking at this from an entirely FUNDAMENTALIST point of view but in this very “Lukewarm” world this is the only safe position I believe one must take.

God Bless you all

Luke 7:35

 

[DemetriusRules]

The Bottom Line: I cannot subscribe to the logic that God would not have a measure of control over the final biblical text.

It should be fairly clear to the average sincere reader, what the steps required for a right relationship with him would be.

The Gospel as embodied in Acts 2:37-40 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

represented the clearest (strait to the point) answer to the question what “must I do to be saved” that I have heard.

The several Churches (Catholic included) who have failed to address these first 6 points, let alone the many more I would like a clear discussion about. I have found countless people in various assemblies of a variety of churches that simply sidestep the scripture.

If you are reading this and DO NOT Speak in Tongues. I am not judging you at all.

All I am saying is that over the centuries the vital essence of the Holy Ghost baptism has been set aside by well meaning men and it is for you today.

Tonight when you are at home by yourself As God whether these things that I say are true.

Ask him to confirm the words I speak with you personally “with signs following”

He wont let you down. Simply ask and keep asking.

Again if you have any questions about how you can have this “Power from on high”

email me at:
luke7_35@yahoo.com.au

or visit my website:
shoalhavenrevival.websyte.com.au

God Bless

Luke 7:35

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5393950]You are correct, heis, it was the Apostles and the disciples who wrote the NT. They were Catholic, and the described the Church as Catholic. The first written use of this word is found, in fact, in the writings of Luke, a disciple of Paul.

The important thing to mention here is what made the church universal was they all where in one accord on what was written and practiced by the church. There was many different places throughout the regions where believers resided, but they were one church, or as you put it, universal.

Yet, the church that was then compared to what we have today, that call themselves the universal church is not the same. Many of the things the apostles had written have been changed over the centuries.

I believe that the catholic or universal church at one time stood on the purity of the Word of God given through the unction of the Holy Spirit, but has changed dramatically over time, becoming more the doctrines of men and not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Proof is the many traditions, rituals that glorify the flesh and not the spirit. I believe the catholic church today has become more physical and less spiritual.

I do believe the universal or catholic church is in existance today and has always been around thoughout the centuries. How would one recognize them? They will be hated by the Word. They will be recognized by the word of there testimony, not loving their life unto death. They will be covered by the blood of the lamb.

Certainly there were many ways to refer to the One Church. It is also called in Scripture “The Way”, a sect of the Jews, and in Antioch, the followers of Christ were first called “Christians”.

I believe the same applies today. I believe there are many splinter groups called by different names that stand on the truth of God’s Word, being careful not to add or take away from the Word of God. These are they who walk in the spirit doing not their will, but the will of the Father.

No, this has never been the belief or teaching of the Catholic Church. There are certainly persons who call themselves Catholic, some of them here on this Board, who deny that speaking in tongues is a valid present day gift of the HS. But the Church teaching has been consistent from the day of Pentecost until now.

Yet, I believe there is scripture that says the Holy Spirit was removed from this denomination, creating a church that has a form of godliness, but denies the power of the HS.

This is a false statement, heis. It would be advisable for you to check your facts before you post such misinformation. Scripture is an “official statement” of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, as it was written by, for, and about Catholics. Nothing in Catholic teaching contradicts the scriptures.

You are very mistaken. For it is written that when a man is baptized in water, it is to be done in the name of Jesus.

It is written that a man is saved by faith alone, not water baptism.

Not one place in the bible does it say we are to baptize children.

 

[guanophore]

The important thing to mention here is what made the church universal was they all where in one accord on what was written and practiced by the church. There was many different places throughout the regions where believers resided, but they were one church, or as you put it, universal.

Yes, I agree. This is the most important part of what it means to be Catholic. Throughout th world, Catholics are in union with the teaching of the Apostles on the doctrine of the faith.

Yet, the church that was then compared to what we have today, that call themselves the universal church is not the same. Many of the things the apostles had written have been changed over the centuries.

Yes, and even more, the Apostolic teachings that were not written. This is because individuals have separated themselves from the Apostolic Succession, severing access to the Sacred Traditions.

I believe that the catholic or universal church at one time stood on the purity of the Word of God given through the unction of the Holy Spirit, but has changed dramatically over time, becoming more the doctrines of men and not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I can see that it is essential for you to believe this, heis. If you did not hold to this view, you would not be able to justify the anti-catholic sect to which you belong.

In truth, however, it is clear from your posts that you never knew which were the doctrines of men, and which were from the unction of the HS. As a result, you have embraced a belief system that you believe is authentic, but it is in many ways separated from the Apostolic Teaching. It is quite clear that you are sincere in your commitment to this sect to which you belong, and to the faith that you understand to be “christian”.

 Proof is the many traditions, rituals that glorify the flesh and not the spirit.

This is a curious statement. There are no Catholic Traditions that “glorify the flesh”. One cannot help but be mystified.

 I believe the catholic church today has become more physical and less spiritual.

Indeed, since you seem to know very little about the Catholic Church, it makes sense that you would think so.

I do believe the universal or catholic church is in existance today and has always been around thoughout the centuries. How would one recognize them? They will be hated by the Word.

What an interesting Freudian slip this is .

I believe the same applies today. I believe there are many splinter groups called by different names that stand on the truth of God’s Word, being careful not to add or take away from the Word of God. These are they who walk in the spirit doing not their will, but the will of the Father.

I am certain they believe that is what they are doing. I believe that they espouse this with all sincerity. Most of them do not have any idea that they have replaced the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ with their own opinion, or that of someone teaching them.

Yet, I believe there is scripture that says the Holy Spirit was removed from this denomination, creating a church that has a form of godliness, but denies the power of the HS.

This one really gave me a chuckle. heis, the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that contradicts Catholic Teaching. Of course, there is nothing in it that says God has removed His HS from the Catholic Church, either. Why would Catholics have put that in there, even if it were true?

No, the CC is not a “denomination”. It is the original Church founded by Christ. All others have “denominated” from Catholicism, each generation defining themselves according to what they reject of the Catholic faith.

However, I will agree with you that the vast majority of American Catholics do demonstrate a form of godliness without the power thereof. If this were not the case, we would not have abortion and many other intrinsic evils legalized in this country.

You are very mistaken. For it is written that when a man is baptized in water, it is to be done in the name of Jesus.

It is also written that one is to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son,a nd HS. Both things are true. We baptize in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus, who created baptism as the means by which we are born again of water and spirit.

it is written that a man is saved by faith alone, not water baptism.

No, heis. There is only one place in scripture that the words “faith alone” appear together. And it is not about a person getting saved by “believing with their whole heart”.

Not one place in the bible does it say we are to baptize children.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

Catholics believe that when the Apostles taught that the promise was to us, and our children, they meant what they said.

But, you are also making the grave error that everything pertinent to the Christian faith is found in Scripture.

 

[Monica4316]

It is written that a man is saved by faith alone, not water baptism.

Jesus told us we must be born again by water and the Spirit. This is not talking about two events, but one. Water baptism. When we are baptized in water, it’s the work of the Holy Spirit and He cleanses us

the only place in the Bible it says the words “faith alone” is in James 2, where it says we are NOT saved by “faith alone”. Faith that is alone is dead. Faith needs works.

It also says in the Bible that entire “households” were baptized, which must have included children.

 

[heiscominginthe]

\guanophore;5397890]
Yes, and even more, the Apostolic teachings that were not written. This is because individuals have separated themselves from the Apostolic Succession, severing access to the Sacred Traditions.

This is where we disagree. I believe the reason why there became seperation is because the CC strayed from what was written, changing the Word of God to the word of men.

I can see that it is essential for you to believe this, heis. If you did not hold to this view, you would not be able to justify the anti-catholic sect to which you belong.

I am not anticatholic, I am against false teachings period, regardless if they call themselves catholic, methodist, presbyterian or the church of Christ. If it is not written in the Word of God, and or if it is contrary to the Word of God, it is against God. That is what is anti.

In truth, however, it is clear from your posts that you never knew which were the doctrines of men, and which were from the unction of the HS.

What are the doctrines of men? All that is added or taken away from the Word of God.

This is a curious statement. There are no Catholic Traditions that “glorify the flesh”. One cannot help but be mystified.

What about all the statues in the CC? What about how the believers in the catholic religion revere the pope as if he is Christ himself? I can go on with this, but regardless what I say, you will not believe it.

I

ndeed, since you seem to know very little about the Catholic Church, it makes sense that you would think so.

I know what is important in that the CC has changed the baptisms from how the apostles taught it was to be administered in the church to how they wanted to do it.

I am certain they believe that is what they are doing. I believe that they espouse this with all sincerity. Most of them do not have any idea that they have replaced the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ with their own opinion, or that of someone teaching them.

This is what is funny. When the reformation period took place, it was do because many believed the CC was not doing the will of God and that for the church to be preserved, a break had to occur and it did.

Yet, there was still a strong catholic stronghold in England which forced many to relocate to America. For a long time, catholocism was not permitted to be practiced in the United States believing it was anti God. Christmas was not permitted in the United States at one time.

Yet, again over time, the CC snuck their way in to the U.S.

This one really gave me a chuckle. heis, the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that contradicts Catholic Teaching. Of course, there is nothing in it that says God has removed His HS from the Catholic Church, either. Why would Catholics have put that in there, even if it were true?

No, the Word of God was written for the children of God, by the children of God, though the unction of the Holy Spirit, PERIOD.

No, the CC is not a “denomination”. It is the original Church founded by Christ. All others have “denominated” from Catholicism, each generation defining themselves according to what they reject of the Catholic faith.

No, the chistian church was the first church and it has remained the same to this day.

However, I will agree with you that the vast majority of American Catholics do demonstrate a form of godliness without the power thereof. If this were not the case, we would not have abortion and many other intrinsic evils legalized in this country.

Could this not be said of most who call themselves Christian?

It is also written that one is to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son,a nd HS. Both things are true. We baptize in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus, who created baptism as the means by which we are born again of water and spirit.

A man is born of water, he is born a living soul when God breathes the breath of life into him. Yet, when he learns the law, sin takes occasion and slays the man, making his spirit dead to God. Yet, if the man is not born again in his spirit, and he suffers physical death, because his spirit/soul is dead in him, his soul is taken to where the dead are reserved until the day of judgement.

No, heis. There is only one place in scripture that the words “faith alone” appear together. And it is not about a person getting saved by “believing with their whole heart”.

To be born of the spirit is to be born through faith in Christ and to know this is to be of that spirit of truth known as the Holy Spirit.

Catholics believe that when the Apostles taught that the promise was to us, and our children, they meant what they said.

But, you are also making the grave error that everything pertinent to the Christian faith is found in Scripture.

No, everything pertinent to the Christian faith will not be contrary to scripture by adding or taking away from scripture. If a truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit, it will be proven through scripture.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Monica4316;5397912]Jesus told us we must be born again by water and the Spirit. This is not talking about two events, but one. Water baptism. When we are baptized in water, it’s the work of the Holy Spirit and He cleanses us

Your interpretation of being born of water and of spirit is contrary to the Word of God.

To be born of water is to be born in the flesh. Proof of this is when Jesus said, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

the only place in the Bible it says the words “faith alone” is in James 2, where it says we are NOT saved by “faith alone”. Faith that is alone is dead. Faith needs works.

When a man is born again/saved, Christ lives in him. If the man is like a tree that does not produce fruit, could it not be said that there is no works? A man can either do acceptable works or unacceptable works.

What is the difference? Acceptable works come by yielding to Christ’s spirit and letting him work through us. Unacceptable works is doing works not because we desire or want to from the love in our hearts, but do it because we feel we have to, not truly wanting to do it, but due it more out of obligation.

Yet, it is by faith alone a man is born again, saved. Although the man can most certainly lose his salvation through by doing his will and not the will of God. That is up to God to judge, for he alone knows what is in the hearts of men.

It also says in the Bible that entire “households” were baptized, which must have included children.

Must have included CHILDREN? What is salvation? IT is the forgiveness of our sins. Are children, who are ignorant of the law made guilty without committing the sins. For without the law, does sin exist? Did not the law reveal sin, exposing sin?

 

[Monica4316]

This is where we disagree. I believe the reason why there became seperation is because the CC strayed from what was written, changing the Word of God to the word of men.

Hi.

the Bible says that the Word of God is not ONLY written. It also includes Tradition. (it tells us to stay true to what the Apostles wrote OR said )
it also says the Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth.

the Bible doesn’t support sola scriptura…

furthermore, if you research what the early Church believed, you’d see that it believed pretty much what the Catholic Church teaches today!!

the Catholic Church never “strayed” because its Tradition is from God too, and by this Tradition, we know how to interpret Scripture in the right way. Protestants however, interpret it how they wish, and so there is no unity in their denominations.

the Church interpreted the Gospel and the Bible the same way for 1500 years… and it still does. The Holy Spirit guides the Church.

If you are correct, then the Holy Spirit has left the Body of Christ.

it would also mean that all the early Church Fathers and the entire Early Church, and the Church for 1500 years, was wrong about EVERYTHING till the reformers came along. How can this be true?? cause they all had the Catholic understanding.

did some people several hundred years ago know better than the Apostles?

What about all the statues in the CC?

I’m not sure why you bring up statues… we don’t worship them, btw. in the Old Testament, God told the people to make statues too - like the decorations for the temple etc.

What about how the believers in the catholic religion revere the pope as if he is Christ himself? I can go on with this, but regardless what I say, you will not believe it.

we don’t believe the Pope is God. We just honour him as Apostle Peter’s successor.

This is what is funny. When the reformation period took place, it was do because many believed the CC was not doing the will of God and that for the church to be preserved, a break had to occur and it did.

abuses are one thing, but changing the doctrine? the doctrine that was in place for 1500 years.

No, the chistian church was the first church and it has remained the same to this day.

the Catholic Church IS the Christian Church. If you go back to Pentecost… you would not find any other church… there were no Protestants… no “Bible only Christians”… it was Catholic. And even had Catholic doctrine… this is evident if you study early Church history

 

[Monica4316]

Your interpretation of being born of water and of spirit is contrary to the Word of God.

how so?

you sound very sure that you have the right interpretation of the Word of God, but how do you know this, especially since your interpretation differs from that of the early Church??

To be born of water is to be born in the flesh. Proof of this is when Jesus said, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

the ‘flesh’ is everything sinful, not everything physical. If you believe that the physical world is “the flesh”, then Jesus’ Body is the “flesh” too??

when we are baptized, we’re not ONLY “born of water”. We’re born of water and of the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is the one who makes the Sacrament effective. It is done by His power. Jesus said…we need to be born of water AND the Spirit… .not only of the Spirit.

When a man is born again/saved, Christ lives in him. If the man is like a tree that does not produce fruit, could it not be said that there is no works? A man can either do acceptable works or unacceptable works.

What is the difference? Acceptable works come by yielding to Christ’s spirit and letting him work through us. Unacceptable works is doing works not because we desire or want to from the love in our hearts, but do it because we feel we have to, not truly wanting to do it, but due it more out of obligation.

what the Church teaches, is that as Christians, our good works are done ‘under grace’. (not of the law) And so they come from faith, and contribute to our salvation. They DON’T save us. Christ saves us. They just make our faith “living”, not dead

Yet, it is by faith alone a man is born again, saved. Although the man can most certainly lose his salvation through by doing his will and not the will of God. That is up to God to judge, for he alone knows what is in the hearts of men.

I find this contradictory…

what about James 2:
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. **You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. **

do you know that Martin Luther wanted to get rid of James, and called it the “epistle of straw”? yet wouldn’t you say it’s the Word of God?

Must have included CHILDREN? What is salvation? IT is the forgiveness of our sins. Are children, who are ignorant of the law made guilty without committing the sins. For without the law, does sin exist? Did not the law reveal sin, exposing sin?

children who are not conscious of sin don’t have personal sin. They do however have original sin and need to be cleansed of it. (this doesn’t mean that unbaptized babies go to hell cause God is merciful, but even in their case, they get ‘baptism of desire’)

 

[guanophore]

This is where we disagree. I believe the reason why there became seperation is because the CC strayed from what was written, changing the Word of God to the word of men.

It is essential that you believe this, heis. Otherwise a person who really wants to follow God cannot justify being separated from the One Church founded by Christ.

However, you are wrong. The Church founded by Christ never was, and will never be, a “religion of the book”. It is founded upon the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. It is not a “bible based” church. All such “bible based” ecclesial communities have departed from the One Church founded by Christ.

Furthermore, the Word of God is immutable (cannot be changed). It is not possible to “change the Word of God to the word of men”. God’s word cannot be altered or “changed” by man. The very fact that you believe this is possible shows that you don’t understand the nature of the Word of God.

I am not anticatholic, I am against false teachings period, regardless if they call themselves catholic, methodist, presbyterian or the church of Christ.

You may not realize that your attitudes are anti-Catholic, but they are. You seemed to have received the teachings you have espoused from someone you believe is 'bible based" and telling the truth. The only standard you have for determining “false teachings” is your own perceptions, which have been skewed.

If it is not written in the Word of God, and or if it is contrary to the Word of God, it is against God. That is what is anti.

I am sure you believe this with all sincerity. However, what you understand of the Word of God comes through the filters of your mind and heart, which are limited and biased. This is the nature of what it is to be human.

On another thread I just read where people that disagree with you are actually disagreeing with the Holy Spirit, and that you are His messenger. However, such thinking is very dangerous.

What are the doctrines of men? All that is added or taken away from the Word of God.

This statement is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. It is an invention of modern American Fundamentalism (circa 1930).

What about all the statues in the CC? What about how the believers in the catholic religion revere the pope as if he is Christ himself?

This is a legitimate question, but off topic in this thread.

but regardless what I say, you will not believe it.

You are correct. We have been taught by the Apostles that to receive any other gospel, other than the one that was committed to us by them is a grave sin. We cannot accept your “different gospel” because it is anathema to us.

Does that mean you will now abandon your futile evangelistic efforts?

I know what is important in that the CC has changed the baptisms from how the apostles taught it was to be administered in the church to how they wanted to do it.

I think you must believe this, in order to justify your membership in the anti-Catholic group to which you belong.

This is what is funny. When the reformation period took place, it was do because many believed the CC was not doing the will of God and that for the church to be preserved, a break had to occur and it did.

This is certainly one aspect of the Reformation, among many. However, it is a false belief. Breakage and fracturing in the Body does not serve God, or the Truth. Jesus prayed for unity, not each man doing what seemed right in his own eyes.

Yet, there was still a strong catholic stronghold in England which forced many to relocate to America. For a long time, catholocism was not permitted to be practiced in the United States believing it was anti God. Christmas was not permitted in the United States at one time.

Yes, anti-Catholic sentiment has been rampant for centuries. You are not the first one to bring it here to CAF, either.

Yet, again over time, the CC snuck their way in to the U.S.

You seem to believe that the CC is some sort of insidious panderer of false doctrines and death.

Do you realize that the inquisitions are not taking place any more?

No, the Word of God was written for the children of God, by the children of God, though the unction of the Holy Spirit, PERIOD.

I agree. The NT was written by Catholic children of God, for the Catholics that believed in Christ through their Catholic preaching, under the unction of the HS.

No, the chistian church was the first church and it has remained the same to this day.

We are in agreement on this point. The Christian Church is One, and it is Catholic. There are no other Churches, as Jesus founded only One.