• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Discussion Ex-Charismatics, thoughts on what this means and on their ideas.

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
wonders and signs are the tongues.
There is your misunderstanding.

Healings and deliverances from the demonic are the "signs and wonders" performed by the Lord. Why would the terminology change to be "tongues?"
Yes, it does prove that not all Christians spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:14 mentions the number 11 .... "peter and the eleven."
14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.
15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day;

Where does this say that the men Peter referred to were only the apostles?

BTW - there is nothing to say whether the 3000 that got baptized after than sermon ever spoke in tongues or not. We do not know and that is ok.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Where does this say that the men Peter referred to were only the apostles?

Hello Dave, how would you explain the double use of the pronoun “us” at Acts 1:22?: "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be a ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:22, KJV). Because this pronoun ‘us’ which is here used twice cannot possibly refer to the 120 disciples who’re mentioned seven verses earlier (Acts 1:15), because ‘us’ implies specifically the 11 apostles who were choosing another man (Acts 1:21) to join the office of the 12 apostles, and yet the company of 120 comprised both men and also women. The specific use of the word ‘men’ in the plural at Acts 1:21, negates the possibility that women were active in replacing Judas.


This is why at Acts 1:20 (KJV) we read; “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” The NIV here reads; ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Now this emphasis upon leadership must imply the leadership of the 12 apostles within the Church, and it’s a fatuous argument to reason that every one of the 120 men and women were also leaders in the Church together with the 12 apostles. So Judas’ replacement was here being chosen at Acts 1:20-26 by 11 men and not by 120 men and women. The chosen person was expecting to join the 11 apostles and not to become one of 120 leaders in the Church! And because no women ever had a place of leadership in the Church, men were here choosing another man to replace Judas.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
BTW - there is nothing to say whether the 3000 that got baptized after than sermon ever spoke in tongues or not. We do not know and that is ok.

You have not defined what you meant by "baptized," but as Acts 2:41 states that they were baptised (obviously in water), I guess that you are referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I don't want to second guess you, so would you please clarify. However, anyone who is not baptised by the Holy Spirit in the new covenant is lost and going to hell, as all saved people have be thus baptized. Secondly, you have again missed my point, which is that according to Acts 2:43 only the apostles (who numbered 12), spoke in languages on that specific day. Yes after the day of Pentecost others also so spoke, but if I can prove that only 12 men so spoke on the day of Pentecost, yet there were 120 justified / regenerated / true believers who are saved, as well as 3,000 similar converts on that day. Then I have proven that speaking in tongues is not necessary to be saved / justified / born again / baptised by the Holy Spirit, as on that day in Jerusalem you had at last 3,120 justified / born again / baptised by the Holy Spirit believers of whom 3,108 did not speak in tongues.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hello Dave, how would you explain the double use of the pronoun “us” at Acts 1:22?: "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be a ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:22, KJV). Because this pronoun ‘us’ which is here used twice cannot possibly refer to the 120 disciples who’re mentioned seven verses earlier (Acts 1:15), because ‘us’ implies specifically the 11 apostles who were choosing another man (Acts 1:21) to join the office of the 12 apostles, and yet the company of 120 comprised both men and also women. The specific use of the word ‘men’ in the plural at Acts 1:21, negates the possibility that women were active in replacing Judas.
That was the criteria that the remaining 10 diciples put out for Judas' replacement. There is no statement if the process was right or wrong; just that they did it that way that time.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You have not defined what you meant by "baptized," but as Acts 2:41 states that they were baptised (obviously in water), I guess that you are referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I don't want to second guess you, so would you please clarify. However, anyone who is not baptised by the Holy Spirit in the new covenant is lost and going to hell, as all saved people have be thus baptized.
The 3000 were water baptized. We do not know when (or even if) they were baptized in/by/with/into the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to the teaching of the United Pentecostals,(a splinter heretical group) being baptized in the Spirit is NOT required for salvation.
Secondly, you have again missed my point, which is that according to Acts 2:43 only the apostles (who numbered 12), spoke in languages on that specific day.
No - I understand your point. I am just saying there is no proof on that for or against your position. Besides, it is irrelevant.
if I can prove that only 12 men so spoke on the day of Pentecost, yet there were 120 justified / regenerated / true believers who are saved, as well as 3,000 similar converts on that day. Then I have proven that speaking in tongues is not necessary to be saved / justified / born again
Proven to whom? And to what end? As I have said, the point is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
That was the criteria that the remaining 10 diciples put out for Judas' replacement. There is no statement if the process was right or wrong; just that they did it that way that time.

Firstly at Acts 2:21 there were 11 not 10 apostles. Secondly, you have simply ignored the points in my carefully written post.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Contrary to the teaching of the United Pentecostals,(a splinter heretical group) being baptized in the Spirit is NOT required for salvation.

According to Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1:13 and especially 1st Corinthians 12:13 anyone who has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit is unsaved, for in the New Covenant every saved Christian is baptised by the Holy Spirit. Consider:

"12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many." (1st Corinthians 12:12-14, KJV).

However, my point is that whilst every (saved / justified) Christian has been baptized with the Holy Spirit, not all of these people will, or need to or ought to speak in tongues. Tongues are a sign and a wonder (1st Corinthians 14:20), yet of the signs done on the day of Pentecost, we read at Acts 2:43 that only the 12 apostles (on that specific day) spoke in other languages, yet 3,000 were added to the church without this miraculous sign gift.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I am just saying there is no proof on that for or against your position. Besides, it is irrelevant.

Proven to whom? And to what end? As I have said, the point is irrelevant.

Then if there is no proof for my position that saved and fully justified Christians can be saved yet not speak in tongues, you are therefore agreeing with those people who told me (and caused me to leave the church) that the only evidence of being baptised with the Holy Spirit is to speak in tongues, as no tongues means that you d not have the indwelling Holy Spirit and so are lost. It too me years to discover Acts 2:43 and 2:14-15 which in my opinion refutes this teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Firstly at Acts 2:21 there were 11 not 10 apostles.
I am not referring to Acts 2; I am talking about Acts 1 21-23. At that point there were only 10 apostles. Then they selected Matthias and there were 11. Peter was not yet counted back in the group since they worded Acts 2.14 like this: "But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven" He was listed separately.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
According to Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1:13 and especially 1st Corinthians 12:13 anyone who has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit is unsaved, for in the New Covenant every saved Christian is baptised by the Holy Spirit. Consider:

"12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many." (1st Corinthians 12:12-14, KJV).
That is talking about water baptism, not baptism in the Holy Spirit.
However, my point is that whilst every (saved / justified) Christian has been baptized with the Holy Spirit,
Not true by a long shot.
not all of these people will, or need to or ought to speak in tongues. Tongues are a sign and a wonder (1st Corinthians 14:20), yet of the signs done on the day of Pentecost, we read at Acts 2:43 that only the 12 apostles (on that specific day) spoke in other languages, yet 3,000 were added to the church without this miraculous sign gift.
You are conflating signs and wonders (miracles and healings) with tongues. That is not correct.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Then if there is no proof for my position that saved and fully justified Christians can be saved yet not speak in tongues, you are therefore agreeing with those people who told me (and caused me to leave the church) that the only evidence of being baptised with the Holy Spirit is to speak in tongues, as no tongues means that you d not have the indwelling Holy Spirit and so are lost. It too me years to discover Acts 2:43 and 2:14-15 which in my opinion refutes this teaching.
Your former church was entirely wrong.

First off there is a big difference between being internally filled with the the spirit, and being baptized in the spirit which is external. The former is for salvation and development of internal godly character. The other is for outward signs (including tongues.)

And according to Joel 2 and Acts tongues is NOT the sign, it is PROPHECY.

16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.

Tongues is never mentioned as the sign.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I left the church in 2010, for in the UK, many churches are putting ignorant and uneducated people in leadership positions, this is why people in many churches affirm the Trinity on their websites, but then such leaders will define the trinity as either modalism or tritheism. The endless sexual scandals, the false doctrine and the imbibing of the latest nonsense of Christian TV has lead me to completely reject what calls itself Christianity today. I am honestly done with church, I see no fidelity, no love for Christ in most who call themselves Christians and endless false doctrines and scandals in so many churches local to myself. I am not attacking or disrespecting people on this forum, neither am I naming specific churches local to myself. But with local papers listing a church sex scandal every six months or so, and the national press reporting on other scandals, I see no benefit to myself by associating with such people, in fact as I dislike hypocrisy, it's in my interest to avoid religion completely.

I left the Charismatic church in 1978 because I too got disillusioned with it. Maybe for different reasons. I I disliked the gossiping and backbiting and the spiritual abuse of vulnerable people I saw in the church I attended. Because it was the largest church in town (450 people) it advertised itself as the only church that was at the cutting edge of what God was doing in the city, and that the other churches should be in unity with it. Then my wife deserted me and I found myself in a place where, because of that church's unfair stance on divorced people, I felt that I had no longer a future there. I decided to leave it and attend the local Anglican church. I found quite a different group of people, and underneath the liturgical public services, I found a group of loving people who accepted me as I was. No one grilled me about my divorce, and I was invited to be part of a leadership conference in the Wellington Cathedral.

It actually took me several years to be de-programmed from some of the views and practices of the Charismatic church that I left. I rejected all my mentors and decided that I was going to interpret the Bible for myself and live the way I wanted to instead of being directed by "disciplers" in that evil discipling/shepherding doctrine that was a large part of that Charismatic church. That doctrine has caused many good people to be seriously damaged and lives have been shipwrecked because of it.

It took me around 10 years to come to a place of forgiveness to the point where I could re-establish contact with my friends within the movement, whom I knew were sound, solid believers not affected by the other nonsense in that church.

Since 1982, I have kept away from the large churches (I will never go to one ever again), and fellowshipped with smaller suburban churches. I spent several years in a small church in Christchurch and Dunedin (New Zealand), then in 1990, I did not go to church at all when I moved to Hamilton. It was only 1996 that I moved to Auckland and joined a small suburban Presbyterian church.

I found that the small Baptist and Presbyterian churches did not have the problems that the larger Charismatic churches had. They seemed to contain good solid believers who loved the Lord and just wanted to get on with life. I am still in that church and we have around 40 members on the books with around 30 people attending Sunday morning services. No one interferes with my personal life, nor do they make exorbitant claims. When I preach (around every 4 weeks), I am a one message man. I preach about what Jesus did for us on the cross and what that means to us right now.

I have become a lover of American Mountain music and although I have been playing the guitar since I was 19, at 69 I decided to learn the banjo. I made several types of banjos, each better than the other. I played one at a country music group night and it went over very well. Then a kind man in my church gave me a banjo that had been sitting in a storeroom for years. I was blessed! So now I have a standard banjo to play, but I still play my other ones for the interest and variation. I enjoy the Mountain gospel music which goes along with my simple approach to the Christian faith.

I was invited to be part of the ministry team at a Reinhard Bonnke crusade in Auckland a couple of years ago. It was in a large church and there were 2000 people there. It took a guy 20 minutes to tell us all what a great guy Bonnke is, and Bonnke himself preached for only 20 minutes and his message was not all that exciting to me. Then people came up for prayer for healing, etc., and the band was playing so loudly that I could not hear the prayer requests and the ones being prayed for couldn't hear me. I thought it was a waste of time doing prayer ministry in a noisy environment like that. I was actually glad to get away from the place at the end of it all, and to get back to my little church where things were quieter and more sane!

My church abides strictly by the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Articles of Faith. It is strongly Trinitarian and will not support gays having leadership in the church. The only beef I have is with the Presbytery (a group of people having oversight over the Presbyterian churches of the region) interfering with our church because it is sitting on a $1.8 million dollar property with only 40 members (go figure about the possibility of covetedness of some in the Presbytery about such a small church sitting on such a valuable property). The mood of our people is that they wish they would leave us alone and let us get on with it the way we want.

So, you see, I don't lead a perfect church. It is not perfect because I am the senior elder of it and I'm not perfect. But it is good to be part of a fellowship of people and not a hermit. I went through more personal stress issues during the six years I wasn't part of a church of some sort.

So, my advice for you is to find a small church with simple, ordinary people in it, who just love the Lord, believe the Bible, and seek His will for their lives. As I was told by an Anglican curate once: "When you have been with us for three weeks, you will be as mad as the rest of us." He was right. I loved that Anglican group. They were so different from the Charismatics I had been with previously.
So there are churches that don't have the problems you describe. Find one, and just relax and enjoy the fellowship. You will be better for it. Take it from a guy who as been there, survived, and now is here.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Emma Faith
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Acts 2:43 and 2:13-15 proves that only 12 men spoke in languages on that day. By proving this you disprove the claim that I have heard for years, that EVERY Christian spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, all of the 120, the 3,000 converts so 3,120 were all speaking in tongues they'll claim, and form that they'll imply that if every single christian spoke in tongues in Acts 2, therefore they'll reason that all Christians ought to also speak in tongues today.

Paul asked the question, "Do all speak in tongues?" This implies that not all people did speak in tongues, but Paul does not give an answer to the question. So the answer could have been yes or no. I prefer to think that Paul is implying that not all have the public gift of tongues and requires an interpretation. He said: "I would that you all spoke in tongues", which implies that not all the Corinthians did speak in tongues but his preference was that they all did, as he did in his private prayer times.

I agree with you that Pentecostals are not correct when they say that all have to speak in tongues. And I totally oppose those who say that a person has to speak in tongues to be saved. I had a four hour argument with a Pentecostal guy on the street in Dunedin about that. I ended up telling him that he was blaspheming the blood of Christ by teaching that the blood of Christ was not enough to get a person saved, and that he is preaching a false gospel of works in saying that a person has to do the "work" of speaking in tongues instead of having faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead as the only qualification for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
on a youtube channel called "exposing the wolves" you can see me outside Plymouth Christian Center asking 7 congregants, on camera, why I was told at an Alpha course at this church by two leaders that "Jesus was the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

on this video you can see me challenging these "Christians" on camera, the problem is that they call themselves Trinitarian but are in fact anti-trinitarian modalists, whilst my position is obviously creedal Trinitarianism, y

Please do check out: "Seven Plymouth Christian Center Congregants deny the Trinity on video."

I tried to find your video on Youtube without success. Would you mind sending me the actual link to the video?
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I tried to find your video on Youtube without success. Would you mind sending me the actual link to the video?

How do I do that? I have the link copied but I don't think that you are permitted to post links in these forums? Just go to youtube and search for:
"Seven Plymouth Christian Centre Congregants deny the Trinity ON CAMERA 1"
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
How do I do that? I have the link copied but I don't think that you are permitted to post links in these forums? Just go to youtube and search for:
"Seven Plymouth Christian Centre Congregants deny the Trinity ON CAMERA 1"

Thanks for that. I found it and watched some of it enough to get an idea of what you were attempting to do. Yeah...well...

I'm not sure that you would be getting anywhere with getting your point across by accosting ordinary congregation members who would largely be unaware of the issues involved. It is therefore no surprise that you got some negative responses to your questions.

What I would have done is to make an appointment to see the senior pastor in his office and put the question to him and let him explain the theological position of his church to you. It is better to speak to the organ grinder in preference to the monkeys. This is assuming that you have a genuine concern about the theology of the Elim church.

Concerning Alpha. I have gone right through the Alpha course twice in my Presbyterian church, which, as you know, is very Trinitarian in its theology. If anyone merely suggested otherwise they might be hung, drawn, and quartered, before being shown the door! I went through the course as a member, and the second time as a part of the steering committee. Both times I never heard anything suggestive of a Oneness approach to the Godhead. As an elder of my church I certainly would have raised an objection to any teaching like that. Also, the second half of an Alpha meeting is group discussion and issues arising out of the teaching can be kicked around there.

If you want to make a point with Alpha, then I suggest you contact the head rooster of Alpha, make an appointment and bring up the issue person to person and see what he or she says. If you think that Nicky Gumbel is advocating a Oneness approach, why not make an appointment with him and discuss the issue in his office?

In my study of the Scriptures both Old and New Testaments, there is no actual definitive teaching on the Trinity. In the Old Testament only God is mentioned, although there are hints that there is more than one person involved when in Genesis the word "us" is used which suggests that God is discussing the creation of the world and the consquences of Adam's disobedience. we can't take from the Psalmist words, "Take not Your spirit from me." as a clear indication that the spirit he talks about is a separate person from God.

So, the Trinity was not an issue with the Early Church because all they had were the OT scriptures which presented God as just one Person. It is only after we get the collection of Paul's letters that we get a clearer impression that there is more than one person in the Godhead. We get clues from the gospels, where Jesus went and prayed to the Father. and said that He did only what the Father told Him. If Jesus was the whole essence of God, then who was this Father Jesus prayed to? He cannot have prayed to Himself. Also at the baptism of Jesus, we see three different entities: The voice from heaven, the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily form (It was like a dove, but not actually one), and Jesus who was being baptised.

Paul writes, "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," etc. He is clearly implying three persons in that doxology.

If we take the gospels and Paul's letters literally, we cannot deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, and those three Persons are God. There are not three Gods. God in the New Testament sense is a plural title for the three Persons who make up the Godhead.

But of course I am preaching to the choir here, but I just need to show my understanding of the Trinity and my belief that the Oness people are mistaken in their theology. However it does not muck up their salvation because the qualification for salvation is that one believes on Christ and that He rose from the dead. Oneness people do not doubt that and the majority of them have good hearts, even though their heads may be messed up about the nature of God.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenKingGaze

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.
Mar 12, 2007
4,512
550
Visit site
✟301,225.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
No I'm not, I agree that after Acts 2 which is over a 20 year period, other people in Acts 10, Acts 19 and 1st Corinthians 14 also spoke in languages, I am not denying that, but it is completely irrelevant to the point which I am trying to make. Which is, that one the actual day of Pentecost only 12 men (not every Christian, not the entire 120 or the 3,000 converts spoke in languages). If I can prove this, (what happened 20 years later in 1st Corinthians 14 is irrelevant to my specific point), then I have proven that you can be a fully justified, saved, completely born-again (born from above) person, without ever speaking in tongues. If every single Christian spoke in languages in Acts 2 (as I have been told by some Pentecostals), then it has been argued and I have been told that without speaking in tongues today, I am not a real christian and all non-tongues speakers are actually lost and going to hell. So I am not arguing for cessationism in my post, I am attempting to prove that the Bible does not state that you must speak in tongues to be saved, Acts 2:13-15, 43 tells us quite clearly that as only 12 men spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, therefore both the 3,000 converts as well as at least 108 of the 120 were saved yet did not speak in tongues.

Well yes, Derek Prince taught and I remembered in my heart this was so for me. When I repented and was forgiven, if I died then I would have gone to Heaven. Many ordinary people see the light in near death experiences. To pray in tongues is an advantage. To interpret or gain words of knowledge, or anointed knowledge or especially to be heart warmed as in Romans 5:5 is really fine and beneficial.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Thanks for that. I found it and watched some of it enough to get an idea of what you were attempting to do. Yeah...well...

I'm not sure that you would be getting anywhere with getting your point across by accosting ordinary congregation members who would largely be unaware of the issues involved. It is therefore no surprise that you got some negative responses to your questions.

What I would have done is to make an appointment to see the senior pastor in his office and put the question to him and let him explain the theological position of his church to you. It is better to speak to the organ grinder in preference to the monkeys. This is assuming that you have a genuine concern about the theology of the Elim church.

Concerning Alpha. I have gone right through the Alpha course twice in my Presbyterian church, which, as you know, is very Trinitarian in its theology. If anyone merely suggested otherwise they might be hung, drawn, and quartered, before being shown the door! I went through the course as a member, and the second time as a part of the steering committee. Both times I never heard anything suggestive of a Oneness approach to the Godhead. As an elder of my church I certainly would have raised an objection to any teaching like that. Also, the second half of an Alpha meeting is group discussion and issues arising out of the teaching can be kicked around there.

If you want to make a point with Alpha, then I suggest you contact the head rooster of Alpha, make an appointment and bring up the issue person to person and see what he or she says. If you think that Nicky Gumbel is advocating a Oneness approach, why not make an appointment with him and discuss the issue in his office?

In my study of the Scriptures both Old and New Testaments, there is no actual definitive teaching on the Trinity. In the Old Testament only God is mentioned, although there are hints that there is more than one person involved when in Genesis the word "us" is used which suggests that God is discussing the creation of the world and the consquences of Adam's disobedience. we can't take from the Psalmist words, "Take not Your spirit from me." as a clear indication that the spirit he talks about is a separate person from God.

So, the Trinity was not an issue with the Early Church because all they had were the OT scriptures which presented God as just one Person. It is only after we get the collection of Paul's letters that we get a clearer impression that there is more than one person in the Godhead. We get clues from the gospels, where Jesus went and prayed to the Father. and said that He did only what the Father told Him. If Jesus was the whole essence of God, then who was this Father Jesus prayed to? He cannot have prayed to Himself. Also at the baptism of Jesus, we see three different entities: The voice from heaven, the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily form (It was like a dove, but not actually one), and Jesus who was being baptised.

Paul writes, "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," etc. He is clearly implying three persons in that doxology.

If we take the gospels and Paul's letters literally, we cannot deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, and those three Persons are God. There are not three Gods. God in the New Testament sense is a plural title for the three Persons who make up the Godhead.

But of course I am preaching to the choir here, but I just need to show my understanding of the Trinity and my belief that the Oness people are mistaken in their theology. However it does not muck up their salvation because the qualification for salvation is that one believes on Christ and that He rose from the dead. Oneness people do not doubt that and the majority of them have good hearts, even though their heads may be messed up about the nature of God.

I wrote to Nicky Gumball and he changed a tiny part of the Alpha course (on video) pertinent to perichoresis which he had inadvertently (and I believe accidentally) denied.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Thanks for that. I found it and watched some of it enough to get an idea of what you were attempting to do. Yeah...well...

I'm not sure that you would be getting anywhere with getting your point across by accosting ordinary congregation members who would largely be unaware of the issues involved. It is therefore no surprise that you got some negative responses to your questions.

What I would have done is to make an appointment to see the senior pastor in his office and put the question to him and let him explain the theological position of his church to you. It is better to speak to the organ grinder in preference to the monkeys. This is assuming that you have a genuine concern about the theology of the Elim church.

Concerning Alpha. I have gone right through the Alpha course twice in my Presbyterian church, which, as you know, is very Trinitarian in its theology. If anyone merely suggested otherwise they might be hung, drawn, and quartered, before being shown the door! I went through the course as a member, and the second time as a part of the steering committee. Both times I never heard anything suggestive of a Oneness approach to the Godhead. As an elder of my church I certainly would have raised an objection to any teaching like that. Also, the second half of an Alpha meeting is group discussion and issues arising out of the teaching can be kicked around there.

If you want to make a point with Alpha, then I suggest you contact the head rooster of Alpha, make an appointment and bring up the issue person to person and see what he or she says. If you think that Nicky Gumbel is advocating a Oneness approach, why not make an appointment with him and discuss the issue in his office?

In my study of the Scriptures both Old and New Testaments, there is no actual definitive teaching on the Trinity. In the Old Testament only God is mentioned, although there are hints that there is more than one person involved when in Genesis the word "us" is used which suggests that God is discussing the creation of the world and the consquences of Adam's disobedience. we can't take from the Psalmist words, "Take not Your spirit from me." as a clear indication that the spirit he talks about is a separate person from God.

So, the Trinity was not an issue with the Early Church because all they had were the OT scriptures which presented God as just one Person. It is only after we get the collection of Paul's letters that we get a clearer impression that there is more than one person in the Godhead. We get clues from the gospels, where Jesus went and prayed to the Father. and said that He did only what the Father told Him. If Jesus was the whole essence of God, then who was this Father Jesus prayed to? He cannot have prayed to Himself. Also at the baptism of Jesus, we see three different entities: The voice from heaven, the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily form (It was like a dove, but not actually one), and Jesus who was being baptised.

Paul writes, "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," etc. He is clearly implying three persons in that doxology.

If we take the gospels and Paul's letters literally, we cannot deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, and those three Persons are God. There are not three Gods. God in the New Testament sense is a plural title for the three Persons who make up the Godhead.

But of course I am preaching to the choir here, but I just need to show my understanding of the Trinity and my belief that the Oness people are mistaken in their theology. However it does not muck up their salvation because the qualification for salvation is that one believes on Christ and that He rose from the dead. Oneness people do not doubt that and the majority of them have good hearts, even though their heads may be messed up about the nature of God.

Oscarr, I do understand your point that the Alpha course is Trinitarian, however, as the knowledge of the Trinity is so dire in most evangelical churches local to me, that those teaching it, often give it a modalist or a tri-theist slant. I myself was told that Jesus is God the Father on the Plymouth Christian Center Alpha course, back in 2012.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
What I would have done is to make an appointment to see the senior pastor in his office and put the question to him and let him explain the theological position of his church to you.


Obviously I have done that, repeatedly, I wrote to Reverend Lee (the pastor) twice, I have written the Liz the then leader of the entire Alpha course, no reply, and then I wrote to the General Superintendent of the Elim Church, who promised to look into this and then get back to me, which he never did. After writing all these letters with no response, only then did I seek to interview people outside this church.
 
Upvote 0