When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In saying these things, you are elevating your own personal opinion of what constitutes right and wrong above the explicitly statements of scripture.

Show me how my opinion is wrong then instead of just telling me.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

One reason I chose to be Pentecostal was to go into the ways of the early church, like it was in Corinth under the apostle Paul. Before there was a hierarchy, and when the gifts and charism were so strong.

Salvation must be sure, as Jesus gave them salvation, knowledge, revelation and power. They remained in the Spirit of grace and truth, and I am sure the apostles lived and died righteous. Not all Pentecostals and charismatics are in sola scriptura. The influence means scripture is held in high regards. Whereas the church leadership after is in question on matters like Montanism and on whether or not God is anthropomorphic... It means Peter and Paul, James and John are the headship.

I am sure successors like Polycarp and Clement gained the true faith and important points were made right up to the end of Sabelius errors, by Augustine and Tertullian. God having a form and likeness goes with the three persons one God idea for me.

What is askew and when it went wrong matters.

How do you determine that there was no hierarchy in the first century Church from teh new Testament? Did not the Apostles make the decision to include Gentiles as full members despite their non adherence of Kosher? Not only did the Gentiles wait for their decision, they rejoiced, as if their authority mattered in what they were going to do. The very fact that Paul wrote to the Corinthians though he was not with the communion at the time and used his authority to discipline the church demonstrates hierarchy.

Montanism was the idea that the Church doesn't need ecclesiastical leaders but prophetic leaders (Montanus claimed he was the Holy Spirit). Your appeal to Clement and Polycarp is odd, since Polycarp affirmed the epistles of Ignatius who stresses Episcopal authority and Clement likewise chastises the Corinthian Church for doing away with their leaders in a fashion unbecoming of a Church. Clement insisted on an order for the Church which was found in the structure of leaders and laity and he assumes a communion between which it is possible for members of that one communion, despite geographical distance to criticise each other. The complete autonomy within Protestantism on the other hand, especially evangelical forms which insist on the absolute autonomy of the local Church to which none may challenge, hardly adheres to the structure of the first or second Century Church. There is a common communion within the early Church and thus an ability for members to correct one another.

The Ante-Nicenes were not Pentecostals, they were of the same Church that Augustine was part of. Now I agree we need to know what went askew, but on the whole I do not believe the fathers ever went askew, at least to the point where the Church required Protestantism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

All I'm saying is that was the start of mixing paganism and Christianity. Before then the Church was pure.

Constantine was the beginning of the church age of Pergamos. They tried to mix Satan with Christianity. They started compromising.

12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: 13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”’

I would still like to see examples. How did Constantine mix paganism with Christianity exactly? Was it liturgical? Theological?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

How do you determine that there was no hierarchy in the first century Church from teh new Testament? Did not the Apostles make the decision to include Gentiles as full members despite their non adherence of Kosher? Not only did the Gentiles wait for their decision, they rejoiced, as if their authority mattered in what they were going to do. The very fact that Paul wrote to the Corinthians though he was not with the communion at the time and used his authority to discipline the church demonstrates hierarchy.

Montanism was the idea that the Church doesn't need ecclesiastical leaders but prophetic leaders (Montanus claimed he was the Holy Spirit). Your appeal to Clement and Polycarp is odd, since Polycarp affirmed the epistles of Ignatius who stresses Episcopal authority and Clement likewise chastises the Corinthian Church for doing away with their leaders in a fashion unbecoming of a Church. Clement insisted on an order for the Church which was found in the structure of leaders and laity and he assumes a communion between which it is possible for members of that one communion, despite geographical distance to criticise each other. The complete autonomy within Protestantism on the other hand, especially evangelical forms which insist on the absolute autonomy of the local Church to which none may challenge, hardly adheres to the structure of the first or second Century Church. There is a common communion within the early Church and thus an ability for members to correct one another.

The Ante-Nicenes were not Pentecostals, they were of the same Church that Augustine was part of. Now I agree we need to know what went askew, but on the whole I do not believe the fathers ever went askew, at least to the point where the Church required Protestantism.

In the early church there were the apostles, they were under Christ and God. Under them anyone could rise up with a great gifting, others with humbler gifts... There were names like Timothy and Apollos. But really there was God, the apostles and offices filled, laity serving, children rising, that's all, very flat hierarchy apart from God and Heaven.

Our hierachy consists of historical infallible writers, the Popes, the Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, priests, deacons and acolytes and laity. Also there are groups of Catholic Apologists that may not accept the popes letters as correct...

Montanus I have not read much about, but if they threw away personal prophecy with him claiming to be the Holy Spirit they threw away the baby with the bath water. It goes back to 1 Corinthians and the apostles teachings on spiritual gifts, offices, and the laying on of hands... even as in Hebrews.

A Bishop could be a prophetic leader, I recall a bishop is meant to be prophetic, and with that they would prophesy, say, in Corinth and test prophecy from gifted laity...

Corinthians were known to be jealous of others' gifting. I was bitten hard in my youth regarding this. Those bishops would have had trouble regarding the privilege of having a gifting and position above others. The old, "If you have a two story house, I must also have a two story house. If I can't afford it, I will help you rebuild after yours burns down."

Howard Storm is protestant and his church decides on who preaches there...

In my churches as a Pentecostal, they are run like business offices, managerial style. That is different. New fashion for a purpose, soul harvest.

It is important that in the fourth century for example that there were healing rallies.

Not all Pentecostals are the same, John Arnott of Catch the Fire decided not to become a CEO. And the messages are prophetic or for the laying on of hands. Many people are active, using gifts, able to make a point with the head pastor, or preacher. Global Awakening focuses on apostles and prophets, spiritual gifts, healing and freedom from sin, people come at will, if they are critical, they can go to another church. This is a different demographic mission field.

Perhaps too much arguing and not enough soul harvesting was a mistake, too much dogma, extreme punishment and control. After St Francis approached the pope, but to not enough avail, and after Hus was killed then was a need for a break away even for the Catholic hierarchy to be meaningful. Not that Luther was 'all good'.

 

[Biblewriter]

Show me how my opinion is wrong then instead of just telling me.

When you say that the apostles were wrong, you are elevating your opinion above what they wrote.But their words were inspired by God as part of the Bible.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When you say that the apostles were wrong, you are elevating your opinion above what they wrote.But their words were inspired by God as part of the Bible.

Go reread what I said. I do not personally believe the Apostles were in serious error. I do however think from other perspectives, blame should be placed at the Apostle's leadership. I have explained why I think the Pentecostal or evangelical might be justified in criticising the Apostle's leadership based primarily on the second century generation of Christians. if I am wrong, tell me how. I do not see a coherence between the Church of the first few centuries and the modern free floating protestant Churches of today. They are different not only aesthetically but in substance.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In the early church there were the apostles, they were under Christ and God. Under them anyone could rise up with a great gifting, others with humbler gifts... There were names like Timothy and Apollos. But really there was God, the apostles and offices filled, laity serving, children rising, that's all, very flat hierarchy apart from God and Heaven.

Our hierachy consists of historical infallible writers, the Popes, the Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, priests, deacons and acolytes and laity. Also there are groups of Catholic Apologists that may not accept the popes letters as correct...

Montanus I have not read much about, but if they threw away personal prophecy with him claiming to be the Holy Spirit they threw away the baby with the bath water. It goes back to 1 Corinthians and the apostles teachings on spiritual gifts, offices, and the laying on of hands... even as in Hebrews.

A Bishop could be a prophetic leader, I recall a bishop is meant to be prophetic, and with that they would prophesy, say, in Corinth and test prophecy from gifted laity...

Corinthians were known to be jealous of others' gifting. I was bitten hard in my youth regarding this. Those bishops would have had trouble regarding the privilege of having a gifting and position above others. The old, "If you have a two story house, I must also have a two story house. If I can't afford it, I will help you rebuild after yours burns down."

Howard Storm is protestant and his church decides on who preaches there...

In my churches as a Pentecostal, they are run like business offices, managerial style. That is different. New fashion for a purpose, soul harvest.

It is important that in the fourth century for example that there were healing rallies.

Not all Pentecostals are the same, John Arnott of Catch the Fire decided not to become a CEO. And the messages are prophetic or for the laying on of hands. Many people are active, using gifts, able to make a point with the head pastor, or preacher. Global Awakening focuses on apostles and prophets, spiritual gifts, healing and freedom from sin, people come at will, if they are critical, they can go to another church. This is a different demographic mission field.

Perhaps too much arguing and not enough soul harvesting was a mistake, too much dogma, extreme punishment and control. After St Francis approached the pope, but to not enough avail, and after Hus was killed then was a need for a break away even for the Catholic hierarchy to be meaningful. Not that Luther was 'all good'.

Popes, Bishops, Church Fathers and etc are not infallible. Infallibility is a term more focused upon in Western Christianity because of the claims of the papacy but It isn't my concern, I do not believe in infallibility for the most part only general senses of authority.

Now your claim that hierarchy was flat, God at the top, leads me to ask some questions. Naturally God is at the top as far as authority and the structure of hierarchy is concerned, yet I see no reason to envision the structure of the church being Pentecostal in nature. Yes the Apostles had Prophetic experiences, yet as we see in the proceeding centuries that was unique to the Apostles and not a general rule or norm for all Church leaders. It was not required that one be a prophet to be a leader, nor was it a necessary element. Prophecy is desirable but not necessary and such prophetic elements in the Church have never dissipated (there are plenty of hagiographies about the lives of saints who did prophesies). I would ask, where was it a requirement for Bishops to be prophetic?

If we read the Epistles of the earliest ante Nicenes, Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement, whom you agreed were faithful Christians, there is a structure within the Church completely different than what you would accept. the fact that Ignatius wrote to separate churches, extorting them to correct faith and practice demonstrates how he viewed himself, though he himself claimed he had no authority, he thought himself able to give advice to those he regarded as part of the Church. One of his key emphases was on the role of the Bishop to whom the local church must submit to. This is kind of structure is alien to Protestantism and signifies one of two possibilities. Either Ignatius was wrong and the church began to slide during his life time or he was right and the reformation was wrong.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I would still like to see examples. How did Constantine mix paganism with Christianity exactly? Was it liturgical? Theological?

Before Christianity became the state religion after Constantine made it legal, Christians were humble and met in private homes where they took care of one another. Afterwards, when paganism was abolished, they made the temples into "churches." Before, any monies went to help the poor, not to build outrageously expensive garish buildings fashioned after pagan temples.

Pagan temples

pagan temples - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Image Search Results

Eastern Orthodox

eastern orthodox church pictures - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

Roman Catholic

roman catholic buildings - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Popes, Bishops, Church Fathers and etc are not infallible. Infallibility is a term more focused upon in Western Christianity because of the claims of the papacy but It isn't my concern, I do not believe in infallibility for the most part only general senses of authority.

Now your claim that hierarchy was flat, God at the top, leads me to ask some questions. Naturally God is at the top as far as authority and the structure of hierarchy is concerned, yet I see no reason to envision the structure of the church being Pentecostal in nature. Yes the Apostles had Prophetic experiences, yet as we see in the proceeding centuries that was unique to the Apostles and not a general rule or norm for all Church leaders. It was not required that one be a prophet to be a leader, nor was it a necessary element. Prophecy is desirable but not necessary and such prophetic elements in the Church have never dissipated (there are plenty of hagiographies about the lives of saints who did prophesies). I would ask, where was it a requirement for Bishops to be prophetic?

If we read the Epistles of the earliest ante Nicenes, Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement, whom you agreed were faithful Christians, there is a structure within the Church completely different than what you would accept. the fact that Ignatius wrote to separate churches, extorting them to correct faith and practice demonstrates how he viewed himself, though he himself claimed he had no authority, he thought himself able to give advice to those he regarded as part of the Church. One of his key emphases was on the role of the Bishop to whom the local church must submit to. This is kind of structure is alien to Protestantism and signifies one of two possibilities. Either Ignatius was wrong and the church began to slide during his life time or he was right and the reformation was wrong.

It is actually the drying off from the early church of the Holy Spirit that is my oldest questioning of the practice. When did the ordination of priests become only a ritual? And why do not Christians fall asleep taking communion askew in the present, or even medieval times...?

The early church was from a different composition to the present churches which are not all Pentecostal. If people do not like one denomination or speaker, they go to another church. And the harvest field of souls is different now and further different on different continents.

I think there has been a going askew under persecution, and a recovery in freedom of the Holy Spirit practice. Paul raised Timothy. Timothy should have been able with his team, to raise up as much holy and gifted evangelists as himself, and that tradition on for generations until now, even to reach China and America. But Nero struck them.

In recovery first there was the raising of teachers, and then evangelists, preachers, prophets and apostles. The style is different but wisdom adapts. The gifts, powers, revelations, love and offices are back and that is good.

Maybe the early church pattern was right at the time, but has to be understood in context and reapplied now bearing in mind the differences in society. It becomes religion out of context. Like "Judge yourself before God judges you." But in the end, you receive Christ and are right by faith and grace.

I read a bishop was an overseer. And the word seer means prophet.

 

[prodromos]

Before Christianity became the state religion after Constantine made it legal, Christians met in private homes. Afterwards, when paganism was abolished, they made the temples into "churches."

There have been found several purpose built churches that predate the Edict of Milan, plus many others which were outside the areas under persecution. Fledgling christian communities certainly started out worshipping at someones house, but as soon as they were able they almost always built a church building.

 

[prodromos]

I read a bishop was an overseer. And the word seer means prophet.

Over see-er, ie. someone who watches over.

 

[FireDragon76]

GoldenKing, you seem to be presupposing that Pentecostalism is the only correct way to be a Christian based on Pentecostal religious experiences.

I find Pentecostal religious distinctives questionable, as many are simply the result of autosuggestion and fantasy-proneness, and are not even uniquely Christian. Look up Hindu Shaktism some time, it is remarkable similar to Pentecostal spiritual experiences, including falling over backwards after being touched and rolling around on the floor or laying in a trance.

Most mainstream, non-Pentecostal churches look for doctrinal continuity, not spiritual experiences, in evaluating what is and is not a true church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Before Christianity became the state religion after Constantine made it legal, Christians were humble and met in private homes where they took care of one another. Afterwards, when paganism was abolished, they made the temples into "churches." Before, any monies went to help the poor, not to build outrageously expensive garish buildings fashioned after pagan temples.

Pagan temples

pagan temples - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Image Search Results

Eastern Orthodox

eastern orthodox church pictures - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

Roman Catholic

roman catholic buildings - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Image Search Results

The construction of buildings, dedicated solely to the purpose of worship while not apostolic certainty is biblical, unless you want to condemn the Old Testament Jews for the construction of a glorious temple where the very Shekinah of God rested. It's in human nature to build grand temples, the difference is when Christians do it they are doing it for the true God. If building a temple is pagan, then everything is pagan.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The construction of buildings, dedicated solely to the purpose of worship while not apostolic certainty is biblical, unless you want to condemn the Old Testament Jews for the construction of a glorious temple where the very Shekinah of God rested. It's in human nature to build grand temples, the difference is when Christians do it they are doing it for the true God. If building a temple is pagan, then everything is pagan.

You asked what examples of paganism Constantine allowed. I showed you. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. There is something terribly wrong when buildings are more important than people.

The Shekinah glory was in the temple. Now the Holy Spirit is in each true Christian.

Typical meeting:
And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

 

[prodromos]

You asked what examples of paganism Constantine allowed. I showed you. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

Except building a temple is not pagan, so whether you believe it is or not is irrelevant.

The Shekinah glory was in the temple. Now the Holy Spirit is in each true Christian.

God is everywhere present.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Except building a temple is not pagan, so whether you believe it is or not is irrelevant.

God is everywhere present.

I just believe the Church has lost sight of what is important.

Typical meeting of the early church:

And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

BTW, what does the EO do with their offerings? Do they preach OT tithing? I don't know and am just curious. The RCC brought it back at the same time they invented indulgences. Did the EO do likewise? What happened to the money?

 

[1stcenturylady]

I just believe the Church has lost sight of what is important.

Typical meeting of the early church:

And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

BTW, what does the EO do with their offerings? Do they preach OT tithing? I don't know and am just curious. The RCC brought it back at the same time they invented indulgences. Did the EO do likewise? What happened to the money?

I did read somewhere that Paul rented a barn for a day.

 

[prodromos]

I just believe the Church has lost sight of what is important.

Typical meeting of the early church:

And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

That summarizes nicely the Orthodox liturgy

BTW, what does the EO do with their offerings? Do they preach OT tithing? I don't know and am just curious. The RCC brought it back at the same time they invented indulgences. Did the EO do likewise? What happened to the money?

The poor in our parish are looked after. We also support several orphanages abroad and have funded the building of churches, medical centres and schools in Africa and Asia. Everytime one of the orphan girls gets married, we have a fundraiser to provide them with a sizeable dowry.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

GoldenKing, you seem to be presupposing that Pentecostalism is the only correct way to be a Christian based on Pentecostal religious experiences.

I find Pentecostal religious distinctives questionable, as many are simply the result of autosuggestion and fantasy-proneness, and are not even uniquely Christian. Look up Hindu Shaktism some time, it is remarkable similar to Pentecostal spiritual experiences, including falling over backwards after being touched and rolling around on the floor or laying in a trance.

Most mainstream, non-Pentecostal churches look for doctrinal continuity, not spiritual experiences, in evaluating what is and is not a true church.

I think the Holy Spirit is the life of the church. It is written in the letters about gifts and the laying on of hands. Without the Spirit we are left with Pelagianism.

Gifts of the Spirit can be subjectively tested by the person being prayed for. Does the word fit it in with his or her needs, and situations? Does it encourage, or is it like a word for someone else. Randy Clark gave us a story of a young woman with a child who was reached with either a word of knowledge or a prophecy. She was in tears, and made her commitment to Christ that day. It turns out that her father died when she was about 12, and some boys came around and raped her. This pushed her into immorality and prostitution. She attended a church, but overheard what the young women of that church were saying about her, and left church. She had a baby from a customer, and came to Randy's meeting, and then someone knew here secrets by a gift. So she was won for Christ.

When people in Randy's church receive prayer for healing, it may came after a word of knowledge about symptoms, and if they feel better or can move a part that was stiff or broken, then they testify. Lots do.

I did not find the manifestation of Shaktism, but I previously heard of the Kundalini spirit. The snake spirit of some sort. The manifestations look only similar, and the end result is not like a Christian conversion.

I also heard of Sufi Islam and a kind of love feast, and they would pray in tongues. Whether or not they got a back door to the Holy Spirit I do not know. Jesus told us about people who could come to God in requests not through the Son.

What matters are the Biblical gifts and the Old Testament blessings such as Isaiah 11:2. The power of Jesus blood. And if people fall backward or laugh, that they get up well, and more free from sin... Without it, some people cannot fulfill their Christian lives. So I think Pentecostalism is at least better for me.

What other Christians have that is good, is receive Christ. But if they do not go on to gifts, I think they are not well off

 

[Biblewriter]

I think the Holy Spirit is the life of the church. It is written in the letters about gifts and the laying on of hands. Without the Spirit we are left with Pelagianism.

Gifts of the Spirit can be subjectively tested by the person being prayed for. Does the word fit it in with his or her needs, and situations? Does it encourage, or is it like a word for someone else. Randy Clark gave us a story of a young woman with a child who was reached with either a word of knowledge or a prophecy. She was in tears, and made her commitment to Christ that day. It turns out that her father died when she was about 12, and some boys came around and raped her. This pushed her into immorality and prostitution. She attended a church, but overheard what the young women of that church were saying about her, and left church. She had a baby from a customer, and came to Randy's meeting, and then someone knew here secrets by a gift. So she was won for Christ.

When people in Randy's church receive prayer for healing, it may came after a word of knowledge about symptoms, and if they feel better or can move a part that was stiff or broken, then they testify. Lots do.

I did not find the manifestation of Shaktism, but I previously heard of the Kundalini spirit. The snake spirit of some sort. The manifestations look only similar, and the end result is not like a Christian conversion.

I also heard of Sufi Islam and a kind of love feast, and they would pray in tongues. Whether or not they got a back door to the Holy Spirit I do not know. Jesus told us about people who could come to God in requests not through the Son.

What matters are the Biblical gifts and the Old Testament blessings such as Isaiah 11:2. The power of Jesus blood. And if people fall backward or laugh, that they get up well, and more free from sin... Without it, some people cannot fulfill their Christian lives. So I think Pentecostalism is at least better for me.

What other Christians have that is good, is receive Christ. But if they do not go on to gifts, I think they are not well off

You are basing claims on experience, rather than on scripture. As human perception is very fallible, this is not a reliable source of truth.