String... I don't wanna come cross as mean er anythin.... but I havta say some of this is jes startin to git under my skin a bit. I understand an respect the differences in our faiths.... but the "attitude", if you will, of bein right bout all this is some what annoyin, for example.... you are completely discountin the scriptures that talk bout baptism wit fire etc, the upper room, pentalcoast sunday (as it's called) to say hurtful thins like.... someone stayed up an ungodly amount of hours an someone started babblin....... you can disagree wit it if you like, but I have expereinced it an I have always been able to tell when anyone is forcin the issue er lettin the Spirit move. It really does not take a rocket scientist to notice.

To the OP, I went to one for a while in San Antone when I was wit my maw, while I didn't see anythin wrong wit it from a kids perspective, there was an almost 'controllin' thin goin on. I can say though, while I was goin there, they went through like 3 pastors er sumthin, er tryin guys out type thin. At any rate.... there used to be an old song, "Try me now an see, see if I can be completely yours" Hadn't a clue what the name was but a gal sung it an it went "I'm yours Lord, everthin I am, everthin I'm not. Everthin (sumthin) an everthin I've got, try me now an see, see if I can be competely yours"

So ya'll could always go an see what God tells you.

Actually Chasrles Parham and 3 or 4 of his students stayd up for like two or three days trying to come to a conclusion and geta a "revelation" from God on the meaning of some scriptures. One of the student did suddenly start babbling and they assumed that he ws talking in "toungues" In the Bible the "toungues" spoken by the apostles were the foreign toungues of the people they were speaking to--not an unknown language-- The year that this "tongues" phenomenon occurred was 1903 I think. Never before, for the first one thousand nineteen hundred years of Christianity had anyone broken out in uncontrollable undistinguishable babbling. Never. Parham mistranslated the scriptures and attached false meaning to it and it spread it as truth because he had "proof texts" to back him up--individual verses here and there that when read in the context of his teachings really sounded like what he was saying was truth.

And Squat as for the "robes and ritual" you discusseds--have youever been to an Orthodox service? If so you would know that the entire service is full if praise andglorification of Jesus Christ--As a mattter of fact I heard just the other day that about 95% of the service is taken directly from scripture..We read scripture and quote scripture and sing scripture--the praise of God the Father, God the Son, an God the Holy Spirit is so thick in the words of the Divine Liturgy that to claim that there is no room to focus of jesus is absolutely false and uninformed..

You may have been offended that I state the facts about the origin of the pentecostal movement, but they are historical facts. In light of the whole of Christian history it becomes obvious that Parham was misled and deceived. Until you look at it objectively and with earnest interest in learning about the origins of the teachings and the pentecostal faith, how can you say that it is true? If you look at it and see that it is a relatively new idea, can you really say that the apostles failed in passing it on? Can you say that for the first 1900 years this mystery was kept a secret and wasn't revealed to anyone unthil Charlesnparham came along?? Don't get emotional and angry--just look at the facts and the groundwork befoere going off on me because I intoduced you to the idea that this teaching is new...When you do the research yourself, when you learn about the Church in its entire contet from the very bginning and compare it to the modern pentecostal movement--then you can bring me an argument because then you will have support for it. Remember that to be objective you cannot use support provided by the argument in question to begin with.. Objectivity is from without. Find evidences provided not by the pentecostal movement or ttheir scriptural verses that support their teachign. Find historical evidence of this happenign. Seriously--can you find a piece of writing from ..lets say 700 AdD that describes this type of wild, uncontrollable, flailing, illogical behavior among Christians? This type of behavior had been attributed to the doemon possessed, but never to a Christian in their right mind. I apologise for offending you, I just cannot look at the pentecostal movement in a serious light, knowing what I do about its formation and origins...

The Chrisatian Church did not die out after the apostles. It was very strong and had a very large impact on the formation of history. If the pentecostal teachings are true, then ther will be evidence of it happening prior to 1903. If you are really confident that it happened , then prove me wrong and find it.


Peace :)

.
.
I mentioned in my post that I agreed with alot of what you said (you even quoted it)...but thanks for the lashing anyway...hehe.


I don't' know this Parham dude...I always thought the Holy Spirit started the Pentacostal Movement back in Acts Chpt. 2.


How do you account for the many biblical scriptures that Pentacostals use to validate their Gifts?

Ok... your right string, it sucks major booty that we cain't all be as perfect as "your" church... guess what.. I couldn't careless, I git so sick of all these idiots, yes I said idiots arguein bout stupidity like, your the 'first' church, no we are bla bla, your religion, catholic religion they aren't that dis-simular in the sense that it means more to those religions to have enphasis on the 'church' instead of God, trust me, I have read up on it, cause I cain't figure out why catholics go on bout some stuff like they do, your facts mean squat when like I said you discounted everthin the scriptures were talkin bout. An I for one am sick to death of the holier then thou attitude that comes from such religions as catholicism an orthodox religions. Hence why I was askin the other day if anyone knew jes how many religions there actually were, I shoulda changed it to say denominations I guess.... how sad is it, here's an eye opener for you. Catholics are wrong, Orthodox are wrong, an so is any other denomination who relies more on what the 'church' thinks then what God said. Speakin in tongues, layin hands on the sick, gifts of the spirit, all these are in the New Testimate, define the upper room if you believe that it all only began a 100 years ago er so.

I don't take issue wit your faith, I take issue wit the comin off like your so perfect in respect to this an anyone to oppose you is simply crazy to do so. I've always sat on this, "God Said it I believe it an by golley that settles it", people can an will fuss over stupidity til hell freezes over an it's not goin to change a flippin thin.

.
.
I especially like this part....but that's just me...hehe.

You should know I would take offense to this...... fallacies?? I'm not one to put up a wall between denominations or differences of faith myself. But I can guarantee there are far more things about the Greek Orthodox church that I have a problem with than I do the AG church.... and I would NEVER get on a thread and declare that your church was inspired by some spirit, but not the Spirit of God. Who are you? Do you know the people in this church? I do!!! These people WANT God, they seek God, and while some of them are spiritual fruitcakes (there are always those we disagree with within the church) many of them are SOLID Christians that I deeply admire. How dare you tell me that a place that brought me to God my Father and taught me more about the Bible than most people I know are inspired by anything but the Spirit of God. I think you owe me an apology as well as the millions of other people since the AG is the fastest growing church in the world, you want to claim that all for the devil do you? You give the devil too much credit.

Back to the topic at hand. Yes, I did go to AG churches for 15 years.... until about 1-2 years ago actually. My husband has a 4 year Pastoral degree from one of their universities, http://www.northcentral.edu/.

As a result I have been to AG churches all over the United States and although they all follow the "16 Fundamental Truths" their flavor is as different as their region.

My first AG church that I grew up in was very diverse, in a university town that was very diverse, and had about 400 people-- they were very expressive about seeking God. They taught me about holiness and being apart from the world and believed in very high standards. The church was composed of black Americans, Africans (straight from the continent), Taiwanese, Sri Lankans..... and I was a minority. As you can imagine, this led to quite a flavor filled church!! The Africans, for example, were used to church for 6 hours on Sundays and, I kid you not, dancing to the altar to give their offering because of their great joy at giving to the Lord. So sometimes we did that. Sure, it may seem strange to us, but who are we to judge how they want to express their love for God? I think its great, although as a strictly white female I was not wanting to dance down there if you know what I mean. So I didn't, no one made me. This was the type of church where maybe at the end of the service they would ask you to get in a group of three people around you and pray together. Real community, real geniune people.

The second AG church I went to was in a big city, was all white, and had 3000 people in regular attendance. The pastor was a pastor there for 30 years and was an old gray haired respectable man who knew his Bible if you know what I mean. This church was a less expressive, which made me feel more comfortable, although the youth group WAS expressive.

And then.... I have visited AG churches in small towns where we helped them work on their outreach, and some of them were calm, dry, nothing any different than a Baptist or a Methodist church in the feeling. I have been to all black AG churches, which much like black Baptist churches are full of flavor and lots of "laying on of hands."

I hope this makes sense.

What I am saying is.... I can't say for sure what you will get at this church down the street. It may be up your alley, and it may scare you straight out the doors if you are not used to it. But that doesn't mean they are from the devil, that just means that from their culture they are comfortable with more laying on of hands and that sort of thing. It is sort of like how some churches everyone hugs you and others they don't.

As for some of their particular scriptural beliefs, my husband and I in the end disagree on some points in their faith. But that doesn't mean they are of the devil. However, they know the Bible well(way better than you String!) and they base all of their beliefs on a lot of scripture, and its unfortunate that all these differences have to lead to church splits, but I guess people just can't accept that some people interpret things differently. The splitting began with Martin Luther.... and I suppose I should not get side tracked because i could talk about this for a while, so let me end with this...

Since you don't want to read their whole site, maybe you would be at least interested in their 16 Fundamental Truths:

WE BELIEVE...The Scriptures are Inspired by God and declare His design and plan for mankind.

WE BELIEVE...There is only One True God–revealed in three persons...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (commonly known as the Trinity).

WE BELIEVE...In the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As God's son Jesus was both human and divine.

WE BELIEVE...though originally good, Man Willingly Fell to Sin–ushering evil and death, both physical and spiritual, into the world.

WE BELIEVE...Every Person Can Have Restored Fellowship with God Through 'Salvation' (accepting Christ's offer of forgiveness for sin).

WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

WE BELIEVE...the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a Special Experience Following Salvation that empowers believers for witnessing and effective service, just as it did in New Testament times.

WE BELIEVE... The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘Speaking in Tongues,’ as experienced on the Day of Pentecost and referenced throughout Acts and the Epistles.

WE BELIEVE...Sanctification Initially Occurs at Salvation and is not only a declaration that a believer is holy, but also a progressive lifelong process of separating from evil as believers continually draw closer to God and become more Christlike.

WE BELIEVE...The Church has a Mission to seek and save all who are lost in sin. We believe 'the Church' is the Body of Christ and consists of the people who, throughout time, have accepted God's offer of redemption (regardless of religious denomination) through the sacrificial death of His son Jesus Christ.

WE BELIEVE...A Divinely Called and Scripturally Ordained Leadership Ministry Serves the Church. The Bible teaches that each of us under leadership must commit ourselves to reach others for Christ, to worship Him with other believers, and to build up or edify the body of believers–the Church.

WE BELIEVE...Divine Healing of the Sick is a Privilege for Christians Today and is provided for in Christ's atonement (His sacrificial death on the cross for our sins).

WE BELIEVE...in The Blessed Hope—When Jesus Raptures His Church Prior to His Return to Earth (the second coming). At this future moment in time all believers who have died will rise from their graves and will meet the Lord in the air, and Christians who are alive will be caught up with them, to be with the Lord forever.

WE BELIEVE...in The Millennial Reign of Christ when Jesus returns with His saints at His second coming and begins His benevolent rule over earth for 1,000 years. At that time many in the nation of Israel will recognize and accept Him as the Messiah, the Savior who died for them and all mankind.

WE BELIEVE...A Final Judgment Will Take Place for those who have rejected Christ. They will be judged for their sin and consigned to eternal punishment in a punishing lake of fire.

WE BELIEVE...and look forward to the perfect New Heavens and a New Earth that Christ is preparing for all people, of all time, who have accepted Him. We will live and dwell with Him there forever following His millennial reign on Earth. 'And so shall we forever be with the Lord!'

Many here in this forum have misunderstood my statements and have taken offense. It was not my intent to offend, but to merely state facts, facts that can be found if one truly wants to seek them. I have not always held the beliefs that I now do. I had to humble myself and admit that the things I had learned, been taught, believed—were incorrect. Although the church I went to could support every one of them with scripture, I learned that their interpretations were flawed and out of context. It was quite an ordeal to admit that I was wrong, but I have learned and seen the errors of my previous faith. I will not address every single statement from each of you as this would take ages to answer clearly and would only incite more controversy. You have been defensive and aggressive both, yet have failed to provide support for your views other than your own leaders’ interpretation of scripture. Man is weak, fallible, and foolish. Man cannot interpret scripture on his own. A foundation of Truth only will help him to understand the scriptures as they were written. Every denomination that exists, exists because a man interpreted the scriptures and thought that he found the true meaning and that the Holy Spirit led him to it. If that were so, then there are 25,000 true meanings to the scriptures and the Holy Spirit has led men in 25,000 different directions. Obviously God would not do that, but someone else would. That is what I meant by my comment, that the enemy has misled Christians and has caused them to divide and splinter and become opposed to one another. Surely you cannot deny that he has done this?? If satan didn’t lead people to differing interpretations of the scriptures and different beliefs, then it would have to have been God.

So we have to agree that satan has led to 25,000 + different interpretations of the scripture. How, then, being one of these 25,000 de-nominations, can you be sure that yours in the correct one? And considering the point that the Pentecostal/charismatic movement is barely 100 years old, how can you be sure that for 1900 years every one else was wrong?

I had to come to a point of humility and humble myself to the fact that I was wrong. I learned that the Church Christ founded did indeed still exist. That the things I learned as a child were quite unscriptural and rather invented based on a modern interpretation of scriptures..

The Orthodox Church is not a denomination. It existed from the very beginning. No denominational church can make the same claim. They only go back as far as their founder—Martin Luther-Lutherans-1580, John Calvin-Calvinists-1536, John Knox-Presbetyrians-1560, Charles Fox Parham-Pentecostals-1900, John Smith-Baptists-1605, King Henry VIII-Anglican-1534, and so on…the Orthodox Church can trace its origin to the apostles and Christ themselves, literally. One can easily look up the names of the patriarchs and bishops throughout the years, the locations of ancient churches, events, and people who played significant roles in the history of the Christian Church and the world can easily be identified and located in Orthodox history. The evidence for this is astounding and overwhelming. Even in secular historical accounts you can find the Orthodox Church…

To attempt to claim otherwise would show that one has not searched, has not sought, nor read any kind of historical account of Christianity..

I would like to apologise for coming across as overly cocky or proud. I am not. I only wish to open your hearts to the possibility that there is more out there to learn and to know about Christianity that the separate protestant de-nominations will open up for you. There is more to understand, and more to grow from that the de-nominations can provide. You just have to be willing to seek it..

Forgive me if I have offended..

The reason why I do not address this scripture and that scripture and what it means is because I see no reason to discuss it. It is as you said, "Man is weak, fallible, and foolish. Man cannot interpret scripture on his own." We sure try, but in the end no one will ever know the correct interpretation of each verse, so I see no good reason to argue about what each verse means.

The part you miss is this: you claim it is the devil that divided the faith by causing people to interpret the scriptures and divide the faith. That's not how it went down in the beginning. First of all, it was the Catholic Church that was from the beginning. The Greek Orthodox is just a piece that no longer claimed they were Catholic anymore after it no longer suited them, the claimed they were the original (gee we never hear that anymore)-- a church split!! :shh: The "original church" would not budge when they were emptying the pockets of the common man and putting it into stain glass windows and fancy clothes for the priests. The "original church" would not repent of their sin as they allowed men to bribe them for the forgiveness of their sins. When reform was needed, and it WAS needed, they were unwilling to reform. If the "Church" had been willing to repent when they were in sin perhaps there wouldn't be different denominations. Wrap that around your theory that it is the Protestant's "fault."

I wonder if you have ever read Acts in the Bible. Do you realize how they lived? They did not have cathedrals. They did not have all of the extra rules that have been added later. And yet you claim that this is still the church that Jesus founded. I have a serious problem with this, because I don't care if you can trace it back to the apostle Paul himself--- PAUL (or Peter, or Jesus!) would not have approved of the thousands of "traditions" that exist in the Greek Orthodox church today. This is NOT the Church that Jesus founded. The church that Jesus founded can be read about in Acts and I see nothing in common between the two.

Now I know that the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox church have all this extra doctrine and their little ideas that they are the only Christians in the world and everyone else is in sin-- but all of those ideas have been added by themself about themself. That is just a little too convenient.

Ultimately I see it like this.... I don't care if you choose to be Catholic, Baptist, AG, Methodist.... what matters is if you believe in the salvation of man through Jesus. Romans 3:23, For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. 10:9,10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. FYI the only one creating divisions here is YOU...... its this type of attitude that leads to church splits....

"WE BELIEVE...in The Millennial Reign of Christ when Jesus returns with His saints at His second coming and begins His benevolent rule over earth for 1,000 years. At that time many in the nation of Israel will recognize and accept Him as the Messiah, the Savior who died for them and all mankind."


The Church has never believed this. A former Anglican minister, J.N. Darby, began teaching this in the mid-1800s. The verse misinterpeted from the book of revelation says that Christ will reign for 1000 years, but it has always been known that the 1000 years mentioned was not a literal reference, but just a large number of years given to symbolize eternity, like when we say something would't happen for a million years. We don't mean that it will happen in a million years, but that it really will never happen. Same with John's 1000 year reference in Revelation--he didn't mean in 1000 years Christ's reign would end, but that it would really be eternal.

When Christ returns and gathers His Church into the air with Him, He will be coming to judge the living and the dead, not swing by for believers, then return seven years later to establish His reign. (This idea was also a misinterpretation by J.N. Darby). When He returns it will be too late for anyone to repent, those days will have passed, so it's important we reach out to the Jews, as well as all mankind now. Also, it's important to define Israel, because those who are racial Jews are not part of the nation of Israel now. God's people are those who He has a covenant with, not those who have rejected God's salvation in Christ. The Church is the spiritual Israel, so any promises of references to Israel only refer to those who are in Christ, Jew of Gentile, not anyone outside the Church.

Basil

First of all there were five patriarchs of the Church. The patrarch in Rome was excommunicated by the other four patriarchs because of his desire for power. This became the Roman Catholic Church. As you can see from their history, with the crusades, and the forced conversion of many people by the sword, they have become very corrupt. The other four patriarchs remained intact and upheld the faith. There are several groups of orthodox churches,including Serbian Orthodox, Russian orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox(the antiochians churches are direct descendants from the church in Antioch(!), etc.. All branches of Orthodoxy retain the same theology, differing only in cultural infleuence. The russian service is in Russian while the Greek service is in greek. hte same Divine litrugy is performed in every Orthodox Church and has remained the same for nearly two thousand years. In I think the 4th or 6th Century the Liturgy was abbreviated from six hours to three hours, but no changes have been made in content.

It is from the corrupt Catholic Church that people, who recognised the corruption of the Catholic church, out of a sincere desire to remove the corruption and draw closer to the true teachihings of God, began the protestant reformation. They were sincere in their ove for God and their desire to avoid the Corruption that had overtaken the Catholid Church. During this time, the Eastern Christians--the orthodox Churches--continued as they had been for 1500 years. The Catholics had forced them back out of the area during the crusades, and so the reformers knew nothing of this church. THey were doing the best that they could with what they had. They did not have a longstanding foundation of uncorrupt teachings. The Cathiolic Church was indeed selling indulgences and as a matter of fact the new pope even offered indulgences to people who would attend some big Youth conference this last year---(unbelievable!). The idea that the priest or Bishop could guarantee entrance into heaven or forgive a person for his sins is just another corruption of the Catholic Church. And I never said anything about "the protestant's fault" The leaders of the protestant Churches have been deceived and misled. Can you blame them for their confusion? No. They were never offered the opportunity to learn the truth as it had been upheld in the church. All they knew was the Catholic church and its corruptness. Today, however, it is impossible to prevent the knowledge from reaching the people. The people just hae to take the responsibility unpon themselves to search their faith-question it and examine it in light of the entire historical happenings throughout Christianity.

The Church existed for a couple of centuries before the New Testament was canonized. The Orthodox Church gave you the new Testament that you read so fervently. Yes, these practices existed. You see nothing in common between the church in Acts and the Orthodox church becauase you see it only through the glasses handed you by your faith. You know only what your fith teaches you about theChurch in Acts, and you obviously know even less about the Orthodox Church. Look outside what you know--look beyond. There is much more. The evidence shows that. You aren't looking at historical documentation. The writings from the earlly church fathers demonstrates the type of worship that was practiced. The political environment often criticized the practice of the early Christians and these practices can be found in historical writings describingof the pagan governments. the Roman called the Christians cannibals because they misunderstood the partaking of the Blood and Body of Christ--the eucharist or Communion. The scriptures in no way conflict with the teachings of the Orthodox Church, in fact in the context of the Orthodox Church, they become more clear and fit together and make more sense than they do outside.

Answer me this: Did God design de-nominations or were they formed from the differing ideas of various men? Did the Holy Spirit lead the denominational leaders in what they believe? Every one of the 25,000 denominational founders?? Or could it be possible just possible [I]that the Great Deceiver led them into confusion with the intent of breaking Christianity down into thousands of pieces that cannot be unified because of their opposing beliefs? If I wanted to conquer a great power, the thing to do would be to break them down so that they are no longer such a large force.

Also--please calm down....there is no reason to get angry and spout such hateful comments. Your words reveal what is in your heart----I am simply stating facts that can be supported by documentations spanning from the beginning of Christianity. You are misunderstanding because you are angry. Do not let your anger get in the way. Calm down..........

You know, honestly I don't know and I don't care. I consider these trivial matters of interpretation to be of little importance to what is really important-- the heart. I didn't say I believe in all 16, now did I? I don't, but I won't discuss which ones I agree with and which I do not and just add to the whole division of it all. Ahhhh! Let's go back to gutterrat's post.... I must ask why do we care....

I do not need to calm down because I am not worked up. :rollseyes: I will say it again.... I really do not care.... but if you get on a thread and start declaring that a denomination is from the devil I am going to appear if I know something about it. If you want to be Greek Orthodox I wish you well with it. I am really not interested in what they wrote about themself, which is consequently different than what the unbiased history books write about it. :dunno:

"WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

WE BELIEVE...the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a Special Experience Following Salvation that empowers believers for witnessing and effective service, just as it did in New Testament times."


I guess this has already been addressed and responded to rather heatedly, but it is true, the doctrine of "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" was first believed in Kansas at the turn of the last century. I was a student at Oral Roberts University studying theology when I began studying the history of the movement. At the time, I was a very enthusiastic charismatic, hoping to be a pastor, but after beginning to seek the truth, I was discouraged to see how misinformed many of the charismatic doctrines I held were. I say this as someone who was completely in the movement, spoke in tongues, and studying to enter the ministry.

This idea of a second baptism is a simple misunderstanding of scripture. The reality is that the water baptism instituted by Christ is the baptism in the Holy Spirit. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, but after Christ came and conquered death for us, He sent the Comforter, which made water baptism a baptism in which the Holy Spirit seals a new believer to Christ. It is in this act that we are buried with Christ and raised as a new creature, full of the Holy Spirit. If anyone were to study a little history of our faith, they could quickly discover that the idea of a second experience is false, even if emotions seem to confirm it.

Basil

I never said that. I did state that I believe that many people ahve been deceived not by the Holy Spoirit but by a deceitful spirit which is not from God. This deception has led to the formation of thousands of thaousnds of de-nominations. The mere existance of so many separate and splintered groups makes it clear that a force tht is not of God has broken down christianity. The people are sincere in their love for God, however, their beliefs and understandings of scripture have been misled by a not so Godly spirit..

How do you reconcile what you just posted with Acts 10:42-48 where is shows that baptism of the Holy Spirit is different than water baptism?

Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.



At the time this occurred some of the Apostles didn't realize that salvation in Christ was open to all who believed, including the Gentiles. This event in Acts occured as a sign to the Apostles that God's Spirit was to be poured out on all flesh in these final times. Note verses 47 and 48. After this sign was made by God, they proceeded with the normal course of action of baptizing them, which many protestants have reduced to being some mere symbolic act or public statement. This event you cite was an exception. The Holy Spirit does first draw men to God, showing them the truth, but then to be filled with the Holy Spirit we are baptized in the baptism in Christ, which is full of the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, sealing us to God. It is at this point that God makes His home in our hearts, transforming us into temples of God's Spirit.

Basil

I'll not git into all the other .... what I deem ... crap that's goin on in here, but sevreal times I've seen you make these lovely claims an cain't back it up wit a hill of beans. Show me where in my bible it says this particular time was an exception? Like wise wit your other claims in your previous posts, simply statin your opinion is what it sounds to me. I'd also like to see some backin for when the bible says one thousand years, why on the world someone would say it's figurative... This is precisely what ceres was talkin bout when she said if we start postin each verse folks are goin to start pickin em apart an then whola... back to the circle it goes agin... Both you an String have a mis-guided approch to the gifts of the spirit to begin wit, how can sumthin "start" a 100 years ago... yet is in the bible 2000 years ago??

An leme jes add...... for cryin out loud... I will not understand folks of these faiths that go on bout water baptisms.... tell me why, if water baptism saves so well... why on earth are we not roundin folks up an throwin em one side of the river an have someone dragged em out the other side?? Jes tell em through their shear anger that it's ok, cause now your saved..... pullease.... it's the heart, you baptise AFTER one believes.... granted that's for another thread also

An exception?.....?.....? And now the Apostles didn't even understand? If they didn't understand, how can you believe any man after them has it right either? Including the ones that continued the Orthadox church...

Well, anyways guess I'm on the road to Hell then cos I haven't been water baptised... even thought scripture says many times over that it's not necessary to be saved...

:haha:

Funny mental picture....

Just for the record... I'm behaving.....

" if water baptism saves so well... why on earth are we not roundin folks up an throwin em one side of the river an have someone dragged em out the other side?? Jes tell em through their shear anger that it's ok, cause now your saved..... pullease.... it's the heart, you baptise AFTER one believes.... "


That's a funny thought, but of course it's unbiblical. From Acts we see that believing comes first, but then the regenerating waters of baptism are used to join the newly illumined person to Christ. This has always been the case, although a few in the past few hundred years have thrown it out. Not baptizing is the new belief which I would love someone to try and defend. Don't be angry at me, I'm just a fool, it's God who established baptism as a means of yoking men to Himself--if it were up to me, it might be done by eating a large plate of barbecued bristet, potato salad, and baked beans. Mmmm.

Basil

My goodness, I'm jes bout floored... honestly.. this isn't a smack at you, but my goodness, you are the first an only person of this particular type of faith that has actually an accurately stated the fact. We are to be baptised only AFTER we believe! I'm thankful you acknolwedge this fact. It's a major major splitin point between faiths.

Although... I havta say, you didn't address the rest of that..... where in my bible does it say it was an exception? an bout the 1000 year reign etc?

I can't show you anything in the Bible to support the interpetation that the 1000 years spoken of in Revelations was not a literal 1000 year period. This understanding doen't come from my own interpretation, but that of the Church from the beginning, which I understand you may not have full confidence in.

As early as 431 A.D. at the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, questions about the meaning of that verse began to be raised among some Christians. Unanimously the one univesal Church that existed at the time, now called the Orthodox Church, clearly laid out the correct understanding of that verse, which had been passed down from the beginning. In fact, to protect our faith against those who were attempting to distort it, they condemned the teaching that Christ would come and only establish a 1000 year reign. Unfortunately some modern preachers are very good students of history, so from time to time we see them making some very old mistakes that we should already know better than to believe. When Christ comes it will be to judge all mankind and establish His eternal reign. There won't be any more going back and forth. His Kingdom is already here amongst us and satan knows his time is near.

Basil

You defend yourself so well.... :nono:

I believe that we are "yoked to God" through repentance alone, and that water baptism is a outward expression of our new inward faith-- which is commanded by God. It is humbling to get water baptised, but if it is good enough for the Lord (who was also water baptised) then its good enough for me.

That's right. The de-nomination is not "from the devil" but has been misled and deceived by him. Not once did I say founded by or started by opr formed by as you are implying...

Oh dear....well, really not sure why it's so hard to answer questions, kinda like pullin teeth for some reason... but once agin.. you still have not shown me where the part in Acts is some sort of exception... like wise... I don't give a rats rump bout your internal "theologians" interpetation of the bible actually. That's not a disrespectful way of puttin it, by that I simply mean, they were men jes like anyone else, yet your faith tends to lift these guys to higher standards... yet the bible never mentions any of these guys an never makes the claim that they are anyone other then men..... so forgive me if I couldn't put a lot of stock in what they claim.

At any rate.... simply because folks questioned wether it's a 1000 years er not is besides the point, the bible says a 1000 years. What's so hard to understand bout that? Why does it need to be picked apart an made into sumthin other then a 1000 years? See now... this is where we're all goin to git into trouble... if you try an change that number to make it sumthin else... what do you do back in Genisis when God said He made the earth an everthin in 6 days?

Also... come on!!! I don't subscribe to the argument bout when the first church began I don't care if you wanna fight that it was orthodax bla bla bla.. it's all a crock, excuse the term. If folks spent jes half the time searchin for the lost as they do arguin bout who was the first church er what it's name ought to be, there'd be a lot less hurtin in the world. But... while we're on that subject... jes how many different de-nominations er sects does jes the orthodox church have? Like wise... they keep changin the rules by which they live, catholics are no better, cain't think off hand what it was, but that pope john paul, 50 years are er so changed sumthin er nother that really hit the fan, wish I could recall off hand what it was.

Sumthin to think bout also.... the seven years that folks are talkin bout, how do you spose the anti-christ could ever come to power so long as the Holy Ghost, which lives in us is here on this earth? Holdin em at bay.

Sig worthy...


Oh yeah, I'm just sitting on the bleachers for now.... :rollseyes: :screwy: :doh: :smack:

Oh yeah, well....my church is better than yours!!! Take that!!

:doh: :doh:

seriously... your not helpin......

ROFLOL

Oh NO it's not! Your church is full of phony worshippers! :cheeky:

And you expected......what?

Geesh! Think you people would know me by now!!

OH yeah, well......oh yeah!? Well.......my mom can beat up your dad!

Ummmm......probably! :P

Ok...I'll add something...

It sounds to me like String and Basil are saying....

their church is the accurate one and the rest of our churches are just lies.

But..that's just me.

btw Basil, I hadn't met you actually, don't know you from Adam, are you from the other board? If ya was, whats your name there? I have such a hard time keepin up wit folks, then they go an do sumthin silly like change their name! Geezzz

I can't get all technical like alot of the posts on here, but I take the Bible literally, when it says 1000 years, it means 1000 years...period....when it says God created the world in 6 days, then that's how long it took him....period.

Who decided that the 1000 years isn't literal? Why not take it for face value? :dunno:

The Apostles were commissioned by Christ to go into the world, baptizing those who believe, referring to water baptism. Why were they told to do this? It wasn't just to put on a show of public commitment . . . it was a real spiritual event for those people who were baptized. In Acts it states that John the Baptist baptized with water, but those who were baptized after the Holy Spirit was sent were filled with the Spirit in baptism. This is what occured according to all records except that one event in Acts and when the Apostles themselves were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, as they had already received baptism by water and were just waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit as Christ has commanded.

These theolgians are part of our common heritage as Christians. If it weren't for them the faith probably would have never made it to our generation. You've gotta remember that at the time, the Church was one. So whatever group you're a part of now had to be a shoot off of this same Church.

Your comments are somewhat disrespectful, but I don't care really. I'm not defending "my Church" or "my beliefs," but the truth that has been passed down from Christ. It sounds arrogant, but I'm not saying these things to pat myself on the back or convince anyone that I'm smarter than they are, because that just isn't true. I am merely defending what I have discovered, which is much larger than myself--it is the truth laid down by Christ, which is available for all mankind to embrace. I have conformed to what I found, not allowing myself to follow the gospels of men, but the truth established before all ages.

Not every detail has been revealed to us about exactly how God created the heavens and the earth, so I'll be honest I don't know if it was six literal 24 hour days or 6 ages of time. "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8. We know that time is different for God--the important fact we have to hold on to is that God created the heavens and the earth all everything in them. Hal Lindsey, J.N. Darby in the mid-1800s, Jack VanImpe, and Pat Robertson all have perpetuated a nice myth about rapture, seven years of tribulation, a 1000 year reign, and then satan being released again, but it all comes down to some basic mis-interpretations of Revelations. The 1000 years is like saying a million years to us. It was a large number just given to indicate an eternal reign. I can give not other examples or support, like I said, because this is the only time it is spoken of in scripture. It was clear what was meant at the time. It was clear to the Church in 451 . . . and really the idea of a literal 1000 reign with an end only popped up again in modern times in the mid 1800s. It's bunk. Christ will come to reign forever--the devil has already been defeated and has little power.

Let's not talk about that then, because there are other more important issues to tackle. The only reason it's an issue is that, if this is the remnant of that original Church established by Christ, then we need to be a part of it, even if it's a little different than what we are used to. I came from a very different background, but I told myself, I want to seek Christ and be obedient to Him regardless of where it takes me. If this is Christ's Church and the others have strayed away through the Great Schism in 1054 A.D. when Rome broke away and later the reformation, then it's important to get back to the Church as it was created to exist. It's important to find the truth, so that we can join ourselves to the Church as God created it to be, not as some reformer or new theolgian imagines it to be. It's important for us to go and minister to people and lead them to Christ's Body, not a counterfeit one established by so-and-so. I know it's harsh, but maybe it really still exists. Maybe the devil has hid it from many with geographic distance, schism, pride, and deceit. Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, although we know the road is narrow and many will fail to find there way.

There is only one Orthodox Church, although there are different national branches such as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), Russian, Greek, Antiochian, Alexandrian, Jerusalem, etc. They are all in communion with one another, making up 250 million Christians worldwide and more than 2.5 million in the U.S. It is the second largest single body of Christians after the Roman Catholic Church in the world, although it's very visible in the U.S. There are other groups who call themselves Orthodox, but they all broke away at some point, so they can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make them part of the ancient Church.

I'm not expert on the Roman Catholic religion, but are you thinking about the huge changes of Vatican II? I know many disliked it, because they threw out many traditions, such as the use of Latin in services and many other things.

The Orthodox Church has not changed over time. The Church still celebrates an ancient Liturgy (mentioned in historic sources as early as 60 A.D. in The Apostolic Fathers) that has been shortened out of mercy, but not altered in its content. These final abbreviations of the service occured over 1500 years ago, so it's been very stable. The service reflect the Jewish worship which was a reflectin of the heavenly worship of the angels. You should attend a service sometime. The differnet national branches have slightly different cultural customs, but none are separated on theological matters. Occassionally they may get in petty squabbles, but that's just the way things go with sinful man.

How does evil abound when we have been given the Holy Spirit? The spirit of antichrist has been with us since the time of Christ, so its embodiment in the Antichrist can come also. It seems the time is nearing, don't you think?

Basil

I understand many popular preachers have jumped on board with this literal idea of a 1000 year reign, but it has always been understood to be a metaphor for eternity.

It's funny that those same theolgians who demand we take that literally then decide to take an ever more essential verse figuratively--when Christ tells us that the bread He give us miraculously becomes His Body and the wine becomes His Blood. This is a clear statment, but somehow we talk ourselves out of taking it at face value.

I hate to bring that up, but it is an essential of our faith. Through communion we become partakers of Christ's divine nature. This is what He established, so it's very important to be part of the Body of Christ to receive these Holy Mysteries God wants us to have, to help win victory over death and sin. It is a miracle that occurs, but this is what Christ tells us would happen when we take communion in His Church.

Basil

Yeah I don't know, and even better!! If we don't take a definitive stance on it but say something like:
1. It could mean 1000 years
2. It could be infinity
3. God is great
4. etc.

Then when it comes heaven time we don't have as many issues where we are like "whoa..... we were soooo far off...." because you know when we get there, there will be some of those.

I believe in the 1000 year reign, I think..... :dunno: ..... but I believe the earth was created in longer than 6 days, I think.... but that is just based off of my humble studies....

:nod:

It's not my Church, Paul's Church, or any man's Church, it's Christ's Church, which He alone is the head of. I cannot boast about it, like it was mine, I belong to it, not it to me. I have had to give up all my ideas and opinions to become a part of it, because compared to the eternal truths of Christ preserved in it, my opinions aren't worth crap.

Can anyone argue that there was on single Body created in the beginning? What happened to it? Did is just break into hundreds of pieces right way? We know the first major schism occured in 1054, when Rome broke away, over claims of Papal Supremecy and other doctrinal errors.. Until then only minor groups had broken away, but just because they departed, that didn't divide the Church, just removed themselves from it. I belong to the Church of Antioch, which is mentioned in Acts and is the first place followers of Christ were called Christians. The Church of Antioch has one unbroken line leading all the way back to the apostles (both Peter and Paul were Patriarchs of Antioch). The Church in Alexandria still exists, as well as the one in Jerusalem, and Constantinople (although it's been ravaged by the inhumane Muslims). This is the original Church, not created by Zwingli, Luther, Wesley, or any other man, but Christ Himself our King and our God. To the degree that their churches have departed from the truths of Christ, then to that degree the prepetuate lies. If their churches keep their adherents out of the one apostolic Orthodox Church, then they are in opposition to Christ.

Basil