A major Pentecostal denomination released a paper Tuesday stating the church’s position on the apostolic movement that included a warning on false prophets.
The International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC), a 108-year-old traditional Pentecostal denomination with about 4.2 million members in 95 countries, states its commitment to the Word and the leadership of the Holy Spirit in its 21-page “Apostolic Biblical Statement and Practical Guidelines.”
“God is moving in these days with an emphasis on the apostolic anointing and the prophetic,” said Presiding Bishop James D. Leggett, in a statement. “The Apostolic Position Paper recognizes and provides for the exercising of apostolic leadership. Yet it gives a word of caution about false prophets. The balanced approach is good for the church today.”
The document covers three levels of the apostolic: Jesus Christ, the foremost apostle; the twelve apostles, the foundational apostles; and functional apostles, who functioned both in the scriptures and in the church today.
The role of apostles is to “plant the gospel in every culture worldwide” and to do it on the “base built by Jesus Christ, the foremost Apostle, and His foundational apostles,” the document stated.
“We recognize the ministry of functional apostles and bishops in church history as having a close resemblance,” the paper read. “We also recognize that false apostles appeared in the apostolic church as well as in the church history, and that we must remain alert to the continuing danger of these emissaries of Satan.”
Pentecostalism is one of the fastest growing segments of global Christianity with at least 500 million adherents worldwide. But along with its successful growth has come problems of false teachers who vow miraculous healing, promises of pending fortune in exchange for church donations that are used for their own personal wealth.
Many mainline Christian leaders in Africa have denounced false prophets who claim to be anointed Pentecostal preachers.
In the section titled, “Recognizing True and False Apostles,” the document states that there are false apostles, or people who are not appointed by God but rather “carnal men [who] usurped the role for their own glory.”
To distinguish true and false apostles, the document gave a list of characteristics of a true apostle that includes: ministers with total faithfulness to the writings and teachings of the foundational apostles; accept personal responsibility for the Lord’s Great Commission, even at great cost to themselves; continue to serve even when no one confers on them a title or recognizes their role; and are free from the love of money.
“The Apostolic Position Paper presents a sound Biblical foundation for both the historical and present day Apostolic Ministry,” said Rev. Ed Wood, Chairman of the Apostolic Commission. “The paper is the result of the International Pentecostal Holiness seeking to be Biblically based in its position regarding the current apostolic movement.”
In 2005, the denomination's General Executive Board, at the request of the General Conference delegates, commissioned seven denominational scholars and theologians to conduct a biblical/historical study of the role of apostle in the church today. The board also invited a representative from each of the denomination's 28 regional offices to participate.
The document was presented to the General Board of Administration, the highest governing body between General Conference sessions, and approved by the board on Oct. 30, 2007, with minor changes.
The document also includes practical guidelines for apostolic ministries and other current theological issues in the IPHC.
IPHC is a charter member of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Pentecostal World Conference, and was instrumental in creating the Pentecostal & Charismatic Churches of North America.
RSS
Gee Whiz... this article is the proverbial "Kettle calling the Kettle black!"
Pentecostalism from its start at the turn of the century - has pushed forward false movements, false fires and false teachers - all under the cloak of "accompanying signs and wonders."
When the apostles were disputing among themselves as to who was the "greatest" - Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His organizational plan. He said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:25-27) From this, it is clear Jesus was strongly opposed to any “prince” or “princes” exercising dominion over His flock.
Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.
The Catholic claim to "Apostolic succession" is nonsense. The RC church does not have an unbroken line of Apostles going back to Christ. Study Roman Catholic history. This so called line has been broken several times. More than once there have been plural individuals all at once claiming to be the "True Pope" At one time there were 5 popes all at once, all fighting each other and excommunicating each other. The councils booted them all and put in a new guy. Some popes by their own writings declared themselves to be God himself! Some popes were very corrupt, known for their many lovers and for the orgies held in the papal palace. One pope was strangled by his lover, who then placed her son on the Papal Throne. Roman Catholicism teaches Peter to be the first pope, but we find just the opposite. Compare Peter to the Roman Pontiff. The Roman Pontiff for centuries has been carried around on a golden throne and people bow to him and prostrate themselves before him to this day. On the contrary, a man tried to kneel before Peter and Peter yanked him up and forbid him to kneel before a mere man.
"As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
(Acts 10:25,26)
Some first pope, huh?
In Catholicism the pope is infallible and cannot error in spiritual matters ( in spite of many popes contradicting their predecessors or saying something completely opposite.) But in the Bible, Peter (the so called "first pope" was openly rebuked and corrected by Paul when he was in error about a spiritual matter:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."
(Galatians 2:11)
The so called "Apostolic succession of modern popes has no connection whatsoever to the Apostles in the Bible.
The Roman Catholic Church is by no means the church founded by Jesus Christ. It is an organization that is a product of hundreds of years of evolution and mixture with political power (State Church) and paganism. Compare it to the church in the New Testament and there are no similarities. The Church in the NT was all made up of individuals who had had a personal conversion to Christ and were born again since Jesus stated that is a requirement to see heaven. The vast majority of Catholics have no born again experience and are unconverted. (The pope himself made a statement about "re-evangelizing the baptized" because it is pretty hard to deny the obvious!) Catholicism teaches that involuntarily having water put oin your head as an infant makes you a Christian and a part of Christ's church. The Bible teaches infant baptism nowhere and teaches faith and conversion before baptism always. Christ's church is made up of those who are saved. It is not a vast organization whose majority know nothing about salvation , nor even care and for whom the term "Jesus Christ" is little more than a curse word. Those are the catholics I grew up with. Sure, there are born again catholics, but they are a tiny minority and sometimes even looked down on and persecuted by the catholic leadership in their countries. The True Church of Jesus Christ cannot be one that forbid the Scriptures to the people, fought the distribution of the Word of God, burned Bibles by the hundreds of thousands as well as burning at the stake those who printed or distributed Bibles for centuries as the Catholic church did.
JC, you may use my email. It is below.
Moreover, by not following a base rubrics for worship that was handed down for generation from Apostles to Bishops by holding fast to the Traditions that the Apostles imparted to them would lead to Worship style Relativism. God loves all forms of Adoration which is true, but He specifically loves worship that He personally inspired His people to do.
Specifics do count and that is not being legalistic either. In John 6:66 would you have been the group of Disciples to walk away? Would the Jews at Passover been spared if they used cow's blood above their door instead of the blood of a Lamb?
To ignore the first few centuries of Christian history is to have to re-invent what has already occured but in an improper fashion. It would be like today dressing like Pilgrims and trying to do things like the first settlers did. This is not authentic because its biggest challenge is being anachronistic.
To reject early Christianity and how they worship is to have to much pride. To think that we can worship more authentically than the earliest Christians who may have known not only the Apostles but Jesus Christ and not follow their rubrics of worship as a base would be ingenuine and would also be against Scripture since Paul and all the Apostles had the authority to speak for Christ. "He who hears you hears Me." Their authority was binding and so was their chosen leaders who became Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
a generic email would be @hotmail.com
Peace of Christ be with you.
Wilderness,
I agree with what you wrote and I'll take it another step farther using the Bible. Yes, where two or more are gathered in His name He is present, but that doesn't mean it is Worship. We see clearly in Scripture Christ giving His authority to guide His people to the Apostles and then the Apostles , inspired by the Holy Spirit and clearly in Scripture gave that Authority to the Bishops and Presbyters(many times one of the same) and they do talk about the Eucharist in the Bible. If you want to know if these 27 books of the New Testament wrote down everything Jesus said, then Scripture will tell you that it would be impossible. Jesus conveyed everthing by preaching and the Apostles took what the Holy Spirit wanted at that time to reveal.
We see Historically but not in the Bible how the early Christians understood what the Apostles taught them. I would trust that more than what some Pastor says 1900 years late. So, you know you are properly worshipping God when you are assemled with other Christians in the presence of the Bishop or Presbyter who is in charge of guiding Christ flock for that area and you celebrate the Eucharist. Worship has always been a form of Sacrifice. The Synagogue was used for reading the Torah, but that wasn't worship per se. Worship has many facets like adoration, like prayer with adoration, song and a Sacrifice like in the Temple. You must offer sacrifice for it to be a true worship service which was true with the Jews and was true with the early Christians. The ultimate sacrifice was on Calvary, and the Mass is re-presentation of that one time Sacrifice through the bread and wine being offered and being obediant to Christ ordinance by doing this in rememberance of Him.
Singing and praying are all forms of worship, but nothing can be considered the fullness of Christian worship without the re-presentation of Calvary through the Bread and Wine which becomes the body and blood of our Savior thus eating and drinking of it we are cleansed of our sins and Grace is infused in us. God's Grace, after all, is what saves.
To msnchris70:
Dear one, I will be glad to answer your questions, quite a bit though, have to give me some time.
In the meantime, may I ask you just one question? Where in the Bible does it define worship? Isn't that what we're suppose to be doing in church? If that is so, which it is, why is there no clear definition of "how to"?
My only conclusion is that worship is an individual, personal entrance into His presence. Where two or more are gathered, He is there. To suggest anything else is contrary to what is written and is an attempt to limiting His power.
If you wish, I would like to answer these questions for you. I want to give you solid information, that is not just based upon experience, but on His word as well. I don't know how long this post will last though. Do you feel comfortable with supplying me a generic email address? If not, I will seek you through other posts.
Yes Wilderness I knew what you meant.
Calling Mary the Queen of Heaven is not a Doctrine by the way, it is a solely a Title. Did calling King David's mother Queen take away from David? No, and either does calling Mary the Queen of Heaven. Also, we call her Queen of Mary because of four points pulled out from Scripture.
1. The Angel Gabriel said, "Hail, Mary" At that time 2000 years ago and in context, and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Angel Gabriel said "Hail, Mary." Hail is a term ONLY used for Royalty.
2. In the Davidid Royal Line, the Son was always the King and the Mother(NOT THE WIFE) was always the Queen. Following Jewish Royal Tradition it is not unreasonable to call Mary Queen, since her Son is the King of Kings and of the Davidic line.
3. Paul talks about in Scripture how we will receive our Crowns in heaven. What is a crown, it is a sign of ALL OF OUR Royal Priesthood. You will get a crown too, WILDERNESS.
4. We clearly see Mary in Revelation, where John sees her body and soul in Heaven with a crown above her head.
It is not unreasonable to understand with these Scriptures and understanding Jewish custom why Mary was considered Queen of Heaven. The Title of Queen of Heaven again is not a doctrine, and it honorific Title that had been used since the 2nd Century. It in no way takes away from Christ who LIKE YOU SAID IS THE TRUTH.
I will go one farther for you; Christ is the ONly Truth, the ONly Life and the WAy to Salvation. You can't get Salvation through Mary, it is solely through Christ which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Lastly, Catholicism is a complex Religion but at the center of all it's rituals, Traditions and faith is solely Jesus Christ. If anything of our faith in Catholicism doesn't lead you further in a relationship with Christ then it is FALSE and not 0f the Holy Spirit. Rest assured, no Catholic worships Mary and just because we love her doesn't mean we think for one minute our salvation comes from anyone but JESUS CHRIST. We just give her due honor for her role in saying "YES". Just like I give my own parents honor like the 4th commandment says, because they also brought me to Christ.
msnchris70,
No, the lesson is not over until Christ returns. Until then, may the lessons of truth move forward, delivering the multitudes from sin, and many more from false doctrines. Yes, that would include the false doctrines of Catholicism.
May you eventually come to the knowledge of the truth of the simplicity that is in Christ. In closing, Christ would never build a church upon a foundation that would eventually try to overthrow half His kingdom by establishing a "queen” of heaven.
To Wilderness,
AMEN AMEN! I agree with everthing you wrote!!!!
Now if only Martin Luther, John Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli, King Henry the 8th, Simon Mennon, John Knox, John Smith, Mrs. Ellen White, William Miller, Charles Fox Parham, T. Cartwright, Seabury, Brown, Wycliff, John Huss, and George Fox and the many other 20,000 founders of new sects of Christianity would have read these Scriptures you posted!!!
Thank you for posting them. Maybe if they would have all read these Scripture versus then Christianity wouldn't be so divided.
By the way, all the above list none of these founders agree with any of the other Founders on important issues, so they say the Holy Spirit guided them to start their own religion. I don't think so!
20,000 plus denominations all claiming the Holy Spirit guiding them all claiming they have the Truth and yet we all know only ONE CAN BE RIGHT!
The only Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles is the Holy Catholic Church. Our founder is Jesus. End of Subject! Lesson over.
Take heed, lest you find yourself caught upon the pompous winds of deception. Flying higher, higher still, until the written word of God is buried deep beneath the ashes of vain traditions, no longer a solid weight to ground a man in sound doctrine.
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Ac 20:29-31).
Take heed, lest you are drawn away from Christ, spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world.
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Ac 20:29-31).
Take heed, lest you are drawn away, in vain worshipping God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Ac 20:29-31).
Take heed, lest you are drawn away, becoming a disciple of Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth.
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Ac 20:29-31).
Take heed, lest you drawn away, twisting the scriptures unto your own destruction.
21. Where in the Bible does it say we should only go by Scriptures alone?
22. Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved by Faith alone?
23. Where in the Bible does it say ALL Tradition is bad?
24. Where in the Bible does it tell you what books belong in the Bible?
25. Where in the Bible does it say which books are inspired and which ones are not?
25. Where in the Bible does it use the word Trinity?
26. Where in teh Bible does it use the word Incarnation?
27. Where in the Bible does it use the word Protestant?
You won't find any of your answers in the Bible. You are Scripture PLUS your own man made Traditon. My friend in Christ, I won't even dare ask you to provide any historical evidence because if you can't do it in Scripture you won't be able to do it Historically either. As a Pentecostal, you are exceedingly challenged by historical record. Your form of Christianity has enough Truth for a person to be potentially saved through your Tradition. However, the Fullness of God's Truth is revealed only through His Church He founded; The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of which there are 200 Million Charismatic Catholics of our 1.2Billion population.
Christ said to the Apostles that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, and that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all Truth. Since we are the first Christians and we have ceased to terminate and we can prove our Church's existence historically from the Apostles, then not being Catholic is basically calling a Jesus a liar that He doesn't have the power to keep these Promises.
Now, that I've been kind enough to answer most all of your questions could you tell me this from the BIBLE then?
1. Since the laying of hands was important to give authority to Presbyters and Bishops in Scripture by the Apostles Like when Mathias got Judas' office of Apostleship through the laying of hands, then who laid their hands on your founder? And did they have any authority to do so?
2. Why don't you have Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons like the Bible says is the hiearchy? .
3. Where in the Bible does it say that you can break away from the Church?
4. Where in the Bible does Paul say it is good for disunity?
6 where in the Bible does it say that you can be of many minds?
7 Where in the Bible does it say that you should have a Pastor instead of a Bishop or Presbyter and isn't the word Pastor in Scripture used as an adjective to describe the role of the Bishop and Presbyter?
6. Where in the Bible is your founder of your Church? If you say Jesus, then show me your church historically from Jesus then, and if you can't then your church is a tradition of men not a tradition of God. ANsWER: You Can't. Then you will say Jesus, then you will have no historical record.
7. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bread and Wine are symbols? Where in historical record in the first 1000 years did they ever believe it was only a symbol?
8. Where in the Bible does it say that you should only celebrate "Communion bread and wine" only once a quarter or once a month? Jesus said do this in rememberance of me and it was done historically every Sunday and everyday.
9. Where in the Bible does it say that Women should be ordained?
10. Where in the Bible does it say that you have the right to interpret Scripture outside of the Church? The Church is the foundation of Truth 1Tim 3:15
11. Since the Old Testament was only interpretated by the Jewish Priests, and the New Testament was only interpreted by the Apostles and fellow Presbyters. Could you show me one person who interpreted Scripture different from the Church?
12. Where in the Bible does it say you have to speak in tongues to be SAVED?
13. Where in the Bible does it say that being born again is different from being Baptised?
14. Where in the Bible does it say that the Communion of Saints is limited to those on Earth?
15. Where in the Bible does it say that you should use Contraception in your marraiges? Answer: It doesn't.
16. Where in the Bible does it say that you can REMARRY?
17. Where does it say In the Bible that Infants are forbidden to be Baptized?
18. Where does it say in the Bible that the Church is only invisible?
19. Where in the Bible does it say that you have the right to cause Schism?
20. Where in the Bible does it say that the Church Hiearchy is not Authoritative in Christ absence?
7. They would recite the Our Father.
This has always amazed me. Catholic churches have taken this literally and recite it for a lot of different reasons. When, in actuality, if one were to bother to actually read the Bible for themselves, one would see that this prayer was meant as a guideline, not for quotation. I've never understood why this part of the passage was ignored.
MSN: WERE YOU THERE WHEN JESUS SAID THIS PRAYER? Nope! I didn't think so.
So, then how do we know if you or I are right? Well, we look at history in the first 100-400 years and see what they did with the "Our Father". It was a guideline and it was a prayer to the FATHER. It is the most perfect Prayer of Adoration. Prayers can be of requests and of Adoration and intercession and supplication and this prayer has it ALL.
Catholics pray this prayer and we take it litterally. We take it literally because the first Christians took it litterally, why don't you?
3. The Presbyter shall pray over them for forgiveness of venial sins.(mortal sins must be confessed).
Okay, now I'm really confused. Didn't #2 just define this, and not it's being redefined in #3 again?
MSN: The Priest may offer a public prayer over the entire congregations sins if they are venial. If you are involved in grave matter and mortal sin, then you must not present yourself for Eucharitst.
4. A reading from the Old Testament.
A reading from the Old Testament is good, it should be looked at quite a bit actually.
5. Sing some Psalms.
Singing is one of the highest forms of praise. Let me ask you one question, when you sing in church, are you singing songs about God, or are you singing songs to God? There is a huge difference.
MSN: Amen! Because we are the original Church, we don't have "praise & worship" which turns into some sort of entertainment for men. We sing to God. Worship is due only to God.
6. They will read some of the Epistles and a Gospel reading.
This is also good. Without the Gospel and some preaching, it's just a meeting of people.
MSN: This is not true since the Pinnacle of Worship is the rememberance of the Last Supper and the Sacrifice on Calvary and unlike Protestant groups the EUCHARIST was and is the Pinnacle of worship. This is also proven historically.
MSN: Yes, it is important to read the Epistles and Gospels because ignorance of Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ, right?
Your other points JC,
1. Body of Christ should assemble where there is a valid Eucharist, where the Bishop presides or a Presbyter is present.
Where is this in the God's word? I've only read that one should go where one is fed, and if one is not getting fed, then one should move on. Are you getting fed? In the Catholic churches I have been in, I've only heard Latin spoke, and since I don't speak Latin, I didn't get fed. I moved on.
MSN: LATIN IS NOT SPOKEN in any Catholic Church unless it is a special Mass for those who understand Latin. Latin hasn't been prolific for 40+ years so I don't know where you went, so I'm not sure you are being genuine here. Even if you didn't understand Latin and could actually find a Catholic Church where the Mass was in Latin, you would still get FED BY EATING THE FLESH AND DRINKING THE BLOOD OF JESUS. Your definition of getting FED is much like your denomination-NEW.
2. The people should ask God for the forgiveness of their sins.
Didn't you just say earlier that one didn't have to do this? Didn't you just say that man could grant this? Martin Luther was right, there are inconsistencies.
MSN: No, no inconsistencies. Don't forget if you read Martin Luther's articles that are well published that he still went to a Priest for confession up until he was excommunicated. We do ask forgiveness in Mass for our Venial sins. Paul specifically talks about the difference of Sins and that if you are engaged in deadly sins, meaning losing your salvation, then you must confess to a priest for absolution which means the loosing of sins. You may be forgiven of Venial sins during Mass, but because of the Injustice against God doing Mortals sins there must be renewing of your relationship to God because you hurt that relationship so badly that Grace does not rest in you anymore. You left God, so Confession will infuse Grace again into your life so that by Grace you will be saved.
JC,
Regarding James 5:16. Wasn't James inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote this? He was inspired and there is no error in what James said. He said that if you are sick(through sickness or sin)then have the Presbyter pray over you and you will be healed and your sins forgiven.
You are right in one sense it is prayer that is the cause of the sins being forgiven and it is prayer which heals the man. The point you miss is that it is a prayer from a special person who has authority- A PRESBYTER. Does James say to go to anyone or any person? No.
He says go to a Presbyter. In fact in 1Peter, Peter calls himself a fellow presbyter(Priest) and Episcopus(Bishop).
So we explicitly see in Scripture where men have the power to forgive sin in Jesus name. This power is God's power and the Priest has no power except through Christ.
HISTORIC RECORD IS THE LENS IN WHICH WE SEE HOW THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST 2 Centuries LIVED OUT THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE and of THE APOSTLES' TEACHINGS.
Sounds pretty Catholic to me! Do research my friend in Christ, and you too will come to the fact that Christ built one Church on the Apostles and Peter was the leader. You will see that all the earliest Christian writers sound awefully Catholic and not even close to a modern day Protestant and especially a Pentecostal.
While the Apostles, if they were alive today, would appreciate your love for Christ and would accept you like I do as a sepparated brother in Christ; they would ask you on whose authority did you leave the one church founded on the Apostles? They would ask you to search the Scriptures to find a place in Scripture that ever says disunity is ok and that breaking away from your Bishop is also unscriptural. They would ask you how did a woman on AZUSA street found this movement when she has no authority? They would ask, other than having a Bible which was created by the Catholic CHurch, how do you trace yourself back the Apostles?
They would also ask, why is your worship service the way it is when the Apostles already created a Liturgy that was guided by the Holy Spirit.
You my friend, will have DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS look, and say I don't know.
Cyprian of Carthage
"The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him" (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).
"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord" (ibid., 28).
"[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]" (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).
"And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given" (ibid., 51[55]:20).
"But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death. [Tob. 12:9]" (ibid., 51[55]:22).
Hippolytus- "[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
ORIGIN - "[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
TO JC, Continued.
Here are some quotes from history:
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH "For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance(confession), return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8).
Continued to JC,
I have responses to your responses. Enjoy brother in Christ!
1Regarding John 20: 21-23
God only breathed twice on Humans: Genesis to give Adam life, and on Pentecost to give the Apostles life in the Holy Spirit. Jesus spoke directly to the Apostles and only to the Apostles when He said whose ever sins you forgive, they are forgiven.etc. Now why would Jesus do this....well because he had died and would no longer be with his people, so Christ gave this special gift to man-kind so that sins may still be forgiven. Jesus didn't say that man is only limited to confessing to men. Yes, you may confess to God directly but God gave this Ministry of Reconciliation to men, so that these men might offer forgiveness for someone's sins against God reconciling them to God. The Apostles and their successors were made intercessors by God and given HIS SPECIAL power. The Holy Spirit never in Scripture forgives sins. Sins are forgiven through the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Could you show me where the Holy Spirit actively forgave men of their sins? You can't. It is all through Jesus. Our Priests have their power because of Apostolic Succession and they have the power to forgive the sins of men, by Christ's authorit alone.
Also, Peter and other Apostles and their successors were all famous for their miracles of healing people.
Brother in Christ - JC,
What you as a Christian lack is historicity. Not everything Jesus said was written down and this is attested to in Scripture. Fact. Scripture says that there are not enough books in the world to write down everything He said and taught. This is a fact.
When you lack the historical connection, you are hardpressed to figure out the scriptures and this was true when I was a Protestant Pastor. Without the historical connection to the first christians and their writings, we can only guess what Jesus meant. We see in the earliest of Tradition how Paul commanded the Church to follow everything by his word and letter. Two sepparate things we must have bound on our conscience.
Here is an example. Since you only go by Scripture alone, could you tell me where it says that in the Bible? You can not. Scripture is good for reproofing and I say no question and Amen. The early church also did not go by Scripture alone. The first councils concerning whether christians must be circumsized to be saved. Did Peter or any of the Apostles search the Scriptures? Nope! Peter said with a commanding voice that we didn't have to be circumsized. It was his decision as leader of the Apostles. Secondly, when christians stopped eating kosher food did Peter search the Scriptures alone? Nope again. He made a decision on his own authority because Christ gave him and the Apostles His personal authority. Both not eating kosher food, getting circumsized were decisions made by the Apostles and they WERE BINDING. We also see in the first century that the Bishops of the Church changed the day of worship to Sunday. This is also binding because of their Apostolic Authority. The Church also defined that to be Christian you must accept that Jesus is fully divine and fully human at the same time. This isn't explicit at all in Scripture, but the Church decided and it was binding.
You can interpret for yourself all day long and Peter would say to you that prophesy is not for personal interpretation.
All of your above interpretations lack ONE HUGE THING: No historical connection to original Christianity. You are a member of a Christian sect who are 1900 years late and you do have to make it up as you go since you obviously don't believe any Christians existed between Christ and the Reformation.
You go by the Bible alone. Well, here a few things to consider. My interpretations can be found both Scripture and History. History tells us specifically how Christians understood what they were taught directly by the Apostles. All of my interpretations can be backed up by Christians who knew the Apostles and their successors. You can't find anything in History that even remotely comes close to your version of Christianity, not for at least 1800 or 1900 years.
To msnchris70:
Beloved, I've run out of time today. I will continue these tomorrow.
To msnchris70:
One by one,
1. Body of Christ should assemble where there is a valid Eucharist, where the Bishop presides or a Presbyter is present.
Where is this in the God's word? I've only read that one should go where one is fed, and if one is not getting fed, then one should move on. Are you getting fed? In the Catholic churches I have been in, I've only heard Latin spoke, and since I don't speak Latin, I didn't get fed. I moved on.
2. The people should ask God for the forgiveness of their sins.
Didn't you just say earlier that one didn't have to do this? Didn't you just say that man could grant this? Martin Luther was right, there are inconsistencies.
3. The Presbyter shall pray over them for forgiveness of venial sins.(mortal sins must be confessed).
Okay, now I'm really confused. Didn't #2 just define this, and not it's being redefined in #3 again?
4. A reading from the Old Testament.
A reading from the Old Testament is good, it should be looked at quite a bit actually.
5. Sing some Psalms.
Singing is one of the highest forms of praise. Let me ask you one question, when you sing in church, are you singing songs about God, or are you singing songs to God? There is a huge difference.
6. They will read some of the Epistles and a Gospel reading.
This is also good. Without the Gospel and some preaching, it's just a meeting of people.
7. They would recite the Our Father.
This has always amazed me. Catholic churches have taken this literally and recite it for a lot of different reasons. When, in actuality, if one were to bother to actually read the Bible for themselves, one would see that this prayer was meant as a guideline, not for quotation. I've never understood why this part of the passage was ignored.
To msnchris70:
Beloved, sound bites may not be "official", but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Islamists believe that Jesus truly didn't die on the cross, but we know He did.
The truth is that Martin Luther read the Bible for himself. He didn't ask for wait for an interpretation from a priest, he read it himself. In this particular time, this was not only frowned upon, one could actually be convicted of heresy because one had to be priest to even open the book, let alone understand it.
I read it, and I understand what is given to me to understand. One does not need to have this interpreted for oneself, God is a personal God, not a corporate God.
On worship - Now we're in another fun area. This can really start a fire in some churches. As I have said before, some worship this way, and some that way. It's not how one does it, but why.
However, dear one, what I see in the early New Testament church, is not the same one I see in the Catholic church, and many other denominations as well. In the New Testament, we see those filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, discernment, laying of hands for healing. In the Catholic church, we don't see this.
Why?
Finally, if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and He was doing this then in the early church, then who has moved away from this, God or man?
I flagged myself for correction:
To msnchris70:
You who are loved by God, you are not far from the Kingdom of God. Your heart is on Him and He will guide your ways. This I can discern from your writings that you have a passion for reverence and to keep the faith. This brother is commendable.
Regarding John 20: 21-23
Beloved, they were not given the authority to forgive sin, they were given the Holy Spirit, who has the authority to forgive sin. Jesus told them this to affirm that it was the work of the Holy Spirit in them. If it were the other way around, they would have been able to lay claim to the healing of the afflicted as well. Which we know there is no possible way they could have.
Regarding 2nd Cor 5:16-20
Beloved, who was being called to reconciliation? It was all of men to come to reconciliation with God, not just a select few. Verse 20 says that we are his ambassadors, not his facilitators. He works through us, we don't work for Him. We can only allow Him to work through us, on His terms, at His choice of timing. We have very little to do with it. We are only willing.
Regarding James 5:16
Dear one, you are taking this out of context, as has been done for centuries.
The entire passage actually starts at verse 13, let's look: Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
The operative word here is prayer. Beloved, the answer of prayer is where the forgiveness of sin is coming from. Not the prayer itself. The person praying the prayer is just facilitating communication to God, but the forgiveness ultimately comes from Jesus, not the one who is praying. Once again, to assume otherwise is to say that it was Paul and Peter who healed and the Holy Spirit within them.
Beloved, one more thing on confession and we'll move on. Can you show me where in the Bible where a disciple forgave somebody of their sins as Jesus did. This is ultimately what we are talking about here, the authority. The disciples never said "You are forgiven of your sins". Only Jesus said this, as His is the authority. Not men. They prayed, and their sins were forgiven, but again, the operative word here is prayed. It's never been the one who prayed, but the one who answered the prayer.
JC,
Also, we not only go to a priest for forgiveness but we also go to God too. For us Catholics Confession to a Priest or God isn't an either or, but a both and.
On Government: You pulled out a quote that could be misrepresented and taken out of context. Sound bites are not official, and this quote was not taken from any official Church teaching this Pope or any other Pope promoted. Popes can make mistakes too, but they just can not make a mistake when speaking officially from the seat of Peter preaching on matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit as promised in Scripture will protect the Pope from speaking non-Truth.
Worship: Here you are wrong again too. You need to read some history my friend. A recent find was the book of the Didache which was dated around 80AD. This book talks specifically about how the body of Christ was to assemble and what was to take place. Also, countless letters from the early church fathers who all knew the Apostles show that Church started this way:
1. Body of Christ should assemble where there is a valid Eucharist, where the Bishop presides or a Presbyter is present.
2. The people should ask God for the forgiveness of their sins.
3. The Presbyter shall pray over them for forgiveness of venial sins.(mortal sins must be confessed).
4. A reading from the Old Testament.
5.Sing some Psalms.
6. They will read some of the Epistles and a Gospel reading.
7. They would recite the Our Father.
8. They should offer prayers for others and the Church.
9. They should offer one another the Kiss of Peace.
10. They should admit they are unworthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and ask God to make them ready.
11. The Presbyter shall bless the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of our Savior as Jesus did in the Last supper. He shall offer the Eucharist as an offering to God, remembering the one time sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.
12. The assembly shall come before the Presbyter to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner.
13. They shall then give thanks to the Lord their God, and then sing Psalms.
14. The assembly will then have fellowship time after.
This is the ancient Liturgy from the 1st Century and is still the Main Liturgy today for Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and many Lutherans.
My dear friend in Christ, this is the structure of the earliest forms of worship from Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Jerusalem and Constantinople. Still today this is the basic format on how the Catholic Church worships God as instructed by the Apostles and handed down by the Apostles second in command and so on and so on.
Don't forget these Apostles were originally Jews, so when they spoke in Tongues it was to preach the Gospel in a different language. They certainly didn't have epileptic type fits when they spoke in tongues nor did they wave their hands in the air because this would be a sign of Pride.
JC,
Well then, if you believe in the Trinity then it was some sort of miscommunication then and we will move on. Some Pentecostals groups do not accept the Trinity though and we should pray for them.
A couple of points:
Your point on Confession is a personal interpretation and it is wrong. Why is it wrong. Can men forgive sins? Yes, only because Jesus gave them the power. We see in Scripture in Mat 9:2-8 where the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins and in Jn 20:22-23 Jesus breaths on the Apostles and tells them "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven and those sins you retain they are retained" which points to Jesus giving His Supreme authority for Men to forgive sins in His name. 2Cor 5:17-20 Paul talks about how Christ has given them the "Ministry of RECONCILIATION". IN James 5:16 we see how we are suppose to confess your sins to one another and then just a few lines later in James 5:13-15 we see that the prayers of the presbyters forgives sins. Finally, Matt 18:18 Jesus gives binding and losing authority to the Apostles.
You see, Men do have the authority to forgive sins in the name of Christ if they are a presbyter(priest) or Episcopos(Bishop). Confession to a Priest is VERY SCRIPTURAL. Moreover, history accounts for no where did people ever not go to confession either publicly or privately in the first 1500 years. In fact, there was never an article written by any early church father or historian that spoke against going to a priest for forgiveness.
So, If Scripture supports Confession to a Priest and Christ specifically gave this power and then we see Historically evidence on how they lived out the Scriptures by everyone going to Priests for Confession, then Scripture and History does not support your position. Moreover, if you read any of the Early Church fathers they all spoke about the benefits of confession.
To msnchris70:
Beloved, if I have led you to believe that I don't accept the Trinity, for this I apologize. I most certainly do believe in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
However, you can most certainly see where the church left Jesus' teachings. In this case, I will speak of Catholicism, but a lot of denominations have undergone such transformations.
1. Confession. At the day of Jesus' death on the cross, the veil was ripped from the top down. This was to say that we no longer had to go to the High Priest. We can go directly to the throne. However, Catholicism has basically sewn this vail back up and grants atonement from sin only after penants have been performed, given by a priest behind an enclosure (veil). This is not only incorrect, it's also blaspheme. No man can forgive sin, only God. For a priest to assign a penant to atone for a committed sin is the same as saying that the blood of Jesus wasn't enough. Indeed, this is why this particular religion is also full of sacraments. The word sacrament comes from "make sacred". How can there be anything more sacred than His blood?
2. Government. Martin Luther also found a lot of discrepancies. He told the Pope of the day that he would not follow them anymore as they are not only going against what is written, but also that they are inconsistent and non-uniform in their statements, contradicting each other. In other words, they ceased basing their organization on what was written in the Bible, and started adding their own. One great example of this is when the Pope in the 1800's changed the verse spoken by Jesus: "No one may come to the Father but by me". The Pope changed it to read: "No one may come to the Father but by Jesus, and no one to Jesus but by Mary". Clearly violating scripture when it says not to add or take anything away.
3. Worship. Worship immediately post day of Pentecost was exceptionally powerful and never traditional or ritualistic. One can see this evidenced by the fact that thousands were added to their numbers daily. The majority of Catholic churches are nothing more than tradition and ritualistic. Only has to look to see that people don't leave any different then when they came in. This shows that the Spirit of God was not there as no one can come in contact with the Holy Spirit and leave the same way.
Dear one, I am not picking on the Catholic church. Not at all. God told me a long time ago that some worship this way and some worship that way. It's not how one worships but why. Is one worshipping out of duty or obligation? Or, is one worshipping so as to get as close to God as possible? Does one stay true to His word?
To JC,
No Protestant scholar worth anything would ever say that the Church left Jesus and that there were no true Christians for 1800 years. This is the same tactic Mormons use, which basically means all Protestants are not saved either. This thought that the Church was gone up to even Martin Luther is also false and is based on opinion rather than any facts based on historical record.
Also, the first Church which began on Pentecost was built on the Apostles. Pentecostals have no connection to the Apostles historically, and claiming you are Apostolic without any historic record is like me claiming that I am the heir to the Throne of England eventhough I have no documentation.
If you don't believe in the Trinity, you are not Christian. You are like the Mormons.
To Chris333:
You asked: "Where did they come from, and can they trace their Apostolicity back to the Disciples?"
Answer: Each generation has had it's significant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. If this had not occurred, Christianity would have died off or become extremely corrupt. Indeed, where you see an organization that doesn't allow the Holy Spirit to rein, corruption is close behind. Second, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Catholics, etc. can all claim the same path to Apostolicity, and that is Jesus Christ. He is the head of the church, not the clergy. If one only looks at tradition and lineage, then one is guilty of arrogance based upon heritage in much the same way the Pharisees were. It's never been about the church, it's always been about Jesus!
You asked: "If not, do they believe in Spontaneous Apostolicity?"
Answer: It's not as spontaneous as one might think. However, to assume that humans had anything to do with it is based on simple pride and arrogance. Humans have had nothing to do with it. Only by allowing His Spirit to work within us do things like this get done. By His power and might, not ours.
You asked: "How would that even work (if it could even work)?"
Answer: For a good example, I suggest looking up the Azusa street incident in 1906, Los Angeles California.
You asked: "And, what is more, why did Christ abandon the Church for 1800 years until the first Pentecostal Churches finally got it right and spontaneously received the Holy Spirit?"
Answer: Jesus never abandoned his church, his church abandoned him. It wasn't until the likes of Martin Luther and others that these finally came back to Him. Some, however, are still stuck in their traditions of men, understandings of men, much like the Pharisees were often seen. Very distinct similarities between the Pharisees and some of the larger denominations can be seen even today. For some, the power of the position is more important than what got them in that position to begin with. They've lost their first love.
For a good example, look at what was told of the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love.
Because this church had lost it's first love, going only after governmental regulations, laws, rituals and traditions, they were in danger of losing their place in the lampstand.
Also, could you show me where all people spoke in tongues in the New Testament because that is not what the bible says. Many or some or a few doesn't mean all, so nice overexageration. Also, Jesus said to Baptize in the Name(singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This is how you become a disciple of Christ by being baptized with this formula. Any other type of Baptism without using this formula is not valid. Baptizing in the name of Jesus is also unscriptural, look at the context.
Lastly, you need to do your homework. All Christians were baptized in the trinitarian way from the start. Please read Irenaus, Polycarp, Origin, Igantius and you will see all of these men who personally knew the Apostles or their direct successors like Timothy always used the Trinitarian formula well before they called it the Trinity.
OH MY GOODNESSS!!!! FRED ANDERSON!
ARE YOU SERIOIUS? I am a Reformed Minister and you may not call the Trinity a man-made Tradition!!! How dare you!!! The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The Trinity was not formalized as a concept until the 300's, but they always preached one God with three distinct persons all of the same substance.
So, are you going to call the incarnation of Christ a Tradition of men? Are you going to call the 27 books of the New Testament Tradition of Men? Most Pentecostals believe in the Trinity, so Fred you are much like the Mormons!
You have a lot more to worry about than attacking Catholics, why not try the entire Protestant religion who thinks non-trinitarian are not Christians based on Scripture and historic record!
First- the trinity doctrine wasn't dogmatized into Christian theology until after 325 AD. We have no recorded sermons by Jesus or any apostle on the need to teach about a trinity. The Roman Catholic Church fathered the doctrine. The reformation took RCC doctrine with them when they split. Some traditions of men are hard to put down. Personally, I believe we need to stick to the original message preached on the day of Pentecost. Peter preached the gospel of teh death, burial and resurrection, and when asked how the hearers should respond to that message, he gave them Acts 2:38. Follow that with Acts 8, 10, and 19 and we see that NO-ONE was ever immersed in the trinity formula after the day of Pentecost. All NT Christians spoke in tonues when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The "Roman Road" so popular as the NT paln of salvation, wasn't penned until about 60 AD.~30years after Pentecost.
The funny thing is, that there are not 500 Million Pentacostals. The largest group of Pentecostals are the Assembly of God with 30 million people wordwide. Moreover, because pentecostals are so fractured and ununified it is difficult to address a true number.
An accurate number would be around 250 million; however, since there is no true sense of hiearchy, no unified set of doctrines and no final supreme court on what Pentacostalsim is per se; so within this number there are non-trinitarian groups, groups that say baptism is not needed and groups that say both for and against speaking tongues for salvation, then it is difficult to put an accurate number on a group of people who have such varying beliefs. Moreover, many of these Pentecostals who do not believe in the Trinity would not be considered Christian, but would be considered a charismatic group of people who love Christ but misunderstand who He is in His fullness.
Some call Charismatic Catholics a type of Pentecostal and this maybe true in their sense of emotion, but their beliefs are fully Catholic. Charismatic Catholics make up 250 million adherants within the 1.2 Billion Catholic population.
I hope my post wasnt taken offensivly, I did meet some really awsome people at that church that to this day still pray and look out for me as i do for them as well. The Charismatic worship is also a very good quality of these churchs that i respect greatly. I apoligize if my post was taken offensivly that was not my intent. God bless you all.
I am a member of a pentacostal church. I have been one for a nuber of years. Yes, there are some people that give us pentacostals a bad name,. This is not unlike many other faiths I could mention. The main point is that we all beleive in God, and have asked Jesus in our lives! "No one comes to the father except through me." On the dao od pentacost in the booki of acts, all of those people were in the upper room when the holy spirit fell on them. They spoke in other toungues that they did not know. Others that they were drunk, only to call it being drunk on "new wine." It happened way back then. The apostles did many mighty miricles in Jesus name, just as He commanded them. I like to say I attend a bible beleiving, charasmatic church. Scriptures SHOULD be studied, after all it is the word of GOD. I have been to a church where only the leader has a bible, and no body knows what God means by certain things that are said! That IS leading a flock astray, and keeping them down. They don't know that they don't know. I realize my kind of worshiping, and my church isn't for everyone. We will all be in heaven someday worshiping God together without denominations. We need to stop pointing our fingers at each other, and start praying, and worshiping together! Only if we really beleive in what the bible says is true.
The International Pentecostal Holiness Church is trinitarian. They do not believe that you must be baptized or speak in tongues to be saved.
Jesse (PHC Pastor)
I notice nobody responded to my questions...
dgnymn, you want Pentecostals to repent of what?
Believing in the gifts of the Spirit?
be "careful" of "some" not all the pentacostals, I attened one of these in highschool because it was my HS sweethearts church, I found it odd and unbiblical that some of the people at the chuch we're all about giving large offerings, and their emphisis that God would repay them for their offerings with even more money. In my opinion i would try not to be concerned at all or even consider being repaied 7 fold my offerings. God is not a money factory, and the one member I often sold lotery tickets to(i work at a gas station). He talked to us in youth group one day and actually (i may have misinturpreted his message but it seemed clear to me) that it was ok to gamble money if you gave the winnings to the church and that God will always increaseyour blessings for doing so. There were other people of the church that seemed to go to church as devils discuized as christians, There was another youth meeting where the same guy tried to "force" people to talk in toungs, we youth remained silent and almost terrified. This man was "commanding" people to use these "gifts" openly. another time he personally questioned me about when i was "saved"? at that point in my life i had never had a major life changing spiritual revelation I was only 16. My faith was all based on my upbringing in a church family. I belived in Jesus, had answers to all his questions but becuase I was never "slain in the spirit" or "spoke in toungs" i was put on the spot. I tried to explain that i was saved when I was younger when my mom explained the meaning behind Jesus' death. but the answer wasnt good enough. He demanded "What Chuch?" "What Pastor?" "what town?" "what year?" and in front of all these other people. Im glad i no longer have ties with that church. there definitly was some spiritual abuse going on. I felt it but refused to be a victim. however there were also a lot of good souls there as well. Being raised "united Methodist" this church was very alien to me, i went mainly for my Highschool sweety but the normal youth lessons, and worship service were a lot easier to get into. I dont view all pentacostalism as a bad thing, but I feel there were a good number of goats among the sheep there. Do i know for sure? no, only God does. And I pray that my impression of it was just an assumption, I met a lot of good people there and did learn some good things from it. There just appeared to be a hidden hostility behind some peoples smiles. To any non-pentacostals who are looking into it just BE ON GUARD. There are real Christians in their churches, they do have a good Charismatic spirit, but there is alot of supernatural obsession in some of its members. Remeber, Jesus comes FIRST, REPENT and Spread the good news. Just because someone preforms great signs dosent mean they are from God. Dont do what people tell you to just because they put you on the spot. Only the Father knows our hearts.
I'm rather uncomfortable believing things from the PH groups. They seem to exist in a kind of parallel universe to all other pentecostal/charismatic groups because they deny the trinity and teach that you have to be baptized in water plus speak in tongues in order to be saved. (There is another large group P.A.W. ,Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, that is in the non-trinitarian camp.)
What is needed so desperately worldwide is the Truth of scripture until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, [growing] into a mature man with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness. Then we will no longer be little children, tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching, by human cunning with cleverness in the techniques of deceit.
Eph 4:13-14 (HCSB)
"But what makes Nigeria as well as other African nations unique is their heavy emphasis – moreso than Pentecostalism in the West – on miracles, which incorporate traditional African beliefs, and material blessings.
“There are so many people who could have had bigger and better lives, but they could not achieve their destiny, because there was no one to lead them with a vision,” said Ejiah Ndifon, a Nigerian self-declared prophet, according to Germany’s media outlet Deutsche Welle on Friday.
Ndifon was formerly an engineer before founding the Pentecostal church the Royal Kingdom Citizen International based on promises of cures from poverty and disease."
::begin quote::
I guess the REAL question is - are there Apostles today??? Pentecostals may believe this, but the mainstream, Reformed churches do not, and neither do I!!! The Pentecostals need to continue to search the Scriptures. There were 12 original Apostles. It's not just Apostles who can plant churches. Anyone can do it, if called by God. What about missionaries who are called from other denominations?? The Pentecostals don't have the handled on this truth!!!!
::end quote::
dgnyn,
Just to clarify, as a person who attends a Pentacostal church, at least at my church we do not believe there are "modern-day" Official Apostles on par with the original Apostles. The Apostles and Prophets laid the foundation for the church (Ephesians 2:20), and if we claimed otherwise we would be re-making our foundation. We also believe the Old-Testament style Prophets stopped at John the Baptist (Luke 16:16)
We do however believe there are those with apostolistic and prophetic gifts and we sometimes give these people the label of "apostle" or "prophet".
Just wanted to clarify that not all Pentacostal churches hold to a "Modern-Day" "Official" Apostle & Prophet, but some just hold that the gift of prophecy and/or gift of apostolistic helps etc. is available to the church.
"And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ (i.e, false prophets) and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all[a]these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." Matthew 24:4-6:
Hope Page: http://itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
the body of Christ is in desperate need of true prophets
philomath777 and to others who support the pentecostal view,
That is all fine and good, that "Apostles/Prophets" still exist today, but why on earth should we believe the Pentecostal Church? Where did they come from, and can they trace their Apostolicity back to the Disciples? If not, do they believe in Spontaneous Apostolicity? How would that even work (if it could even work)? And, what is more, why did Christ abandon the Church for 1800 years until the first Pentecostal Churches finally got it right and spontaneously received the Holy Spirit?
It seems to me, that if one wants to continue this idea of Apostolic leaders within the Church, then one must accept either the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church.
There's a lot of confusion about the office of "prophet" and prophecy as one of the gifts of the Spirit. The gift of prophecy is primarily for edification, exhortation and comfort, rather than foretelling. An excellent book that looks at prophecy, character, checks and balances, is "Developing Your Prophetic Gifting," by Graham Cooke.
Those who believe that the office of apostle (or prophet) is over for today, to be consistent, must also admit that the office of pastor or teacher is over for today also. You can't just select one office out of 1 Corinthians 12/Ephesian 4 and say it's for today and the rest aren't. So I really think it's the "mainstream, Reformed," cessationists and others who also need to search the scriptures some more... As far as the titles, I really don't care - just do what God has called you to do...
I guess the REAL question is - are there Apostles today??? Pentecostals may believe this, but the mainstream, Reformed churches do not, and neither do I!!! The Pentecostals need to continue to search the Scriptures. There were 12 original Apostles. It's not just Apostles who can plant churches. Anyone can do it, if called by God. What about missionaries who are called from other denominations?? The Pentecostals don't have the handled on this truth!!!!
REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!!!
::begin quote::
Dannypoo: Was the prophecy directed to you and your wife personally? It is good that you judge all prophecy by the Word. Have you ever read the book, 'thus said the Lord?' by John Bevere. I highly recommend it. Did you know that if you receive 'prophecy' from a false prophet that it will contaminate your life?
::end quote::
It wasn't directed towards me or my wife personally. It was a general prophetic statement about our local church, that God would cause a "sudden" and "quick" revival. Nothing in it was doctrinally un-sound, before speaking it he got the approval of the board (elders) of the Church. I should also note that this type of thing is a rarity for our church, not something commonly done or done flippantly. I am also unfamiliar with the book you mentioned.
Dannypoo: Was the prophecy directed to you and your wife personally? It is good that you judge all prophecy by the Word. Have you ever read the book, 'thus said the Lord?' by John Bevere. I highly recommend it. Did you know that if you receive 'prophecy' from a false prophet that it will contaminate your life?
I go to a pentacostal church and am very open to the gifts. But I appreciate that a large pentacostal church/denom would issue a warning about false prophets. Even in my own church I am very critical of "prophecy" and judge all things by scripture. When my own Pastor gave us what he believed to be a Prophecy on sunday, my wife asked me what I thought after church (because she knows I'm more open to the spiritual gifts than even those inside many pentacostal churches). I said to her "well it appears doctrinally sound....but we need to judge it by scripture, and we need to see if it comes to pass, because if it doesn't we need to doubt anything else that comes out of his mouth and take the issue to the elders"
Just my thoughts
It's about time the alarm is sounded on this one!! But 'true' prophets are needed desperately. One true prophet that I know is one that many do not like because He tells it like it is. He is full of God's compassion but at the same time, he doesn't sugar coat the Truth.