Want Some Answers ???Pentecostalism
>>Dear Mark I must warn you. When you stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, it will be brought to your remembrance. I, we, do not have another Jesus. Praise God, I have the Jesus, totally of the Bible. My Jesus is not one of my imagination. He is the One totally from the Bible. You do not have that Jesus in totality. You may have Him in part - that is, if you do have the Jesus of God's plan of salvation.<<
It is scripture, not your miracle stories that give me a clear conscience regarding these issues. There is no question to my mind Pentecostalism is corrupt. So your warnings are shallow and empty. The ‘Jesus’ of Pentecostalism is shouted at and commanded to heal. His name is flippantly used and his followers make absurd claims. This 'jesus' and 'spirit' you follow are unlike the Biblical Persons.
To use the ‘Judgment Seat of Christ’ against those who disagree with your doctrine is a poor defence. The Bible says, “For we shall all give an account of ourselves” (1 Cor.10-11). “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more” (Rom.14:12-13). Paul intends we place the emphasis on ourselves, not with the eye on our brother, as you do.
>>How can you ignore His words of the gospels, of the Acts, of the O.T., of the epistles, re the Holy Spirit? As Peter says, "Holy men of old spoke" and it was "the Spirit of Christ within them". That is the Christ I know. Sadly, in the main, you do not.<<
Go read the other letters on my website. I have not ignored scripture at all, and my emails to you (full of Scripture) are also proof. But given your webpage and mail it’s hard to take what you say serious, you have more about miracle stories than the Bible.
>>Re tongues being gibberish - be warned. Jesus said that whoever said the work of the Holy Spirit was in danger of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. You have placed yourself in that position.<<
My original point still stands. To contribute modern tongues (gibberish) to the Holy Spirit is an insult to the Holy Spirit. That's another 'spirit' altogether. A spirit you know well which controls you and has shaped your thinking.
>>May I ask? Is it intellectual pride? Is it the carnal mind? Is it rebellion against the ways of God that are not our ways? Is it the sin of Adam still working - "I will be as God?" Is it the sin of self-dependence paramount in Adam that you (and I) inherited? With me, praise the Lord, I see that carnal self-dependence nailed to the Christ. With you, I feel you are not yet aware of Romans 7 being your experience and have not come into Romans 8. You need to repent of your sin, confessing them, plural, to the Lord and knowing the cleansing of the blood of Jesus. Are you so self-opinionated that you will not listen to a child of God who is somewhat like Timothy, knowing the scriptures from childhood? Again I say, "Repent. There is forgivenness with the Lord. Before it is too late". Yours is not an ignorant ignorance but an intellectual and carnal albeit wilfull ignorance.<<
It’s not uncommon for Pentecostals to have an unscriptural definition of a sin and holiness. Anyone who says their bragging is not of God. Anyone who rejects their gibberish, or disbelieves their ‘miracles’ - raising the dead, healings etc, they're called sinners by Pentecostals. Pentecostals have the unscriptural idea such people are proud, carnal and need to ‘repent of their sin before it’s too late’. What a weird idea people need to be ‘cleansed’ if they reject Pentecostalism.
>>Take heed of this warning. One thing. I think you are confused and unknowledgeable about the difference between Pentecostalism and Charismatics followed by the so-called Toronto Blessing (Laughing Move). Pentecostalism in the main is fairly pure in its manifestation. Nothing like you have mentioned - unless you researched something that the historians also knew nothing about, viz. demon possession<<
The fact is Pentecostals ‘laugh’, are 'slain' and 'speak in tongues'. Pentecostalism has promoted all these things. The answer is not to be ‘intellectual’ about differences but to realise the whole thing is erroneous and unscriptural. It’s you who are confused. To you, half of Pentecostalism is ‘of the devil’ (you say “disgusting, unscriptural”) and only those accepting your view are considered correct. So only your interpretations about ‘manifestations’, only your miracles are considered real, only what you say is considered right.
>>I asked you before if you had cast out demons. Tney are there by the millions in heathen countries in particular. I think you do not know much about that. Any case of exsposure as you quoted, would have been demon possession. If it had happened in my meeting, I would have quickly had the person restrained, clothed and would have cast out the demons. That manifestation was definitely not the HOLY Spirit. What of Legion?<<
You didn’t ask if I ‘had cast out demons’. But said with tongue speakers you had “seen so many demon possessed persons…not to even see the difference”. There's a real warning!!! Pentecostal services are to be avoided at all cost (according to you). It’s amazing you have the gall to turn around and say if I oppose tongue speaking, I’m opposing the Holy Spirit. What a joke. If you can’t tell the difference between a tongue speaker with a demon and one without, don’t expect others to embrace tongues. And "What of Legion?" Sounds like Legion is alive and well in Pentecostalism.
>>Pentecostalism had its basis on the Scriptures. Charismatics have a loose understanding of the Scriptures - and may I mention that I myself can pick out errors in the doctrines of Baptists, Brethren, Methodists, Anglican, Lutheraqn and of course, R.C.s as can anybody versed in the Word of God. So Pentes. and Charis. are not the only guilty ones even in your book if you are honest and unprejudiced. which I do not think you are. The Toronto Blessing was entirely not based on the Scriptures. It was error. Error produces demonic manifestations, as happened, even sexual movements. It was not something from the Word of God. It was demonic.<<
No doubt you can find errors with everyone but you. Pentecostalism is rotten right from the start. The 'slaying in the spirit' started at the birth of Pentecostalism. The European father of Pentecostalism (1906) “I was like Daniel, powerless under the divine touch….and slid down to the floor” “For a long time I was lying upon my back on the floor, speaking…” (When the Fire Fell. Pas. T.B.Barratt A Hansen & Sonner 1927 pg.103, 108). Another key figure in Pentecostalism in 1908 wrote, “Almost without my notice my body slipped gently to the floor, and I was lying under the power of God….down they went right and left, in the aisles….” (This is that. A.McPherson. Echo Park Evan. Ass, Inc 1923. pg.44). So these are the experiences of the first 'demonic' Pentecostals.
>>Whoever also refutes speaking in tongues, is refuting the book of Acts, the Epistles, the words of Jesus and the promises of the O.T. They also are following doctrines of demons and are perhaps in a worse position. Unfortunately, you have placed yourself in that class.<<
This is nonsense but it indicates how demonic Pentecostalism is. We are miles apart regarding the Bible and the gospel. The Jesus of the Bible doesn’t reject His children because they believe tongues ceased (1 Cor.13.8) and are prepared to say so. I have indicated my understanding of Acts and the Epistles and you have NOT shown that a ‘doctrine of demons’.
Apparently you make absurd claims without substance or thought to their accurateness. Whatever comes from your tongue, whatever you think is right must be right because you said it. Yet you won’t read what I say properly or study what the Bible says without your ‘experiences’ crowding your mind.
>>Why do you use subjective experiences to try and disprove the Word of God regarding tongues etc. when you cite all those terrible so-called manifestations of the Spirit? You are really in a very sorry position.<<
And you ‘use subjective experiences to try’ and prove your doctrine. All Pentecostals (and those you call 'demonic') ‘use subjective experiences to’ prove their doctrine. It’s safer to reject the whole than wallow in a confused ‘position’ not knowing what’s real or Satanic. When will you awake to the fact that Pentecostals embrace ‘all those terrible so-called manifestations’. You are just quibbling over differences and extremes, all according to your interpretation. When will you awake to the fact experiences can lead in any direction, prove anything or nothing.
>>As Paul withstood Peter to his face so I withstand you to your face. Why don't you ignore all those reports and seek the message of the Word of God which you really refuse to do?<<
I would be concerned if you spoke well of me. Why do I ‘ignore’ your 100 language tongue-speaking claim with the other miracle ‘reports’? Because God's Word tells me what to believe about the miracle gifts given to the early NT church. Not what you call real or demonic tongues. And because experiences can lead in any direction, prove anything or nothing. Every Pentecostal holds a different selection of 'manifestations' and blames others for not accepting them (as you).
And as said before, you are saying which miracle is real or false. You select ones you want me to believe. Yet we view the same 'report' with totally different interpretations. God doesn’t ask me to believe the claims of ‘so-called’ miracles workers today, but He does ask me to believe His Word.
>>Please find one verse that says speaking in tongues could ever be gibberish.<<
I agree, tongues of the Bible were real languages, today its 'gibberish'. Obvious unless one thinks gibberish is a real language. That’s ‘a very sorry position’ you have (the claim gibberish is a language).
>>Please find one verse that says that speaking in tongues will cease with the Apostles. Do not give 1 Cor. 13. If you do, it shows you do not understand what the apostle is saying there.<<
Oh I see, ‘tell me what the Bible says but don’t use the Bible’. And if it says tongues “will cease” don’t use that verse for it doesn’t mean tongues "will cease". On the occasions I provided verses and explanations why tongues ceased you ignored them and you just provide another miracle story as if that settles the question. Find me one verse that says tongues would "not cease" with the Apostles.
>>Actually, in all our communications, you have never disproved scripturally, one thing I have said. You have only ever used subjective experiences of people, research by unbelievers, emotionally-charged and prejudiced remarks with no true basis on the Word of God.<<
No one can ‘disprove’ what you have said, your mind is made up, no one can change it. YOU are the one using “subjective experiences” (of Pentecostals) to prove YOUR idea of Pentecostalism, not me. My quotes came from the Bible, Christians or Pentecostals (some you would call demonic Pentecostals). It’s Pentecostals who are ‘emotionally-charged and prejudiced…with no true basis on the Word of God’.
>>You even ignore the history of the early church for the first one hundred years when praying and worshipping in other tongues was a very important feature.<<
No I haven’t ignored “history of the early church”. We have covered this already (the second letter I posted). You have ignored my comments. What I said was –
“There is clear evidence the sign gifts occurred during the apostolic era - but not thereafter. Note the way these verses refer to the miracles in the past tense indicating the signs were already been withdrawn - 2 Cor.12:12 Heb.2:2-4. In the three centuries that followed that era there's only two references to tongues-speaking [Montanus and Tertullian also a Montanist]. The early church fathers opposed Montanus as heretical because of his prophesying and tongue speaking. There are no genuine uses of glossolalia in the post-apostolic era because it had ceased. Chrysostom stated categorically that it ceased by his time. The only tongue speakers during the first 500 years of the church were branded as heretics. It's not until the Pentecostal denominations of the 20th century that we have the modern tongue speaking practice”.