The Beginning of the New Testament Chruch.

[InSeasonOut]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

Here is the answer to three of your questions:

Okay, now we're getting somewhere :)

I agree with everything on your post above, except I still think we should discuss Acts 7:38 more, in how they were "the church.."

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

As I stated before, the Lord Jesus did not build the New Testament church in the wilderness wanderings of the nation of Israel. Stephen is clearly using the word church as in a congregation of people; not as a New Testament church.

I agree, but this is where it gets technical and confusing I the sense that terms need to be defined. I agree Jesus did not build the "NT church in the wilderness" , but I believe he did "call out" (maybe not necessarily "build") the church in the wilderness (Israel - not NT church)

Not to get sidetracked by the Godhead, but "the angel of the Lord" ( Exodus 3:2-6) was said to bring Israel out of Egypt. And the LORD God was also said to bring them out of Egypt. (Exodus 13:21 ; 14:19-24). There's way more to it than this, but to speak plainly, I'm saying I believe Jesus is the angel of the Lord. - So Jesus called out Israel (the church of 7:37-39) from the Egypt, and Jesus called out Christians (the church of 1 Corinth. 12:28 for example) from the world (type of Egypt).

I'm not saying the church in the wilderness was part of the "NT church", in fact I don't make the distinction at all between, OT church and NT church. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying... 7:38 is just a "church" in the sense of a congregation, as you said, or "called out assembly from Egypt". - This "church" , consisting of Israel, has always been a ":church" - by definition - and meaning they were not to go back to Egypt.

So when I say the church began with Israel, im not saying NT church, i mean by the definition above. I believe there is no distinction between OT church and NT church, its just "the church" (by definition). When Jesus began to "build" the church in his ministry, it only consisted of Israel, (Matthew 10:5-6). Then after Jesus died on the cross and rose again, this event made it possible for the church to become "the body" (Ephesians 2:16) at Pentecost - Comparing Acts 1:5 with 1 Corinthians 12:13. Allowing both Jews and Gentiles to be the church.

I will admit, this might be the hardest thing i ever studied, im not trying to complicate it, im just trying to think it thru still as im still figuring it all out. Hopefully i communicated this, in such a way that my understanding is not unfruitful.

Again, i hope this clears things up...

-Jake.

[Alan]

1 hour ago, InSeasonOut said:

Okay, now we're getting somewhere :)

I agree with everything on your post above, except I still think we should discuss Acts 7:38 more, in how they were "the church.."

I agree, but this is where it gets technical and confusing I the sense that terms need to be defined. I agree Jesus did not build the "NT church in the wilderness" , but I believe he did "call out" (maybe not necessarily "build") the church in the wilderness (Israel - not NT church)

Not to get sidetracked by the Godhead, but "the angel of the Lord" ( Exodus 3:2-6) was said to bring Israel out of Egypt. And the LORD God was also said to bring them out of Egypt. (Exodus 13:21 ; 14:19-24). There's way more to it than this, but to speak plainly, I'm saying I believe Jesus is the angel of the Lord. - So Jesus called out Israel (the church of 7:37-39) from the Egypt, and Jesus called out Christians (the church of 1 Corinth. 12:28 for example) from the world (type of Egypt).

I'm not saying the church in the wilderness was part of the "NT church", in fact I don't make the distinction at all between, OT church and NT church. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying... 7:38 is just a "church" in the sense of a congregation, as you said, or "called out assembly from Egypt". - This "church" , consisting of Israel, has always been a ":church" - by definition - and meaning they were not to go back to Egypt.

So when I say the church began with Israel, im not saying NT church, i mean by the definition above. I believe there is no distinction between OT church and NT church, its just "the church" (by definition). When Jesus began to "build" the church in his ministry, it only consisted of Israel, (Matthew 10:5-6). Then after Jesus died on the cross and rose again, this event made it possible for the church to become "the body" (Ephesians 2:16) at Pentecost - Comparing Acts 1:5 with 1 Corinthians 12:13. Allowing both Jews and Gentiles to be the church.

I will admit, this might be the hardest thing i ever studied, im not trying to complicate it, im just trying to think it thru still as im still figuring it all out. Hopefully i communicated this, in such a way that my understanding is not unfruitful.

Again, i hope this clears things up...

-Jake.

Jake,

In my understanding, you are complicating the issue through a forced interpretation of Acts 7:38 and through a miss-application of 1Corinthians 12:13 with Acts 1:5 and other passages.

1 hour ago, InSeasonOut said:

Stephen is clearly using the word church as in a congregation of people; not as a New Testament church.

Edit Note: Although the wording is the same, I meant to quote the original quote (Alan's quote)

The definition of the 'church is the wilderness' is a congregation of people (the nation of Israel), called out of Egypt. In the sermon in Acts 7:1-53, Stephen is clearly trying to preach to the unbelieving Jews that they, in numerous incidents, rejected God and His will. Stephen gives the story of Abraham leaving Mesopotamia,  the rejection of Joseph (a type of Christ), Moses, and how they  have now rejected Christ. Stephen is not referring to the New Testament church at all. I do think that, through typology, you are reading too much into Stephen's usage of the Lord bringing the congregation out of Egypt. I will give one example in my next paragraph.

You said, "I believe there is no distinction between OT church and NT church, its just "the church" (by definition). When Jesus began to "build" the church in his ministry, it only consisted of Israel, (Matthew 10:5-6). Then after Jesus died on the cross and rose again, this event made it possible for the church to become "the body" (Ephesians 2:16) at Pentecost - Comparing Acts 1:5 with 1 Corinthians 12:13. Allowing both Jews and Gentiles to be the church." This is partially true and partially false. Pentecost was not the time that it was possible to be a part of the body of Christ; at the moment of the death of Christ it was possible. I you read the whole passage of Ephesians 2:1-22 you will discover a great fact: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far  off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." Ephesians 2:13 & 14 When the Lord Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, at that point, the Law, the Old Testament, was abolished. The Law, the Old Testament, was abolished at the ministry of the Lord Jesus at the cross of Calvary and the New Covenant, the New Testament, began.

You referenced Ephesians 2:16 but you did not reference Ephesians 2:20. Ephesians 2:20 is the thrust of this thread. This thread is simply that the Lord Jesus is the 'head,' the 'beginning,' the 'cornerstone,' of the church as Paul said in Ephesians 2:20 Sometimes, I feel, that you are trying to get around, or complicate, this doctrine by miss-using typology, Matthew 10:5& 6Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 to say something they are not saying. In 1 Corinthians 12:12, (look at the context of 1 Corinthians 12:13), Paul clearly states, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ." Our salvation is in Christ. When a person received, or trusted in, Christ, in His earthy ministry (before Acts 1:8), they were part of the family of God; a part of Christ. The disciples who received the baptism in Acts 2:1-4 were already, before Acts 1:5-2:4,saved, and a part of the Body of Christ. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:11-13 The Lord Jesus, a Jew, came unto His own people, Israel, and, as a whole, rejected Him. But, salvation is not by the will of man nor of bloodline (nationality). Whether Jew or Gentile, whoever received Christ, or trusted in Christ, is born (born again), into the family of God.

Alan

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Alan
edit (in green coloring) stike-out I deleted the example

[InSeasonOut]

5 minutes ago, Alan said:

The definition of the 'church is the wilderness' is a congregation of people (the nation of Israel), called out of Egypt. In the sermon in Acts 7:1-53, Stephen is clearly trying to preach to the unbelieving Jews that they, in numerous incidents, rejected God and His will. Stephen gives the story of Abraham leaving Mesopotamia,  the rejection of Joseph (a type of Christ), Moses, and how they  have now rejected Christ. Stephen is not referring to the New Testament church at all.

Yes i already understand this. I did say Stephen was not referring to the NT church

7 minutes ago, Alan said:

You said, "I believe there is no distinction between OT church and NT church, its just "the church" (by definition). When Jesus began to "build" the church in his ministry, it only consisted of Israel, (Matthew 10:5-6). Then after Jesus died on the cross and rose again, this event made it possible for the church to become "the body" (Ephesians 2:16) at Pentecost - Comparing Acts 1:5 with 1 Corinthians 12:13. Allowing both Jews and Gentiles to be the church." This is partially true and partially false. Pentecost was not the time that it was possible to be a part of the body of Christ; at the moment of the death of Christ it was possible

Correct.... you misunderstood me.... Yes "at the moment of the death of Christ it was possible" ; "to be a part of the body of Christ" .... but that did not actually happen UNTIL Pentecost, in other words, AT Penetecost, even though as Eph. 2:16 says it was made possible by the Cross.

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

I you read the whole passage of Ephesians 2:1-22 you will discover a great fact: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far  off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." Ephesians 2:13 & 14 When the Lord Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, at that point, the Law, the Old Testament, was abolished. The Law, the Old Testament, was abolished at the ministry of the Lord Jesus at the cross of Calvary and the New Covenant, the New Testament, began.

Absolutely

13 minutes ago, Alan said:

You referenced Ephesians 2:16 but you did not reference Ephesians 2:20. Ephesians 2:20 is the thrust of this thread. This thread is simply that the Lord Jesus is the 'head,' the 'beginning,' the 'cornerstone,' of the church as Paul said in Ephesians 2:20 Sometimes, I feel, that you are trying to get around, or complicate, this doctrine by miss-using typology, Matthew 10:5& 6Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 to say something they are not saying

Ephesians 2:16-20, is basically in short summary, saying Jews and Gentiles are now one body, made possible by the cross.

19-20 "Now therefore ye (Gentiles) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; "

Let me quote theses scriptures and so, in response you can elaborate...

Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

What im saying is Jesus did not go to Samaritans or Gentiles , only to Israel - Just as the text says - but you said this is something they are not saying?

1 Corinthians 12:13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

This deals with a question i asked, which you are yet to answer.... 1. How are we baptized into "one body" ? (not the church) 2. When did this first happen?

If someone were to ask me that, i would answer : 1 We are baptized into the one body by the Spirit. 2 This first happened on the day of Pentecost.

And let me remind you, that you have just said :

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

I never said that in John 20:22 that the disciples were, “baptized with the Holy Ghost.”

and:

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

I never stated that the disciples were, “baptized with the Holy Ghost' prior to Acts 1:5

Thanks for your patience.

[Alan]

Jake said, "Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. What im saying is Jesus did not go to Samaritans or Gentiles , only to Israel - Just as the text says - but you said this is something they are not saying? Here is what I said, "According to any body's reasoning, John 20:21-23, is doctrinally in the New Testament; after the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:16 Also, Matthew 10:5-6 has no bearing on the start of the New Testament church nor on the lesson of this thread." I never said, "... this is something they are not saying?" I would appreciate it you would not miss-quote me, nor add an interpretation to a passage that I did not say, hint, nor imply. I said that the ministry to Israel, the Jews, had no bearing on the issue that the Lord Jesus started the church in the days of His ministry on the earth. Also, the Lord Jesus, on occasion, went to Samaria and had dealings with Gentiles (see when the Lord was in Samaria in John 4:4-42, the Lord and the Roman Centurion in  Luke 7:1-10, the Greeks in John 12:20-23 and the woman of Canaan, Matthew 15:21-28). So, you are mistaken in my words, thoughts, and beliefs of Matthew 10:5-6

Jake,

You seem to ignore the purpose of this thread, continually repeat those passages that are not in direct reference to the subject of this thread (Acts 7:38, etc...), quote me incorrectly, add to my comments, and somewhat ignored my adequate explanation of those passages when I do deal with them in order to find fault with the clear teaching of Paul the Apostle in Ephesians 1:22 & 23 and 2:19 & 20, 1 Corinthians 12:28 & 29 and the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 16:18 and John 20:21-23

 Furthermore, I have clearly proved that the Lord Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:15-17, while He was fulfilling His ministry on the earth.

The issue, in my estimation, is that you need to stop trying to find fault, nor twist my words, in order to try and convince me of your beliefs. I simply believe the words of the Lord Jesus and Paul the apostle.

Alan

Edited June 9, 2017 by Alan
spelling & grammer (twice)

[InSeasonOut]

16 minutes ago, Alan said:

I never said, "... this is something they are not saying?" I would appreciate it you would not miss-quote me nor add and interpretation to a passage that I did not say, hint, nor imply. I said that the ministry to Israel, the Jews, had no bearing on the issue that the Lord Jesus started the church in the days of His ministry on the earth.

ohhkay... sorry about that. Thanks for clarifying. My point in using Matt. 10 was to say the early church consisted only of Jews. This is an easy fact. The 12 disciples were all Jews. This was all I was saying with this scripture. (but you said : "I feel, that you are trying to get around, or complicate, this doctrine by miss-using typology, Matthew 10:5& 6Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 to say something they are not saying " as if you believe otherwise than what the text plainly said. Obviously Jesus had dealings with the Samaritans, but it does not contradict Matt 10, - but anyway this is besides the point.

24 minutes ago, Alan said:

You seem to ignore the purpose of this thread, continually repeat those passages that are not in direct reference to the subject of this thread

Alan, we were on the same page when you said :

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

Here is the answer to three of your questions:

Then all I said was...

3 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

I agree with everything on your post above, except I still think we should discuss Acts 7:38 more, in how they were "the church.."

I then gave a sincere and direct response to you, which I thought was relevant. We even had more agreements, even though you misunderstood me, which I pointed out. I then suggested we discuss 7:38 - Was this not okay? I thought it was relevant. It seemed we were making progress, and then I asked you the questions you were yet to answer, since you only answered 3. May I ask you to answer the other ones or is that not okay? I even made a separate thread but you have not answered them there either.

1 hour ago, InSeasonOut said:

1. How are we baptized into "one body" ? (not the church) 2. When did this first happen?

If someone were to ask me that, i would answer : 1 We are baptized into the one body by the Spirit. 2 This first happened on the day of Pentecost

I;m not saying your avoiding these questions... but these were the easiest ones!    :)

35 minutes ago, Alan said:

The issue, in my estimation, is that you need to stop trying to find fault, nor twist my words, in order to try and convince me of your beliefs. I simply believe the words of the Lord Jesus and Paul the apostle.

      :(           I'm not "trying"... if you think this way, sorry, it was a misunderstanding.... just like you misunderstood me, 2 posts ago. It happens.

I can't help but feel like this becoming contentious, like you said you simply believe the words of the Lord Jesus and Paul the apostle ; implying I don't?  :(

 

[Alan]

2 minutes ago, InSeasonOut said:

May I ask you to answer the other ones or is that not okay? I even made a separate thread but you have not answered them there either.

1 hour ago, InSeasonOut said:

If you will notice my past history of posting on OnLine Baptist I do not involve myself with every thread (for various reasons which change from time to time).

 

5 minutes ago, InSeasonOut said:

I can't help but feel like this becoming contentious, like you said you simply believe the words of the Lord Jesus and Paul the apostle ; implying I don't?  :(

The continuing asking the same questions, in different ways, saying things I did not say (nor hint, nor imply), has not helped my understanding of what you true intentions are at times.  In my thoughts, the bringing up of Acts 7:38, Matthew 10:5 & 6, and the other passages (after the second time they were brought up), indicated to me that you were trying to trap me in my words in order to discredit my belief.

Yes, I do sometimes wonder what you really believe about the original postings concerning the clear teaching of Paul the Apostle in Ephesians 1:22 & 23 and 2:19 & 20, 1 Corinthians 12:28 & 29 and the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 16:18 and John 20:21-23  and that the Lord Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:15-17, while He was fulfilling His ministry on the earth. These passages are clear in their meaning and interpretation.

Alan

[InSeasonOut]

2 minutes ago, Alan said:

The continuing asking the same questions, in different ways, saying things I did not say (nor hint, nor imply), has not helped my understanding of what you true intentions are at times.  In my thoughts, the bringing up of Acts 7:38, Matthew 10:5 & 6, and the other passages (after the second time they were brought up), indicated to me that you were trying to trap me in my words in order to discredit my belief.

Brother, in no way was this the case. If you look back over the last few posts, you'll see we have a lot of agreements. Sure I ask a lot of questions but I believe they were important to the discussion. Sorry we didn't see that the same way.

[Alan]

I am trying to be very understanding in this matter.

If there are any of the other brethren that would like to comment; please feel free to do so.

[Alan]

Brethren,

I do want to thank all of you for enjoying these lessons and the discussions.

Alan

[TheSword1227]

On 6/5/2017 at 8:24 PM, Alan said:

The Beginning of the Church

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Ephesians 2:19 & 20 The foundation, the chief corner stone of the church, is the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus founded His church during His earthly ministry. The Lord Jesus started, while He was on the earth, the church. “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

The Lord is the foundation, the corner stone of the church and the prophets and the apostles are stones set above the foundation. The foundation of the church was set at the ministry of the Lord Jesus and the apostles and prophets continued the building of the church.

Concerning the 'head' of the church, Paul the Apostle was given this doctrine, “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all thins to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all things.” Ephesians 1:22 & 23 The Lord Jesus is the 'head' of the church.

The Prophet and Messenger of the Messiah

John the Baptist is a messenger from God. Those who reject his message, and his baptism, are not following the messenger of God. “And what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” Luke 7:26 & 27

The individuals in the 'Christian' realm who reject the message, and the mode of baptism, is rejecting the words of the messenger and prophet of God to the church.

The Apostle Paul stated, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gift of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?" 1 Corinthians 12:28 & 29

The baptism of John the Baptist, as a messenger and prophet from God, is the baptism for all those who trust in the Lord Jesus and is the only mode of baptism acceptable in the New Testament. The term, 'Baptist,' is a title; it is not the last name of John.

Concerning those who reject the baptism of John

If a person rejects the baptism of John the Baptist, or his followers, than that person is not not scripturally baptized, and, according to the scriptures, he is like the Pharisees and hypocrites. “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” Luke 7:29 and 30

The different denominations in the 'Christian' realm, sprinkling, pouring, infant baptism, baptism for the dead (Mormons), who reject the immersion method of John the Baptist are in serious error.

The Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist

All of the apostles of the Lord Jesus were baptized by John the Baptist. Whether or not the term, or title, 'Baptist' is after their name, is immaterial an adding of the requirements of a belief in the scriptures, a 'straw man,' and a non-issue. “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” Acts 1:22 God only has to give the man of God the term, or office, or calling, or title, 'once,' to make that term, title, office, doctrine, mode of service, scriptural and binding to the saints.

The Giving of the Holy Spirit

The Lord Jesus is the giver of the Holy Spirit to those who are saved. The apostles, as part of the foundation of the church, are the examples of the church. “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whoe soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:21-23

The apostles, as part of the foundation of the church, are an example on how the Lord Jesus is guiding the saints in the New Testament church. For example. As the Lord Jesus sent the apostles around the world as a witness; so is every saint, every church, to be a witness. Matthew 29:1-20 As the Lord Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles; so He gives every one who trusts in Him the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. Ephesians 4:30 There is is no 'tarrying,' or 'waiting,' for the Holy Spirit,' for any saint in the New Testament Church.

The Baptism at Pentecost

The filling of the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost for empowerment to witness; not to start the church. The Lord Jesus said, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Acts 1:8

The Lord Jesus had previously, in John 20:21-23, given the apostles the Holy Ghost. Now, the Lord Jesus is stating for them to remain in Jerusalem to tarry for the 'power' of the Holy Ghost for witnesses, soul-winning, the gift of tongues, to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. The Lord Jesus clearly states they were to receive 'power;' they were not to receive the Holy Spirit, but 'power.'

 

 

 

Hi Alan. Great post. I do have a question concerning the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is this the same baptism that Pentecostals promote which they say speaking in tongues is one evidence of? If this is the very same baptism, then why don't other denominations follow suit? Why do many Protestants not promote the gifts of tongues, etc? Instead they seem to believe that one receives the Holy Spirit at salvation. Did these gifts cease?

I hope I'm not off topic.

Edited June 24, 2017 by TheSword1227

[Alan]

Sword,

Hello. Thank you for enjoying the posts. I do hope to get to know one another better in the days ahead. The questions, though good questions, are somewhat off topic, but I will briefly answer them.

Based on what I know of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the scriptures, through my personal experience with Charismatics, and a knowledge of the Charismatic Movement (starting from Charles Parham, William Seymour, etc...), the baptism that the Pentecostals promote is not the same baptism as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as given in the scriptures.

The Biblical tongues is the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to speak in a foreign language, in order to preach the gospel; Acts 2:1-36 The tongues, as started by Charles Parham, up to this day, is not biblical speaking in tongues.

The gift of biblical tongues ceased with the completion of the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 13:8 and 10, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. ... But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The biblical gift of speaking in different languages, special prophecies, and special knowledge, ceased at the completion of the 'perfect' word of God: the New Testament Scriptures.

As a whole, Baptists, and Protestants, and others, have seen the error of the Charismatics and will not partake of their mistaken beliefs. At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit indwells every believer: Ephesians 4:30 I will add one thought. A lot of saints are sealed with the Holy Spirit but do not have the power of the Holy Spirit for service: Acts 1:8

I know these are very brief answers and other questions arise, but, another thread will have to take care of them.

Again, I am happy to hear from you, hope we can have more discussions in the days ahead and become better acquainted.

Alan

Edited June 24, 2017 by Alan
capatilization

[Invicta]

Thanks Alan. 

Parham et al did not start the tongues movement.  Rev Wm Goode writing in 1833, about the tongues movement at that time, said after listing many similar instances throughout history said there were probably always pockets of such appearing, but have been, perhaps unwisly, swept under the carpet, as it were.

Goode was writing about the Irvingite movement, later known as the Catholic Apostolic Church. This church continued into the 20th century.  One of my  dad's sisters attended one of their churches in the 1920s  in London.

Charles Wesley shared a hotel room with one of the French Prohets, he said that the man gobbled like a turkey cock all night long.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Invicta

[Alan]

I have read about Wm Goode, and other isolated incidents such as he records, and as you mentioned Wesley.  I am not totally convinced enough to say that they were the start of the modern Charismatic Movement nor am I sure of what truly happened in these isolated incidents. Among foreign cultures (specifically heathen), speaking gibberish has happened periodically. I am of the persuasion these incidents are not of the Lord. I do not discount the information given; but, as far the modern Charismatic Movement I start with Parham and Seymour.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Alan
deleted a phrase

[Invicta]

There were the Shakers who carried o to the 20th century. Goode says the were founded by James and Jane Wardley, who werer Quakers They took on the spirit of the French prophets and became known as the Shaking Quakers, later known as the Shakers. 'Mother Anne' was a later convert.  The Shakers disbanded in the 1950s to "send our spirit" into the world.  This was about the time that the charismatic movement took over pentecostals. Marx and Engels were influeced by the shakers, and according to the later got their communistic ideas ffom them  Engels is reported as saying to the dying Marx "Remember the Shakers" 

Goode's book was republished some years ago under the title of Charismatic Confusion. (K&M Books AD2000, ISBN 0 9523041 4 7) It has some additional material added, an intoduction and some apendices on the modern movements. I did read somewhere, I can't remember where.  that Marx was influenced by another chafrismtic, Joanna Southcott, possibly even a follower of her.  

[Alan]

On 2017/6/24 at 9:56 PM, Alan said:

Sword,

Hello. Thank you for enjoying the posts. I do hope to get to know one another better in the days ahead. The questions, though good questions, are somewhat off topic, but I will briefly answer them.

Based on what I know of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the scriptures, through my personal experience with Charismatics, and a knowledge of the Charismatic Movement (starting from Charles Parham, William Seymour, etc...), the baptism that the Pentecostals promote is not the same baptism as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as given in the scriptures.

The Biblical tongues is the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to speak in a foreign language, in order to preach the gospel; Acts 2:1-36 The tongues, as started by Charles Parham, up to this day, is not biblical speaking in tongues.

The gift of biblical tongues ceased with the completion of the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 13:8 and 10, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. ... But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The biblical gift of speaking in different languages, special prophecies, and special knowledge, ceased at the completion of the 'perfect' word of God: the New Testament Scriptures.

As a whole, Baptists, and Protestants, and others, have seen the error of the Charismatics and will not partake of their mistaken beliefs. At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit indwells every believer: Ephesians 4:30 I will add one thought. A lot of saints are sealed with the Holy Spirit but do not have the power of the Holy Spirit for service: Acts 1:8

I know these are very brief answers and other questions arise, but, another thread will have to take care of them.

Again, I am happy to hear from you, hope we can have more discussions in the days ahead and become better acquainted.

Alan

 

On 2017/6/25 at 7:21 AM, Alan said:

I have read about Wm Goode, and other isolated incidents such as he records, and as you mentioned Wesley.  I am not totally convinced enough to say that they were the start of the modern Charismatic Movement nor am I sure of what truly happened in these isolated incidents. Among foreign cultures (specifically heathen), speaking gibberish has happened periodically. I am of the persuasion these incidents are not of the Lord. I do not discount the information given; but, as far the modern Charismatic Movement I start with Parham and Seymour.

 

 

On 2017/6/27 at 7:25 AM, Invicta said:

There were the Shakers who carried o to the 20th century. Goode says the were founded by James and Jane Wardley, who werer Quakers They took on the spirit of the French prophets and became known as the Shaking Quakers, later known as the Shakers. 'Mother Anne' was a later convert.  The Shakers disbanded in the 1950s to "send our spirit" into the world.  This was about the time that the charismatic movement took over pentecostals. Marx and Engels were influeced by the shakers, and according to the later got their communistic ideas ffom them  Engels is reported as saying to the dying Marx "Remember the Shakers" 

 

As I stated before, the issue with the Charismatic, and/or, Pentecostal Movement, is off topic.

I gave a very brief answer to a question by a newcomer to the forum and want to keep it that way. I also stated that, as far as I am concerned, the modern Charismatic Movement started with Charles Parham and William Seymour. The information given by Goode is irrelevant in this study. I gave a brief, and a deliberate incomplete answer in order not to get off topic too much. Nor do I agree with the following statement, "This was about the time that the charismatic movement took over pentecostals."  I do not intend to go into a history with Goode, or any other church historian, on any of my statements. My statements stand as written.

I have no intention for this thread on, "The Beginning of the New Testament Church," being taken over by a study on the Charismatics.

Alan