Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen

What's wrong with it is that it's crazy, pure and simple. It's an example of peer pressure, groupthink and delusional thinking. For about 1800 years, that sort of thing was, in no way, a part of worship or accepted behaviour. So either one believes that, after Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was absent from the Earth until the 1800s Charismatic movement, or that these are actions that have nothing to do with him.

And what happened at Pentecost? People started babbling in different languages they didn't even know, and some of the men laughed at them and said they were drunk. You haven't been around for 2000 years you don't know how christians worshipped. You think Rome was the only church and I assure you it was not, the church came before the R.C.C. even came into existence. Go read the OT, people worshipped the Lord just like these Pentecostals were. Even David danced before the Lord wearing an Ephod.

2 Samuel 6:14-15

14 Then David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting and with the sound of the trumpet.

People worshipped the Lord for more than 2000 years, what he gave us 2000 years ago was a name and a face, albeit now all we have is his name.

Adj, I wouldn't say more until you research the seven different Hebrew words, with different definitions, that all get translated as "praise" in English. Then get a concordance and see which ones David wrote into the different Psalms in the OT. I'll tell you one of them is "Halah", and it literally means to "rave upon the Lord/to be clamourously foolish before the Lord". The word Halah is translated as "praise" in the "hallelujah Psalms" because they either begin or end with that word.

HALAH translated in the King James Bible as:
 

1. Praise: I Chron. 16:4; 23:5,30; 25:3; II Chron. 8:14; 20:19,21 (1st); 23:13; 29:30; 31:2; Psalms 22:22,23,26; 35:18; 56:4,10 (both); 63:5; 69:30,34; 74:21; 102:18; 104:35; 106:1,48; 107:32; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1 (all); 113:9; 115:17,18; 116:19; 117:1,2; 119:164,175; 135:1 (all),3,21; 145:2; 146:1 (both),2 (1st),10; 147:1 (1st),12,20; 148: all; 149:1,3,9; 150; all; Jer. 20:13; 31:7; Joel 2:26

2. Praised: II Sam. 22:4; I Chron. 16:25,36; 23:5; II Chron 5:13; 7:6; 30:21; Ps. 18:3; 48:1; 96:4; 113:3; 145:3

3. Praises: II Chron. 29:30

4. Praising: II Chron. 5:13

5. Glory: I Chron. 16:10; Ps. 105:3; 106:5; Is. 41:16; Jer. 4:2; 9:24

6. Boast: Psalms 34:2; 44:8

Seven Hebrew Words for Praise

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by adjensen

 

What's wrong with it is that it's crazy, pure and simple. It's an example of peer pressure, groupthink and delusional thinking. For about 1800 years, that sort of thing was, in no way, a part of worship or accepted behaviour. So either one believes that, after Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was absent from the Earth until the 1800s Charismatic movement, or that these are actions that have nothing to do with him.

And what happened at Pentecost? People started babbling in different languages they didn't even know, and some of the men laughed at them and said they were drunk.

But they were speaking languages, not gibberish, and it was purposeful -- they were spreading the Gospel to Jews who didn't speak the local language.

I have spent time researching Pentecostal speaking in tongues, and I'm not aware of any instance in the modern era where a person who didn't know a human language was able to "channel" it, and linguists who analyzed the non-human languages came to the conclusion that it was not language at all -- it was just random phraseologies that people believed was language but couldn't possibly be.

If that's true, that, structurally, it is just random noises, then what does that do to "the interpretation of tongues"? Well, that's obviously not valid, either, and it all just falls apart from there.

You think Rome was the only church and I assure you it was not, the church came before the R.C.C. even came into existence.

Please don't try schooling me in early church history. I've spent many years studying that particular aspect of the development of Christianity. I have never said that the Roman church is the "true church", I'm on record, in fact, for saying that if there ever was a true church, is disappeared before 1054AD, probably long before that. I am a Roman Catholic merely because that's the closest I can get to that true church.

Look, as I said, I am not against non-stoic worship, what I am against is crazy behaviour that makes a mockery of faith. Did David scream gibberish at the top of his lungs? Run laps around Jerusalem, shouting and waving his hands? I kind of doubt it.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I have spent time researching Pentecostal speaking in tongues,

Apparently not enough time or maybe from antichrist sources. We have had foreign visitors come who were able to understand the speaking in tongues. It still happens in the Church.

reply to post by adjensen

But they were speaking languages, not gibberish, and it was purposeful -- they were spreading the Gospel to Jews who didn't speak the local language.

2 forms of speaking in tongues. One was done as a sign that the Holy Spirit a.k.a. Breath of Life had come to the Apostles. The second supposedly was direct communication with God, an angelic language and yeah that makes sense why linguists can't make sense of it because the Lord likes to frustrate those who think they are wise and knowledgeable. You cannot say here that it was not purposeful, perhaps it is not purposeful to you, but you are not God. You are making a lot of assumptions without the knowledge of God.

The first "speaking in tongues" was speaking in a language not known to the speaker, and the interpreter was the one who could understand that language because you had Hebrew, hellenists and latin speaking peoples all in the same room. The first one was supposed to fade away. Paul talked about these things at one point, if my memory serves me well.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I have spent time researching Pentecostal speaking in tongues,

Apparently not enough time or maybe from antichrist sources. We have had foreign visitors come who were able to understand the speaking in tongues. It still happens in the Church.

Really? Someone showed up from Germany or someplace, and a parishioner with absolutely no knowledge of the German language started speaking in German?

You should carefully document such a phenomenon, it would most certainly qualify you for the James Randi $1,000,000 challenge.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

The second supposedly was direct communication with God, an angelic language and yeah that makes sense why linguists can't make sense of it because the Lord likes to frustrate those who think they are wise and knowledgeable.

Well, we will probably have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe, for one minute, that Pentecostals speaking in tongues are channeling God. Like I said, these studies have shown not only that it is not a language (not "can't make sense of it", but they take it apart linguistically, and it is simply not a language,) but they've also shown how it is learned behaviour. TJ's dismissal of such scholarship is irrelevant -- he dismisses all scholarship that disagrees with him and follows someone who plagiarizes and changes actual academics' work to pervert what the trained scholar has found through unbiased research.

The 1800s and early 1900s were a very strange period, spiritually, and it is no coincidence that all of these extremely schismatic faiths arose as a result of Christian reaction to the Age of Enlightenment and globalism. The belief that one must speak in tongues to "prove" that they are saved is not Biblical (there is no evidence that everyone spoke in tongues,) but is actually rooted in a twisted view of John Calvin's theology -- the only way that one knows that they have "true faith", as opposed to temporary faith, is through a verified conversion experience, which the Pentecostals have distilled down to speaking in tongues.

reply to post by adjensen

Look, as I said, I am not against non-stoic worship, what I am against is crazy behaviour that makes a mockery of faith. Did David scream gibberish at the top of his lungs? Run laps around Jerusalem, shouting and waving his hands? I kind of doubt it.

Dude, read my post. David wrote the Psalms and in numerous places he said to praise the Lord with a halah praise which is basically an absurd, exuberance that seems silly to onlookers. That's just one of the seven different words that get translated as "praise" in English. Another of those words is dancing, another is a shout at the top of one's lungs. When you take an exegetical approach to those words in Psalms, David wrote to praise God in those different manners. So not only is it scriptural, but it's safe to assume that if David wrote instructing to praise and worship that way, that he probably praised and worshipped that way himself.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Look, as I said, I am not against non-stoic worship, what I am against is crazy behaviour that makes a mockery of faith. Did David scream gibberish at the top of his lungs? Run laps around Jerusalem, shouting and waving his hands? I kind of doubt it.

Dude, read my post. David wrote the Psalms and in numerous places he said to praise the Lord with a halah praise which is basically an absurd, exuberance that seems silly to onlookers.

Like I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I'm probably old fashioned, but I think that a worship service should focus on God, not the people around me, and that's going to be difficult to do if I'm having to duck some lady in a red dress who wants to hit me in the face, or I'm worried about my kids getting trampled by people running erratically while waving their arms and screaming.

reply to post by adjensen


But you aren't disagreeing with me, but the exegesis of the OT Hebrew. That should trump tradition. It's simple to me, if David says in numerous verses to halah praise the Lord, then none of us should besmirch halah praise of the Lord. So you're not disagreeing with me, I don't have a vested interest. But it is prudent to point out that what you're talking negatively about is promoted by none other than David himself in the Psalms.

Did you read the link I provided earlier?

I'm worried about my kids getting trampled by people running erratically while waving their arms and screaming.

Actually, children absolutely love Davidic praise and worship services, they join right in.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Again, the church in the video is not like us. We do not believe women are called to ministry. We do not yell "hallelujah". It was dishonest for Adjensen to post a video of another type of church and claim that it shows what goes on in our churches.

Why don't you try and focus? I never said anything about the video, I didn't even watch it. I challenged your statement that your tiny sect isn't Charismatic. If you believe that the gifts of the Spirit did not die after the NT was written and are for the church today you are in the Charismatic branch of Christianity, that's what Charismatic means. There are only two groups, Cessasionists and Charismatics.

Again, there are differences between Apostolic and Charismatic churches.

Charismatic Christians believe that the gifts (Greek charismata χάρισμα, from charis χάρις, grace) of the Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament are available to contemporary Christians through the infilling or baptism of the Holy Spirit, with-or-without the laying on of hands.[4] These spiritual gifts are believed to be manifest in the form of signs, miracles, and wonders, including, but not limited to, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, healing, and discernment of spirits. While Pentecostals and charismatics share these beliefs, there are differences. Many in the charismatic movement deliberately distanced themselves from Pentecostalism for cultural and theological reasons. Foremost among theological reasons is the tendency of many Pentecostals to insist that speaking in tongues is always the initial physical sign of receiving Spirit baptism. Although specific teachings will vary from group to group, charismatics generally believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs at the new birth and prefer to call subsequent encounters with the Holy Spirit by other names, such as "being filled".[4] In contrast to Pentecostals, charismatics tend to accept a range of supernatural experiences (such as prophecy, miracles, healing, or "physical manifestations of an altered state of consciousness") as evidence of having been baptized or filled with the Holy Spirit.[5] Pentecostals are also distinguished from the charismatic movement on the basis of style.[6] Also, Pentecostals have traditionally placed a high value on evangelization and missionary work. Charismatics, on the other hand, have tended to see their movement as a force for revitalization and renewal within their own church traditions.[7]

Source: Charismatic Movement



I think you may be mistaken between charismatic and continuationism.

Continuationism

reply to post by adjensen

The belief that one must speak in tongues to "prove" that they are saved is not Biblical (there is no evidence that everyone spoke in tongues,) but is actually rooted in a twisted view of John Calvin's theology -- the only way that one knows that they have "true faith", as opposed to temporary faith, is through a verified conversion experience, which the Pentecostals have distilled down to speaking in tongues.

Now see, I don't disagree with this statement. There are many different gifts of the spirit and no one has the exact same gift as another. Yes I have had one Pentecostal member accuse one member of my church (she being Baptist) of not being saved because she didn't speak in tongues which got on my nerves and if I had been there, I would have done more than my fair share of scripture quoting in rebuke of that belief.

Scripture does say people will turn away from the faith, believing in doctrines of devils and blaspheming in matters they know nothing about.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Did you read the link I provided earlier?

No. I clicked through and started to read it, saw that it was a massive document and I'm just not that interested in the subject.

I'm worried about my kids getting trampled by people running erratically while waving their arms and screaming.

Actually, children absolutely love Davidic praise and worship services, they join right in.

I think that your perspective might be a skewed a bit by not having watched that video. I can't imagine that any sane parent would put their kid in the middle of that madness and figure "if Johnny gets trampled, that's God's will."

I googled "Davidic praise and worship" and this was in one of the first links:

The praise and worship practices of David's time included numerous musical instruments, singing, chanting, shouting, bowing, standing, lifting of hands, clapping of hands, processions and dancing. There were times of great joy, as well as moments of repentance and introspection (see Various Forms of Praise and Worship in the Church Part 1-5, and Instruments of the Old Testament). (Source)

That is not what is happening in that video.

ETA: The first video returned from that phrase is this:

I have no complaints with that service, which seems to fit your description very well, and, again, is nothing like the first video that I posted.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


There is a difference between initial evidence and gifts of the Spirit. Initial evidence happens only at Spirit baptism, while the gift of tongues is on going.

reply to post by truejew


You're talking about the "Charismatic Movement", which has nothing to do with what I pointed out. That Christians are either Charismatic or Cessasionist. You said Apostolic are not Charismatic, which is false if you believe in the gifts of the Spirit. Maybe you should try being clear and concise and say next time "Apostolic are not a part of the so called Charismatic Movement even though we are a Charismatic sect."

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by adjensen

 

The belief that one must speak in tongues to "prove" that they are saved is not Biblical (there is no evidence that everyone spoke in tongues,) but is actually rooted in a twisted view of John Calvin's theology -- the only way that one knows that they have "true faith", as opposed to temporary faith, is through a verified conversion experience, which the Pentecostals have distilled down to speaking in tongues.

Now see, I don't disagree with this statement. There are many different gifts of the spirit and no one has the exact same gift as another. Yes I have had one Pentecostal member accuse one member of my church (she being Baptist) of not being saved because she didn't speak in tongues which got on my nerves and if I had been there, I would have done more than my fair share of scripture quoting in rebuke of that belief.

Scripture does say people will turn away from the faith, believing in doctrines of devils and blaspheming in matters they know nothing about.

Well, some people are really loose with their hermeneutics and not very precise. Which leads them to not realizing the difference between the "infilling" and "indwelling presence" of the Holy Spirit. The apostles at Pentecost already had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, but were awaiting the infilling. They couldn't have been believers without it. And they were subsequently refilled with the Spirit two other times in Acts after Pentecost.

reply to post by adjensen

I think that your perspective might be a skewed a bit by not having watched that video. I can't imagine that any sane parent would put their kid in the middle of that madness and figure "if Johnny gets trampled, that's God's will."

Okay, here is that video talk again. I never saw the video and as I clearly mentioned earlier there is a difference between Charismatics and CharisMANIACS. Even Paul dealt with people who were enjoying their gifts, but not in an orderly manner in Corinthians. I go to a Charismatic nondenominational church, and we don't have anyone running around the sanctuary except this man with Down Syndrome. But if that's what he wants to do before the Lord, so be it. It doesn't affect me. When another member thinks they have a word from the Lord they go to the elders and they decern if it aligns with the revealed Word of God or not. We don't do "parking lot prophets" like many churches will do. There is a Biblical order.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think that your perspective might be a skewed a bit by not having watched that video. I can't imagine that any sane parent would put their kid in the middle of that madness and figure "if Johnny gets trampled, that's God's will."

Okay, here is that video talk again. I never saw the video and as I clearly mentioned earlier there is a difference between Charismatics and CharisMANIACS. Even Paul dealt with people who were enjoying their gifts, but not in an orderly manner in Corinthians.

I think that's the issue -- the "circus worship service" that I linked to is, as I said, ridiculous, and not in keeping with the "Davidic worship" that you cited, and that my second video exemplified.

And, I am honest enough to admit, the second video, not the first, is in alignment with the one worship service that I saw Gary Reckart participate in -- a bunch of people singing, waving arms, etc, but reasonably enough. My point in showing the first video was simply to demonstrate the extremes that some people will go to when they are under the influences of peer pressure, groupthink and non-critical thinking, not because they are under the influence of God.

reply to post by adjensen


Okay, but you're a critical thinker, you know that using an exception to define a rule is a fallacy. 99.9% of the Charismatic worship services are not put on YouTube, and most of the other ones that are put there is an attempt to mock and ridicule. So it does no justice in this dialogue to point to the nuttiest examples that can be found, agree?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Okay, but you're a critical thinker, you know that using an exception to define a rule is a fallacy. 99.9% of the Charismatic worship services are not put on YouTube, and most of the other ones that are put there is an attempt to mock and ridicule. So it does no justice in this dialogue to point to the nuttiest examples that can be found, agree?

Well...

Yes, I agree that most charismatics probably aren't that goofy, but the person who posted it didn't really seem to do so in a mocking manner, and my friend NoRegretsEver said that it was pretty much what she experienced growing up in a Pentecostal church, so I don't know that it's all that extreme.

I'll ask her to weigh in.