Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, adjensen showed me the video earlier, without EVER knowing that I grew up in a pentecostal church, and there is NOTHING that is over exaggerated in that video, except maybe that my church has way more people in it.

There is lots of people running around, hand to head healing, speaking in tongues, etc.

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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."

As I pointed out, the word you are looking for would be "Continuationism", not charismatic. Saying Charismatic sect would mean a sect of the Charismatic Movement, which is not true of us. The Charismatic Movement began in 1960. Moden day Pentecostals began around 60 years previous.

reply to post by truejew

The Charismatic Movement began in 1960.

No, it didn't. Stop relying on Wikipedia. Charismatic Pentecostals began at the beginning of the 1900s, and your sect morphed out of it in the early 1900s.

Claiming that one needs to provide "proof" of salvation by the speaking of tongues is a perversion of Calvinistic theology, pure and simple.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

The Charismatic Movement began in 1960.

No, it didn't. Stop relying on Wikipedia. Charismatic Pentecostals began at the beginning of the 1900s, and your sect morphed out of it in the early 1900s.

Claiming that one needs to provide "proof" of salvation by the speaking of tongues is a perversion of Calvinistic theology, pure and simple.

From encyclopedia.com...

An interdenominational Christian renewal movement that began in the 1960s and has developed an international following, especially among members of the Roman Catholic church.

reply to post by adjensen


Here is more...

On April 3, 1960 the Charismatic Movement went public when Father Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal priest announced to his Van Nuys, CA, congregation that he had personally spoken in tongues and that he believed that this was the pattern for the church. Later in 1966 the Charismatic Movement penetrated the Roman Catholic Church where it was readily received by a laity and clergy opened, via Vatican II, to new ideas on church renewal.

Source: History of the Charismatic Movement

In the 1960’s the Charismatic Movement came into being, sharing many of the basic doctrines and procedures of Pentecostalism. But there was a difference between the two movements. Whereas Pentecostals advocated a “come out” policy with regards to church affiliation, Charismatics encouraged a “stay in” strategy. The movement involves both Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. In fact, if a person was able to “speak in tongues” or had experienced a “healing,” he was accepted by Charismatics with little to no regard to church membership or doctrine.

Source: Charismatic Movement

Beginning in the 1960s, many members of denominations began to “receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit,” and yet did not leave their respective denominations. These individuals began what is deemed as the “Charismatic Movement” (from the Greek charisma, or “gift”).

Source: Pentecostalism/The Charismatic Movement

As you can see, it is not just Wikipedia saying it.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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."

As I pointed out, the word you are looking for would be "Continuationism", not charismatic. Saying Charismatic sect would mean a sect of the Charismatic Movement, which is not true of us. The Charismatic Movement began in 1960. Moden day Pentecostals began around 60 years previous.

I've never heard "Continuationism" until this post. What theologians speak of is Charismatic and Cessasionist. If you believe the gifts of the Spirit are for the church today that is Charismatic. If you believe they stopped when the NT was completed that would be Cessasionist.

And no, emphasis on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, or the "latter rain" that was prophesied about began at what is commonly referred to as the "second great awakening" which began around 1800. John Edwards was Charismatic, most people don't realize that but if you read his books or sermons you can see evidence of this.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

The Charismatic Movement began in 1960.

No, it didn't. Stop relying on Wikipedia. Charismatic Pentecostals began at the beginning of the 1900s, and your sect morphed out of it in the early 1900s.

Claiming that one needs to provide "proof" of salvation by the speaking of tongues is a perversion of Calvinistic theology, pure and simple.

I don't know about that. As a kid, I grew up in a Reformed church and they are Cessasionists. Nearly all Pentecostal churches are Arminian.

reply to post by truejew


Seems you are still incapable of understanding the difference between the "Charismatic Movement" and "Charismatic Theology". Read up on the "second great awakening" of the 1800s.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Seems you are still incapable of understanding the difference between the "Charismatic Movement" and "Charismatic Theology". Read up on the "second great awakening" of the 1800s.

Seems you are not understanding that your use of the words charismatic theology confuses things. It can have two different meanings. You should use Continuationism.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Seems you are still incapable of understanding the difference between the "Charismatic Movement" and "Charismatic Theology". Read up on the "second great awakening" of the 1800s.

Seems you are not understanding that your use of the words charismatic theology confuses things. It can have two different meanings. You should use Continuationism.

edit on 15-8-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

It seems to only confuse you. The theological terms are Charismatic/Cessasionist. I'm not going to alter common theological terms because you don't understand them. That would confuse virtually everyone else who are used to the commonly accepted terms. It's better to leave you isolated in your confusion than it would be to confuse nearly everyone else.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Either way, I have clarified that we are not related to the Charismatic Movement.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Either way, I have clarified that we are not related to the Charismatic Movement.

Okay, but your tiny sect is Charismatic even if you don't identify with the "Charismatic Movement".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

The Charismatic Movement began in 1960.

No, it didn't. Stop relying on Wikipedia. Charismatic Pentecostals began at the beginning of the 1900s, and your sect morphed out of it in the early 1900s.

Claiming that one needs to provide "proof" of salvation by the speaking of tongues is a perversion of Calvinistic theology, pure and simple.

I don't know about that. As a kid, I grew up in a Reformed church and they are Cessasionists. Nearly all Pentecostal churches are Arminian.

No, I'm not saying that they are Reformed, I'm saying that they (well, the ones who demand "proof" of conversion,) have latched onto the bit of Calvinism that says you can know that you are saved and will remain saved until death.

A typical Arminian will say that they hope to persevere, to "finish the race" while still true to the Christian faith, but all they have is hope. Calvin said that, if one had an authentic conversion experience, they could know that, not just hope, and that's the part that these people have latched onto (and their conversion experience is the ongoing "infusion of the Holy Spirit",) without the corresponding Calvinistic theology that backed it, that of the Elect, and predestination.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Either way, I have clarified that we are not related to the Charismatic Movement.

Okay, but your tiny sect is Charismatic even if you don't identify with the "Charismatic Movement".

Exactly.

There have been Charismatics throughout history -- the bunch that Tertullian fell in with, the Montanists, were essentially early Christian Charismatics. Maybe the truly bizarre behaviour is something recent, but they've been around a long time.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Either way, I have clarified that we are not related to the Charismatic Movement.

Okay, but your tiny sect is Charismatic even if you don't identify with the "Charismatic Movement".

Exactly.

There have been Charismatics throughout history -- the bunch that Tertullian fell in with, the Montanists, were essentially early Christian Charismatics. Maybe the truly bizarre behaviour is something recent, but they've been around a long time.

The truly bizarre behavior, such as hitting, pushing, holy laughter..., is a product of the Charismatic Movement. The UPCI has since become infected with it, which is part of my problem with the UPCI.

BTW, it was not the Montanists acceptance of the gifts of the Spirit that made them heretics. It was their acceptance of the trinity, woman preachers... That made them heretics.

Originally posted by truejew
BTW, it was not the Montanists acceptance of the gifts of the Spirit that made them heretics. It was their acceptance of the trinity, woman preachers... That made them heretics.

No, it was not.

The Montanists were denounced for, among other things, claiming to be speaking AS God, rather than for him, and that their prophecies could supersede Christ and scripture. The consensus of the church was that they were either lying or were possessed by demons.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
BTW, it was not the Montanists acceptance of the gifts of the Spirit that made them heretics. It was their acceptance of the trinity, woman preachers... That made them heretics.

No, it was not.

The Montanists were denounced for, among other things, claiming to be speaking AS God, rather than for him, and that their prophecies could supersede Christ and scripture. The consensus of the church was that they were either lying or were possessed by demons.

The trinity and woman preachers were just two examples. There were others too, but teaching that the gifts of the Spirit were still in use was not one of them.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
BTW, it was not the Montanists acceptance of the gifts of the Spirit that made them heretics. It was their acceptance of the trinity, woman preachers... That made them heretics.

No, it was not.

The Montanists were denounced for, among other things, claiming to be speaking AS God, rather than for him, and that their prophecies could supersede Christ and scripture. The consensus of the church was that they were either lying or were possessed by demons.

The trinity and woman preachers were just two examples. There were others too, but teaching that the gifts of the Spirit were still in use was not one of them.

I'm tired of arguing about the trinity and the role of women in the church, because you're wrong on both counts and have never produced a shred of evidence to the contrary -- there is no evidence that the Apostles were non-trinitarians (regardless of whether the word existed at the time) or believed that women were not qualified to proclaim the Gospel.

Saying that the Montanists were denounced as heretics for two things that there is every indication the church was not against, while diminishing the fact that the Montanists were claiming to BE God, for all intents and purposes, is irrational.

Originally posted by adjensen

I'm tired of arguing about the trinity and the role of women in the church, because you're wrong on both counts and have never produced a shred of evidence to the contrary -- there is no evidence that the Apostles were non-trinitarians (regardless of whether the word existed at the time) or believed that women were not qualified to proclaim the Gospel.

The apostles taught only one God and that one God manifest in the flesh while never calling God "three persons". That is non-trinitarian.

Out of the All the prophets and apostles, none were women. Plus we have Paul who said that a woman is not to have authority over a man and God who said the same.

The trinity and women preachers are two of the Montanists errors.

Originally posted by truejew
The apostles taught only one God and that one God manifest in the flesh while never calling God "three persons". That is non-trinitarian.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14 NIV)

Hmmm... seems to be three persons there.

The Trinity is present and evident throughout the Bible. Either the Apostles were trinitarians or they used a different Bible than you do.