Was the Pentecostal-Charismatic wave that is now sweeping the globe "born" at the Azusa Street revival of 1906, when the Spirit of God is said to have descended on a group of worshippers in Los Angeles, ushering in a "second Pentecost"? Historians of American religion have disputed this question for years and will probably do so for years to come. My own view is that indeed it was born in that swept-out former stable, especially because births don't come out of nowhere. They are the culmination of a complex series of processes‚ÄĒgenes, chromosomes, and a nurturing environment that come together to produce a new being.
It is true that nearly all the qualities that now characterize Pentecostalism had appeared before in Christian history. Healings, tongue-speaking, ecstatic praise, visions, the expectation of an imminent return of Christ, and an intense personal encounter with the Spirit had all...
The pretensions of the church of Rome and its bishops to supremacy of any kind arose much later than the lifetime of Ignatius.. so how precisely is Ignatius a RC?
The definition of the RCC is beautifully captured by the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, which states, and I quote:
"the name generally given to that ........church which acknowledges the pope or bishop of Rome as its head and holds as an article of faith that communion with and submission to the authority of the see of Rome is essential to effective membership of the catholic church.."
Don't be so smug. If you want to, by all means try again - this time with your thinking cap on, OR else give up and retire before you make a complete fool of yourself!
Your gracious tone is very much appreciated, BUT I have to say that I am disppointed that you are not engaging with the arguments being made by me and others on this thread.
Let us first establish what the bible use of the word "tongues" meant. What was its purpose? How did people recognise it? Did all speak in tongues? etc.. And having done that, let us ask whether these things are still so. In other words, do tongues manifest themselves in the same way today? Do they serve the same purpose? etc.. If not, then they cannot be the same thing as the biblical "tongues" and therefore must be either a delusion (at best) or a diabolical invention (at worst). But let us not be guilty of attributing mindless gibberish to the Holy Spirit, who is the author, not of confusion, but of decency and order.
Exactly people like T.D. Jakes DENY the Trinity. Everyone should wake up and have some honor to stand against such frauds and lowlife false teachers like him.
SORRY but if church is just supposed to be a bunch of feel good empowerment stuff without proper Biblical doctrine, I would rather go to an Antony Robbins conference, at least I know he isn't going to publically teach against the trinity like T.D. Jakes would, even though Robbins isn't a Christian. I would get more out of an Antony Robbins conference then listening to T.D. Jakes oneness heresies.
Wisdom writings and useable ideas for living in the world can be found in most any religion or guru, but salvation and perfect truth can only be found in Jesus and the inspired words from God in the Bible.
Churches can have some wisdom and life in the world stuff, but more importantly they are to teach proper doctrine.
I am sick of people using Jesus' name to create religions they claim to be Christian, they should just repent, or at least not claim to be Christian.
To my brothers "disciple" and "mike from Mex" and any others who would like to comment. I am slow in responding as I work long hours and I am not always home. It is now after midnight and I am about to go to bed. But before I do I must tell you what is on my heart.
"Disciple" you say you were in the Charismatic movement and have seen the "error" of your ways. To hear this I am saddened. To be moved away from the Truth of the Outpouring of the Spirit, (and He is still being Poured out today in spite of what they tell you) as I see it is not progress but regress. Anyone who first tastes of the gracious Spirit of the Living God and then later declare that what He, the Holy Spirit brings about is nothing more than "mindless gibberish" and "speaking in shibboleths" when they speak in the language He gives is like a modern day example of Esau who despised his birthright. And we know that the scriptures declared him a "Profane person". We don't want to be like that now, do we?
We really had better be careful how we respond to these things. Our choices now have lasting and eternal consequences.
I know there have been excesses in the different Spiritual movements, but that does not mean the whole thing is wrong. People are involved and people make mistakes, as we all know.
Disciple, the first known use of the word 'Catholic' to identify the Church of Rome is by St. Ignatius ca 110 a d (see 'Letter to the Smyrnaeans'). After that time the term was synonymous with Roman Catholicism. Our usage predates yours by quite a few years. But, some Anglican's call themselves Anglican Catholics, and there are Eastern Rite Catholics and I'm sure others as well. I can't prevent your expropriating the name, but it was ours first.
Michael, there is theology and then there is the way it's practiced. Catholic notions of sin are severe, but I suspect that priests, and Prot Pastors as well, are nervous about turning contributing members off. I was taught long ago that asking for forgiveness is useless unless followed by a firm decision to avoid that sin. So a thorough change must come and only God can give the grace needed to be sucessful. Your right...I do cherish the faith I receive from Christ's own hand. Salvation is seen as a process rather than an instant in time. The only permission for infant baptism is the promise by Catholic couples that their children will be raised to have faith in Jesus, parents who can't promise this will not have their babies baptised. This is a privilege historically allowed because of fear of an infant dying without God's santifying grace in its soul. Since we believe in Original Sin, there must be a way to wipe out that offense. Circumcision, used to bring young Jewish boys into the 1st Covenant, was replaced by baptism. Confirmation is comparable to your 'Believer's Baptism". Only the blood of Christ makes any of this possible, we do not work for salvation but obey his commands and listen to his voice in scripture.
GG got it right for once: "If anyone fails to worry about their judgement it is the Evangelicals and Fundamentalist who subscribe to 'OSAS'"
Actually it is not so much all those that hold to this doctrine but those that put their faith in it - continuing in willfull sin whilst trusting in this false assurance. Michael put it well below, a complete change is needed. Of course many RC's also continue in willfull sin and think all is fine if they make confession regularly; they are equally deluded.
Disciple, Chris M, Thanks for the words which encourage.
GG, my friend, No! the problem is that Roman Catholics and these Purpose Driven/Charismatics do not see sin as that bad. That one must be saved from sin to the very core of their being. God must save them. God must change them or they are still damneable and lost despite all their own efforts.
For a Roman Catholic they see salvation as a process whereas Jesus said, "Ye must be born again." Or would you accuse me of misrepresenting your cherished RCC that they begin with infant baptism, rather than faith and believers baptism, the RCC continues with Confession to a RCC priest and first, let me call it Roman Eurcharist, whereas I acknowledged my sins to Thee, meaning to God directly Psa 32 by the way, and then the RCC with confirmation, Mass, Rosaray, Death, Purgatory and supposedly heaven after that.
Quite different from our sins are so bad, so damnable, so offensive and deserving punishment that only the shed blood of Christ is sufficient and fully complete for the sinner who trusts Jesus Christ to be justified by His finished work, not theirs which they will do out of love for God and the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit who so utterly changes them they have now and forever eternal life.
First...St Patrick was a Free Presbyterian, or was it Church of England? Then...more revisionist histories and now attempting to purloin the name..."Catholic". How much more revisionist etymology? What will you steal next?
Firstly, I think we should apply the correct terminology. "Catholic" is a very loose term - a term that I think most Christians would want to apply to themselves. The problem is not "catholicity", but "Roman" catholicity.
I disagree with you about the RCC being even notionally Christian. If as Luther insisted, a church stands or falls on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, then we have to conclude that the works righteousness of the RCC excludes it from being called Christian.
As for individuals with the RCC, I have no problem with the position you maintain.. after all at the time of the reformation Luther did not go about (at least initially) wanting to separate from the RCC, and many of the reformers were saved when they were still part of the RCC.
Like the reformers, they will not be saved by RCC teaching but by evangelical doctrines that the Lord will reveal to them by whatever means/intruments he chooses.
As is typical of Michael from Endicott NY, he grossly mistates the truth. He says: "This goes for Catholics, they have purgatory and Mary and worry not about standing before Christ at Judgment."
If anyone fails to worry about their judgement it is the Evangelicals and Fundamentalist who subscribe to 'OSAS'. IMHO...any Catholic who knows his faith, is sobered with the knowledge that one day he will answer for his sins. Prots would be wise to, if not think that way, then behave as though it were true.
Actually I didn't say it was another religion, although it almost is. My view is a little different to many here; I think that the RCC is a mixture of Christian and pagan but will still be judged as a Christian church (albiet a hideously distorted one) based on Revelation 2 & 3 which I think outlines Christendom.
That means their judgement will be much more severe than that of a pagan group or the rest of the unbelievers as they have disregarded what light was given to them. However I think a (probably small) number of people throughout history that would call themselves Catholics will be saved through faith in Christ. Many here would disagree with me I know, but that is my view.
Spot on Disciple! On average the Roman Catholics and Judaists show much more reverence for God than the Pentecostal Charasmatics 'funky church' types.
Of the Godhead, I suggest the person of the Holy Spirit has recieved the worst treatment in the current 'church age'. The latter mock the Holy Spirit by claiming he is in their semi-occult antics and worldly music, whilst many Calv/Baps rarely even mention the Holy Spirit because they don't want to be thought of as anything like the Pente's.
Men and women have thrown away the Fear of the Lord.
This goes for Catholics, they have purgatory and Mary and worry not about standing before Christ at Judgment.
This goes for Hyper Calvinists who are so predestinated they consider it sin to actually do anything in service of Christ.
And this very much goes for the Purpose Driven / Word of Faith (and we should include Prostestant Liberalism in this too) who have so abused the grace of God they see imagine for themselves a God who will not bring every act into Judgment and every secret thing whether it is evil or good.
Whew! We can get into such controversy over 'tongues' and forget the modern day 'Azusa Street Cenntenial' has far more to do with promoting obvious false prophets such as Benny Hinn and T.D. Jakes, who denies the Trintiy, along with a move to mysticism abd ecumenism.
Please consider if what is being reported is accurate they involved Rick Warren who promotes a man centered false gospel that influences huge numbers of non-Pentecostal churches into changing the way you do Church to please the world and bring it right on in.