ask a pentecostal

ltwin · Today, 6:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miriam1947

If Catholics, who were baptized at birth, converted to your church, would they need to be re-baptized?

If you are asking about my particular church, it depends on what you mean by "conversion." If you mean a faithful Catholic switching their attendance to our church and after a while they feel that they want to become official members, the membership form asks the question, "Have you been baptized according to Matthew 28:19?" So, if you were baptized as an infant you could just answer yes. We don't demand documentation or an interrogation. We wouldn't exclude them as Christians because they were baptized as infants. The main qualification at our church is that one confess to having been born again. We would want a personal confession of faith. Communion is opened to any and all Christians. We would encourage everyone to have the opportunity to be baptized on their own confession of faith.

If you mean a Catholic who by his/her own admission never had a conversion experience in the Catholic Church and was born again while attending our church, then we would consider them a new Christian (since we don't date becoming a Christian at baptism but at the moment we have faith in Christ) and would invite them to be baptized at our annual baptismal service.

Now, how other churches handle infant baptisms I can't say. I've never heard of a church where it was an issue.

ltwin · #**272** Today, 6:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by peace2u2

Please show me in Scripture where Jesus says NOT to baptize an infant.

We base our belief that baptism should be believer's baptism on the fact that baptism is always connected and based on the faith of the baptized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peace2u2

This relationship with God is something that does not begin when we become smart enough or old enough to understand who God is or how His love works because we will never fully understand those things, so why would we limit God’s love?

It's not about "understanding" God or God's love. It's about being able to express faith in Christ. If one does not have faith in Christ, then there is no basis on which to be baptized.

We don't limit God's love. Pentecostal churches practice what is called "baby dedication." For example,

Vows of Dedication
Vow 1 To the Parents: Do you hereby declare your desire to dedicate yourselves and your child to the Lord? If you accept this responsibility, please respond by saying, “we do.”

Vow 2 So that your child may walk in the abundant life that Christ offers, do you vow by God’s help and in partnership with the church, to provide your child a Christian home of love and peace, to raise him/her in the truth of our Lord’s instruction and discipline, and to encourage him/her to one day trust Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Saviour? If you accept this responsibility, please respond by saying, “we do.”

Vow 3 To the Extended Family: Do you hereby declare your desire to help these parents fulfill the vow they have just made? If you accept this responsibility, please respond by saying, “we do.”

Vow 4 To the Congregation: So that this child may walk in the abundant life that Christ offers, do you vow by God’s help, to be faithful in your calling as members of the body of Christ, to help these parents be faithful to God, and to help teach and train their child in the ways of the Lord so that he/she might one day trust Jesus as Savior and Lord? If you accept this responsibility, please respond by saying, “we do.”

Following the vows, the pastor prays a prayer of dedication over your child and presents you with a gift and certificate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peace2u2

Jesus says, "Let the little ones come to me and do not hinder them."

This is one of the scriptures we use during the dedication.

**guanophore** · #**273** Today, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

We base our belief that baptism should be believer's baptism on the fact that baptism is always connected and based on the faith of the baptized.

It's not about "understanding" God or God's love. It's about being able to express faith in Christ. If one does not have faith in Christ, then there is no basis on which to be baptized.

I think this is where the departure exists from the the Apostolic faith. The Apostles and their successors considered baptism to be the replacement for circumcision, as the entrance rite into the New Covenant. In the early Church, there was no controversy about whether infants should be baptized. The controversy was about whether they should wait 8 days to be consistent with the shadow/form of circumcision. When the Apostle wrote about "circumcision made without hands" he was referring to baptism, a fact not only affirmed by the disciples of the Apostles in their writings, but also in the continual practice of the Church from that day until this, wherein the successors of the Aposltes have practiced what was handed down to them.

God brought Israel's children into the Covenant based upon the faith of their parents. The first Christians, being all Jews, would have understood this principle. This is the reason the Apostle says:

1 Cor 7:14
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

It is clear that an unbelieving person (child or unconverted spouse) can be sanctified through the faith of another.

The Pentecostal "dedication" of the infant is an exact parallel of the Rite if Baptism that is used in the ancient Churches, both East and West, except for the witholding of the water. This innovation occurred when the Holy Scriptures were separated from the faith that produced them. [/quote]

**guanophore** · #**274** Today, 8:09 am

Itwin, members of the ancient Apostolic Church have received the teaching of the Apostles that in baptism, all sins are washed away, both original, and personal.

Acts 22:16
16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.'

That the 'washing" is a supernatural act of the HS that occurs during baptism:

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind — yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.

Leaving the candidate holy and without spot or wrinkle of any kind.

The Apostles taught;
Titus 3:5-7
5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. 6 This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

the water of rebirth is baptism, in which and during which the heart is circumcised by the HS.

How do you conceptualize these passages? Esp Acts 22:16?

Oh and I almost forgot:

1 Peter 3:20-4:1
God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you — not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

What does the Aposlte mean "baptism now saves you" if there is no action of the Holy Spirit at work within it?

We know that, of ourselves, we cannot in any way "appeal to God for a good conscience". This must be an act of the HS, washing away our sins.

If, as you say, baptism is just an outward sign of something that has already occurred inwardly, why does the Apostle say "baptism now saves you"?

PJM · #**275** Today, 9:20 am

Quote:

=ltwin;10752934]Jesus said in Matthew 28,

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

While this indicates that the Church is called to make disciples in all nations and to teach them to observe all that Christ commanded, it does not suggest in any way that salvation is dependent on or a consequence of baptism. What it indicates is that baptism in or into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is part of the process of becoming a disciple. Baptism is not optional, but our perfection or regeneration is not accomplished by water baptism.

Jesus said in John 3:5,

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

What else does Scripture tell us about this new birth, this regeneration? Paul says in Titus 3:4-7,

But when the goodness and lovingkindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

It is a cleansing of all that is past and a renewal of all that is in the future. We become new creations, and this regeneration is the firstfruits of Christ making all things new (Romans 8:23).

Paul states further in Colossians 2:11-14,

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Baptism is a burial service for the old man, the spiritually dead and corrupt man. This is why after the new birth has been experienced baptism should not be delayed. It should follow closely after conversion. When we rise up out of the waters of baptism it is through faith that we rise with Christ. It is through faith that we are united to Christ and to his body. This theme is restated in Galatians 3:23-27,

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

It is through faith that we become sons of God. Baptism and our putting on of Christ and our identification with his death, burial, and resurrection follow from faith. This is why we do not baptize infants. It is through faith that the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit are accomplished.

We disagree. The guilt of Adam's sin that is applied to us, imputed sin, is remedied by Christ's imputed righteousness by justification. The inherent, inbred sin is remedied by imparted righteousness, the sanctifying work of the Spirit. The first is instantaneous; the second is progressive.

We believe a purpose of baptism is that it signifies the believer's identification with Christ. Believers are baptized "into" the name of God, indicating they enter into the realm of Christ's lordship and authority. In baptism, the believer testifies that he was in Christ when Christ was judged for sin, that he was buried with Him, and that he has risen to new life in Him. It indicates that the believer has died to the old and been made new. The act of baptism does not effect this identification with Christ, but it presupposes and symbolizes it. It enacts the moment when one who had been an enemy of Christ fully surrenders to Him.

Baptism also signals the believer's identification with the body of Christ, the Church. Baptized believers are initiated into the community of faith and give public testimony to their inclusion with the people of God. It's more than just being obedient to Christ's command. It is part of becoming His disciple.

This seems to be a GREAT time to again remind ALL that there IS but One Infallible rule for RIGHT undertanding of the bible.

It is: [caps for emphasisis, not shouting]

NEVER. EVER, CAN, MAY OR DOES
ONE VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING
MAKE VOID
INVALIDATE
OR OVERRIDE ANOTHER
VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING [TRUTH IS AND MUST BE SINGULAR]

Were this even a possibility [NOT!] here I'm shouting

it would render the entire worthless.

Why or how [answering either will satisfy me] WHY:did God wait MORE than one thousand YEARS to make YOUR position known? HOW: can a Perfect and Good God do so?

fredplont · #**276** Today, 12:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

This seems to be a GREAT time to again remind ALL that there IS but One Infallible rule for RIGHT undertanding of the bible.

It is: [caps for emphasisis, not shouting]

NEVER. EVER, CAN, MAY OR DOES
ONE VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING
MAKE VOID
INVALIDATE
OR OVERRIDE ANOTHER
VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING

one -- needs only to look at God's expectations contained in the O.T.

and how each religion domination -- has strayed

[TRUTH IS AND MUST BE SINGULAR]

yes PJM God is not confused-- as people are

Were this even a possibility [NOT!] here I'm shouting

it would render the entire worthless.

Why or how [answering either will satisfy me]

thanks but read the history

When Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306–337) ruled Rome, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.

Historians remain uncertain about Constantine's reasons for favoring Christianity, and theologians and historians have argued about which form of Christianity he subscribed to.

Although Constantine had been exposed to Christianity by his mother Helena, there is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother's Christianity in his youth, or gradually over the course of his life,[1]

and he did not receive baptism until shortly before his death.[2][3]

(obviously he had a different belief -- system than this one today)

WHY:did God wait MORE than one thousand YEARS to make YOUR position known?

this position was known in 315ad-- as the catholic church-- became the dominate religious force--
thus -- the catholic religion -- did what ever they wanted -- to any one who disagreed with them--

like any religious political system-- they got rid of "Gods prophets" just like in the Old. TEstement

HOW: can a Perfect and Good God do so?

i find it puzzling that you don't understand this-- but Oh we'll--- God understands

Christian Soul · #**277** Today, 12:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

Most Pentecostal theologies advocate a combination of the Calvinist and the Zwinglian views.

Hi Itwin, I suppose this is not just a Pentecostal question per se but I think you'll be able to answer it since you believe in a combination of Calvinist and Zwinglian Communion views and I hope you don't mind to do so here.

Would you say the early Church did not believe in bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood and Catholics misinterpret the early fathers? Or do you believe the early Church did teach this doctrine but was wrong about it and other teachings until reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli came along? If the latter, why do you believe it would have taken Christ 1500 yrs to reform His Church?

I'm not Pentecostal but neither am I overly versed in general Calvinist/Zwinglian Protestantism so I thank you ahead for helping me to understand and God bless you my Christian sibling in Christ.

fredplont · #**278** Today, 1:11 pm

[Hi Itwin, I suppose this is not just a Pentecostal question per se but I think you'll be able to answer it I thank you ahead for helping me to understand and God bless you my Christian sibling in Christ.[/quote]

this wasa previously quot from PJM---GOOGLE "Satan and speaking in tongues"

have you found people that fit this profile of satan and speaking in tongues

butbob;10499059]with all the different protestant churches it is difficult to find the ones where people and the pastor are actually filled and led by the Holy Spirit-- that is the game changer--

all thou the Assembly of God church has the doctrinal belief speaking in tongues is the 1st evidence of the Holy Spirit--

even in the catholic churxch it is hard to find
Q5 . If you are Born of God, [Baptized?] ARE you a Child of God? John 1:12; Rom. 8:16.

John 1:12 “But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name”

Once again we have a different version of “by Faith Alone.” A very believable and powerful message when taken out of context. They trend to the first teaching but at times ignore that it is clearly a “conditional offer.” Then even if they accept that its “conditional,” they claim an unwarranted right to define for themselves what the conditions are. Not permitting God to “be in charge”; and therefore they commonly miss the actual teaching God requires. This is a great example of US needing to know what is true; and how to prove it.

Rom. 8:16 “For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God.” Keep in mind the question being asked: cf. “DO YOU have the Spirit of God living in you?” … I’d bet nearly 100%claim that they do?

Response: But even if they do, how do they know for sure? My guess is that the answer has something to do with “Speaking in Tongues” which they commonly hold as the “end-all” of all Spiritual Gifts. So are they saying that “if one does not have the Gift of tongues”; the HS is NOT with them? Yes, I think that is often their point; and it’s wrong! That is NOT what Paul actually teaches:

1Cor.12 Verses 26 to 31”If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various [LAST Listed] kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? [NO is implied] Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.” AND 1st.Cor. 14: Verses 5, 13 “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified. Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.”

Speaking in tongues is a good thing; made far better when they or someone else can interpret it “for the benefit of the church.”( the people)

I know only a few catholics who are so Blessed.

This stems from the fact that it is not a Gift we ask for from the HS, enough.

We certainly do NOT wish to claim that The Holy Spirit is NOT In some manner available to our Protestant brethren

. He may well be with them is some manner? BUT not in the fullness that He is within the Catholic Church and our Sacraments, and especially in it’s Informed and fully practicing members. READ: Bob my friend,

IF your haning your beliefs on this one THING [speakingin tongues] I would urge Caution.

THIS can be ALSO form Satan; the deceiver

GOOGLE "Satan and speaking in tongues"

READ Jn. 14: 16-17 [filled in John 20;21-22]

The Holy Spirit is Promised ONLY by Christ to His Apostles and the CC that through direct Succession [Mk. 16:14-17 & Mt. 28:18-20] with the MISSION now expanded to the Entire WORLD, which makes it an absolute necessity.

Further evidence is Found in John 17:15-19 Where Jesus gives HIMSELF personally [and exclusively] to the same Apostles an todays CC.

Keep in mind that the ONLY Church for nearly ONE THOUSAND YEARS AFTER CHRIST RESSURESCTION was and is; todays CC. [And yes I can prove it biblically and historically]. Certainly our Perfect God did not wait for Protrestants to introduce His SINGULAR truth.

God Bles you,
pat/PJM

FabiusMaximus · #**279** Today, 2:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Soul

Hi Itwin, I suppose this is not just a Pentecostal question per se but I think you'll be able to answer it since you believe in a combination of Calvinist and Zwinglian Communion views and I hope you don't mind to do so here.

Would you say the early Church did not believe in bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood and Catholics misinterpret the early fathers? Or do you believe the early Church did teach this doctrine but was wrong about it and other teachings until reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli came along? If the latter, why do you believe it would have taken Christ 1500 yrs to reform His Church?

I'm not Pentecostal but neither am I overly versed in general Calvinist/Zwinglian Protestantism so I thank you ahead for helping me to understand and God bless you my Christian sibling in Christ.

The answer is that it's irrelevant what the Church Fathers believed because I don't think Pentecostals see that theology as something that is necessarily supposed to be traced back to the earliest Christians.

It's not that Ignatius or Justin Martyr taught the real presence or not, it's that it does not matter because they are not infallible, and are not considered "more knowledgeable" about proper Christian doctrine.

In fact, it is very rare to hear about the Early Christian Fathers in Evangelical sermons.

Stephen168 · #**280** Today, 2:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Soul

Hi Itwin, I suppose this is not just a Pentecostal question per se but I think you'll be able to answer it since you believe in a combination of Calvinist and Zwinglian Communion views and I hope you don't mind to do so here.

Would you say the early Church did not believe in bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood and Catholics misinterpret the early fathers? Or do you believe the early Church did teach this doctrine but was wrong about it and other teachings until reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli came along? If the latter, why do you believe it would have taken Christ 1500 yrs to reform His Church?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FabiusMaximus

The answer is that it's irrelevant what the Church Fathers believed because I don't think Pentecostals see that theology as something that is necessarily supposed to be traced back to the earliest Christians.

What Itwin believes is what is relevant to Christian Soul

Thursday, May 16, 2013