PENTECOSTALISM

[irishcowboy]

it is kind of funny, but if a person was to look at the different denominations 100 years ago.... yea, just 100 years ago..... the non-pentecostal churches, were more pentecostal then the pentecostal churches are today......

mike

[stevehut]

1- Is the moving of God only valid if a bunch of humans wrote about it down through the centuries?

2- but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

What does that mean? It means that there will still be tongues and prophecies until perfection (Jesus) comes.

1- Nope. That wasn't my point at all.

2- Nope. In Greek grammar, "perfection" cannot refer to Jesus. Every other time in the Bible that Jesus is referred to, it is in the masculine gender.

"Perfection" is in the neutral gender, and therefore cannot be a reference to Jesus.

[Guest Called]

2- Nope. In Greek grammar, "perfection" cannot refer to Jesus. Every other time in the Bible that Jesus is referred to, it is in the masculine gender.

"Perfection" is in the neutral gender, and therefore cannot be a reference to Jesus.

Steve, I am at work and don't have my greek concordance available to me, so I will have to respond to you later.

[stevehut]

do you trust all these early church fathers in what they taught? If so, do you also look to them for anything else of what they taught, since THEY were taught by the Apostles themselves AND their successors?

I believe I already responded to this one earlier. And it doesn't address my original question.

Since you're so fond of the Church Fathers, perhaps you'd like to consult Augustine of Hippo:

Homilies on 1 John, Homily 6, 1 John 3:19-4:3

[WayneB]

"Perfection" is in the neutral gender, and therefore cannot be a reference to Jesus.

You say that 1 Cor 13:10 cannot be a reference to the return of Christ? How about a reference to what ALL things will be when Jesus returns, casts Satan into the pit and establishes HIS rule over the world. That is what will be PERFECT (all things); therefore, Called's conclusion is very valid. It doesn't refer to gender because gender is not the reference.

Don't try to shoehorn the TRUTH into your limited understanding brother. Too many of us too often do just that.

Be Blessed,

Wayne

[stevehut]

1- the early Quakers, the converts of Wesley and Whitefield,

2- the persecuted Protestants of the Cevennes

3- the Irvingites

4- In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages

1- I find it interesting that modern Quakers and Methodists don't teach their people to speak in tongues. And by the way, this was never an emphasis of Wesley himself. His theology was hijacked by others, many years later.

2- I am quite familiar with the "little prophets of Cervennes". These were children in France who preached in French to others who were native speakers of the French language. I'm still trying to figure out how this was a manifestation of the gift of tongues.

3- You mean Edward Irving? He was a Presbyterian, not a Pentecostal. And he was ultimately excommunicated from the church for this foreign teaching.

4- "Many brethren"? Under Pentecostal doctrine, I thought it was supposed to be all the brethren.

...Or are you just cutting and pasting out of a book here?

[stevehut]

therefore, Called's conclusion is very valid.

Maybe it is. But if so, he chose the wrong proof text for it.

[Guest Called]

"Perfection" is in the neutral gender, and therefore cannot be a reference to Jesus.

You say that 1 Cor 13:10 cannot be a reference to the return of Christ? How about a reference to what ALL things will be when Jesus returns, casts Satan into the pit and establishes HIS rule over the world. That is what will be PERFECT (all things); therefore, Called's conclusion is very valid. It doesn't refer to gender because gender is not the reference.

Don't try to shoehorn the TRUTH into your limited understanding brother. Too many of us too often do just that.

Be Blessed,

Wayne

Thanks Wayne

[Guest Called]

therefore, Called's conclusion is very valid.

Maybe it is. But if so, he chose the wrong proof text for it.

I am a girl.

[Guest Called]

1- I find it interesting that modern Quakers and Methodists don't teach their people to speak in tongues. And by the way, this was never an emphasis of Wesley himself. His theology was hijacked by others, many years later.

People don't teach someone to speak in tongues. The Holy Spirit does.