Am I Wrong? A Church Bible Study For Your Consideration

I was in a church where this happened. It literally destroyed the fellowship. It was an extremely sad experience.

No - you're not wrong. There is a distinction between the indwelling of the Spirit given at salvation and the annointing of the Spirit which was what occurred at Pentecost. There are those who will disagree but they can be wrong if they wish.

As for you being possibly kicked out - to me that is a serious step to take and that could be for a couple of reasons. You may be more vocal and stringent about your approach than you realize you are or this is a symptom of a lack of fundamental Grace in the theology of your leadership.

I suspect that even if you are being too obnoxious in your approach that the latter issue is true. Pastoral leadership should always be about redemption - particularly towards its members. Any time a pastor is resorting to pushing someone out the door I have to question their maturity. Churches are filled with all types of problems in its membership - even some of the grossest sin. The first step is NOT to kick them out but to work diligently at a redemptive and restorative message.

I think your assessment of the sermon is right on.

Go with God.

I was raised in the Pentecostal church, and still attend one, and I've never heard this preached. Pentecostalism teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer at salvation, and that the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a separate work of the Spirit, evidenced by tongues. You were not wrong to question this pastor's teaching.

I think your comments should have been directed to ponyespresso...

And I think you're right! :>)

Hey, Pony, ping to #5

I suppose one could ask them [though it doesn't tend to matter what one asks pharisees],

if they felt that when people became BAPTIZED, was it to be a single or daily event. I think Scripture is as Graham teaches. It's to be an ongoing constant filling and giving out.

And, if a new Christian has no Holy Spirit, that means, Holy Spirit draws and introduces the New Christian and then leaves town.

That's inconsistent with what Paul instructs Christians to do in discipling. There would be no Holy Spirit working to bond the new believer ever closer to Jesus and to forsake ever more successfully sin etc.

Sigh.

Pentecostals seem to make a distinction between accepting Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Thus, the "have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed" Scripture.

Sounds like some defensive behaviour on the part of the pastors there; they don't like to be questioned. You should probably start thinking about changing church.

The type of people you are dealing with are everywhere. There are also people like you everywhere. God does stuff like that. It is quite possible that your church needs you to stay. I was in a similar situation and I stayed, no regrets.

You need to earn someone's respect, before they respond well to criticism. Church hopping doesn't get that done. Hope this makes your decision eaiser. I pray you will do well.

Seven

You're not wrong, but then I'm Baptist not Pentecostal

Every Christian has the Holy Spirit, but I question whether any or all of what is presented as tongues in Pentecostal churches is really the gift of tongues. I don't know that it is not, but I am very skeptical.

1 Corinthians 13:8 - Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

I'm guessing that your church probably adopts a wrong position on whether you can fall from grace. You can't.

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Yup, you were out of line. Always bring witnesses!

Why, well at your church they protect the image of Jesus Christ but not the truth of Jesus Christ and certainly not the testimony of the Holy Spirit! You also have had issues before.

It's no mistake that we are having this conversation. I reached the same point last night with our elders.

An earlier poster reached the same conclusion as well. Adios!

Some additional information:

Question

In Acts 19 where Paul talks about John’s baptism being of repentance, it’s in the third through the seventh verse. He asked the people of Ephesus there, some disciples, it says, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit?” and they said, “No, we never even heard there was one.” And this girl I was talking with the other day at work, was telling me that she received the baptism of the Holy Spirit about 3 or 4 days after she was saved. I’ve heard a lot about that, I was taught back and forth when I first became a Christian and I’m not real sure. She showed me this section of scripture and I didn’t know how to answer her to say that it was all at one time.

Answer

This passage proves the very opposite, and I’ll show you why.

Verse one, “It came to pass, while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper border came to Ephesus: and found certain disciples”. Now the word disciple, mathetes means a learner, we don’t know who they were learning from; we don’t know who they were disciples of in verse one, we just know they were learners. They were seekers of truth; they were followers of somebody. He said unto them, “'Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?' And they said, 'We haven’t so much as heard there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said unto them, 'Unto what then were you baptized?'" I mean, he’s shocked! He is in effect saying, "Well, whatever your baptism was it certainly wasn’t the normal baptism, it wasn’t Christ that you believed in or you would have heard and known of the Holy Spirit."

So the question is it’s a shock to him that there is somebody who says they're a disciple, and a follower, who doesn’t know that the baptism of the Spirit has come. So they said, "Unto John’s baptism," well who’s John? John the Baptist, these are Old Testament saints. See they haven’t even entered into the new covenant, so they’re not even saved yet. They are only in the sense of the Old Testament, so what does he do? Then said Paul; “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance.”

Now, what is the baptism of repentance? John’s baptism was a preparatory baptism; in other words he was making a people ready for the Messiah. It was a ceremonial washing, it was very much the Old Testament thing where you come and you are symbolizing the cleansing of your heart, by the washing of the outer body in the baptism, so that you are demonstrating that you are ready in your heart to receive the Messiah, it was a preparatory, turning from your sin, turning away from the past and washing yourself on the inside and demonstrating on the outside. It was a preparation saying unto the people that they should believe on Him who should come after, that is Christ Jesus.

So John was getting people to repent of their sin and have their hearts cleansed by confession and repentance towards God, symbolizing their baptism to get ready for the coming of the Messiah. Well, who does he preach to them? Does he say them, "Now look let me tell you how to get the baptism of the Spirit--let me tell you how to do this?" No, he doesn’t say that; he talks to them not about the Holy Spirit, not about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he talks to them about whom? Christ Jesus, because that’s what they have to hear. And so he tells them about Christ Jesus and when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Now they've become new covenant believers and when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Spirit came to them immediately on the spot and at that point they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

So this passage does not teach what is called the Charismatic doctrine of Subsequence. Now it is unique in the sense that they received the Holy Spirit differently than we do, but there’s a reason for that. On the day of Pentecost the people received the Holy Spirit in a marvelous way the first time He came…true? I mean it had to start somewhere, right? So the Spirit comes on them subsequent obviously to their believing, because they had to wait and pray and wait you know until the Spirit came. Now when you come into chapter eight the Gospel was taken to the Samaritans, now if there was any animosity in the world it was between the Jews and the Samaritans, right? So whatever God had done when he began the church among the Jews he better repeat when he begins it among the Samaritans, or the Jews are going to think they are second class. So when they believed the apostles were also present and also the Spirit of God came and baptized them and I believe they spoke in tongues, in the languages because that’s what happened at Pentecost. It wasn’t that the languages were so necessary to that event, they were a necessary connection to that first event.

Then in chapter 10 when Peter preached to Cornelius who is not a Samaritan, you go from the pure Jew to the half-breed Samaritan to the pure Gentile. When he preached to the Gentiles and they believed the same thing happened. The apostles laid their hands on them and the Spirit came and they spoke in tongues, not that it was important then, but it was important that they have the same thing the Jews had. So that the people see the church as one, so when those initial comings of the Spirit: the Jewish, the Samaritan, and the Gentile situation, there was a reenactment of the same things, and Peter goes right back to the people in Jerusalem and he says you’re never going to believe this, the same thing happened to the Gentiles that happened to us. Do you know what that means? We got to accept them on our level.

Now you only got one loose end and this is these drifters who are Old Testament saints, disciples of John and I believe they are included in the same one body concept by repeating the very same phenomena that you can trace all the way to the book of Acts.

Question (continued)

Repeating what, repeating the tongues?

Answer (continued)

The laying of the hands of the apostles, the baptism, the tongues. Not that it was so necessary at that point, but that it reenacts that initial coming so that there’s no sense of anything but one body of those who believe. And after that point it ceases. The Samaritans were in chapter 8, the Gentiles are in chapter 10, and the Old Testament hangovers are in chapter 19.

Very good explanation of an otherwise confusing and misleading verse! Like always when the light comes on a difficult passage it becomes more clear than the ones that appear clearest on the surface.

I don't think you are wrong at all. I don't believe it is possible to be a Christian without all three parts of the Trinity working in you. Perhaps this was a sort of "dumb-downed" teaching for people in the pews who don't study any theology, or Scripture, for that matter. Since we are imperfect, I think there are times when we conciously feel the Holy Spirit fully, and there are times when we don't. At least, that's been my experience. However, the Spirit is ALWAYS there, it is up to us to just ask for more. I don't like the response you got from your pastor. I can't imagine my pastor reacting that way. Sadly, I agree with you that it's probably time to leave. God bless!

No, you are not wrong. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the hardest for people to grasp, and any teaching that muddies the water is very, very bad.

This passage proves the very opposite, and I’ll show you why

Outstanding response. Are these your own words, because I'm going to nick a bunch of ideas from this when I write my response to this teaching.

If they are, many thanks for your time and effort into providing such an detailed and informed answer

pony

It's no mistake that we are having this conversation. I reached the same point last night with our elders.

I'd like to hear your story. Either here or Freepmail me

pony

It is quite possible that your church needs you to stay. I was in a similar situation and I stayed, no regrets.

That's exactly my wife's rap, that we need to stay to be a thorn in their side. I not overly convinced, but my wife is wise in Wisdom and Spirit in ways I can't even imagine, so I will more than likely heed her counsel.

You need to earn someone's respect, before they respond well to criticism. Church hopping doesn't get that done.

You are right, most of the time running away solves nothing for either side. Besides, when we moved over where we currently are two and a half years ago, we spent about seven months looking around for a decent church, and this was the best of the lot. I'm not too excited at the prospects of looking for another fellowship. Nor would it be good for our two kids to uproot them from church again.

thanks for your input and encouragement.

pony

"That's exactly my wife's rap, that we need to stay to be a thorn in their side"

This reminds me of me, many years ago. I will leave it for you to decide if that is a Godly attitude. In my case, it was me that needed the attitude adjustment, even though I still maintain that I was right on doctrine.

Here's how I see it:

Stay as long as you're able to grow in your walk with God through their ministry. The moment that no longer becomes possible, then you need to consider leaving. If you find yourself struggling with frustration and/or bitterness, then you need to consider leaving.

In my case, it was me that needed the attitude adjustment, even though I still maintain that I was right on doctrine.

Oh, I hope I'm not coming across that I am some poor, persecuted soul. I absolutely need an attitude ajustment. I needed one as soon as I became a Christian, I need one now, I'm sure I'll go on needing one until I'm taken up to Glory.

One of the first messages I heard when I came to this church about two years ago was a gospel preach and alter call with absolutely no mention whatsoever of repentance, of turning away from sin (or hardly even a mention of sin at all), no mention of the cost of discipleship, nothing. The message was basically, "God is good, your life would be so much better if you had Jesus in it."

I was livid, and after the preach I confronted the pastor (which, btw, is where most of this current situation is rooted) and said that he should have talked about repentance. His response to me was that Paul didn't mention repentance in every single preach he did, therefore he didn't need to mention repentance either.

Which, of course, resulted in me explaining to him (in what was a less that loving manner I admit, lol) that there are certain fundemental elements of preaching a solid Gospel message, to which repentance is most certainly one (I ask again, "Am I Wrong?"). That didn't go over well, and I have been labled a troublemaker ever since.

So, yes, a good chunk of this is self-induced, I fully and openly admit. But, honestly, until the Holy Sprit completly overhauls my heart and I become a sensitive, meek, nice guy, I would rather be an annoying thorn in their side then let such poor, anaemic and even dangerous teaching go unchallenged.