Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Sermon given by Win Worley in 1990. © WRW Publications.
Pastor Worley’s books, booklets, CDs/DVDs available at https://wrwpublications.com.
Anonymous
NOW we are talking
NOW we are talking
what do you believe on this in your neck of the woods
John Mushenhouse Margaret English de Alminana Melvin Harter Michael Chauncey Link Hudson Joseph D. Absher Dan Anthony Neil Steven Lawrence Isara Mo William DeArteaga Billy Monroe Poff NOT sure about having the demon or being had by the demon BUT there sure are plenty of church goers out there that backslide Kyle Williams and get demonized @bruce gordon has sent me some deliverance BIBLE leaves I plan to post in a separate post today if there is still time before the rapture… cause Pentecostals are pre-trib expecting you see
Anonymous
Troy Day, I don’t think the devil ever owns a person. Even in Mark 5, the demoniac on the island of Gadara was said to be demonized.
“The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness the world and they that dwell therein.”
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey TRUE in the NT ppl possessed the demon and not VSmost ppl demonized in the BIBLE were ppl of the theonomistric OT covenant alike the hyper Calvinism OSAS covenant theology …
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey What is translated as ‘possessed’ could more literally be translated, almost transliterated as ‘demonized.’ ‘Possessed’ was the turn of phrase used in the KJV, but isn’t in the Greek. English-speakers have developed theology around it, creating categories like oppressed versus possessed.
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey demonized simply means the person possessed the demon The GOSPELS even use has/had…
Anonymous
Troy Day Greeks that Medized went over to the side of the Medes.
Anonymous
Link Hudson Corinth was too close do Delphi where the oracles also spoke in strange tongues – what are the odds of such coincidence?
Anonymous
Troy Day Google maps shows 200 kilometers between the two cities. It would be closer by boat. But where is the evidence of ‘strange tongues’ in Delphi– a John MacAthur sermon?
Plutarch worked there in Delphi as a priest, and he defended the oracle prophesying in Greek prose instead of prophesying in high Greek poetry as some expected. That doesn’t seem to fit John MacArthur’s old theory.
Anonymous
Link Hudson like I’ve said before you and Philip Williams need a brief church history 101 before doing ANY theology, and I am pretty serious in this recommendation. Go look up the Oracles of Delphi and what they did IF too much watch the 300-movie to freshen up on history. Figured, with you making all the El Eleyon/70sons/2nd yhwh claims from secular mythology THE least you would know the Oracles of Delphi spoke some tongues AND btw keep in mind they did not have interstates when you check the distance next 🙂 the oracles were known outside Greece as well https://charlesasullivan.com/7985/delphi-prophetesses-christian-tongues/
Anonymous
Troy Day Your referring to the page of a full preterist? Are you a full preterist… quoting a full preterist web site?
Anonymous
Link Hudson I am educating you on the simple difference between the oracles of Delhpi with the actual Biblical tongues of Corinth – something quote apparently a full preterist know better than you who claim to be some sort of bapticostal breed no one has ever seen before …
Anonymous
Troy Day I don’t really like the idea of reading Charles Sullivan’s stuff. I’ve seen enough of his posts on another forum. Somehow he got Michael Brown to debate him on full preterism.
Anyway, I’ve scanned it over, and it seems to be against the idea of the Delphic priest engaging in ‘ecstatic’ utterances. Like the comment below it says,
“I just read this article and was surprised to learn that those priestesses weren’t exhibiting glossolalia at all! (I forgot that when I read the article on Origen last week, I had observed for myself that Origen’s description of the priestesses has no mention of unintelligibility. Side note: Why don’t you include Origen’s description of the priestesses in this article? Just because it doesn’t count as a Hellenistic text?)
Because of the assertion of those higher criticists (tongues=glossolalia) I thought it was a given that the Delphic priestesses spoke ecstatic, unintelligible utterances, and that their only mistake was connecting that to the Christian doctrine of tongues. But we actually have a double misinterpretation!
So where did the higher criticists get the idea of unintelligible utterances in the first place? ”
One thing gets stated in a book, and other books, academic or otherwise, quote it. That happens sometimes.
Anonymous
Link Hudson I understand and I do not disagree but in this case Charles Sullivan makes a solid point that needs to be taken seriously PERHAPS you can find a real Pentecostal scholar to make the same point for us to understand ?
But hereS the dif
You posted a gnostic text to defeat my argument I quickly checked the Greek as you should have done simply to see they did NOT translate the text right; there were spell errors logical errors in translation typos and so much else – I discarded the gnostic as a source AND showed from the original what the source actually says I did not discard you as a gnostic or your arguments SIMPLY showed the fakeness of the source
now since you are obviously NOT over it jump on the Charles Sullivan link – granted NOT Pentecostal BUT not wrong either – – – his source is solid, his Greek and logic too; you can find something wrong with him I guess, but I could not – the argument is solid. NOW your reaction is to equate me with the source and attack me this way WHY? attack the source – but you cannot The guy did his homework while the gnostic website you cited did not and got slammed for it AND this is the dif. here – attack the argument not the person BTW holding grudges for so long is at the lowest in my book, but oh well…
Anonymous
Troy Day tell the truth. I posted a quote from Irenaeus I found with a web search. It happened to be on a Gnostic website, which I was not aware of. If that makes me gnostic, your using Charles Sullivan’s site makes you a full preterist.
Who considers ‘Against Heresies’ to be a gnostic test.
If this kund of stuff is supposed to be humor, pray to be sanctified when it comes to your humor. Proverbs 26:18-19.
Anonymous
THE TRUTH :
you did not post a quote from Irenaeus
you posted a quite that claimed to be from Irenaeus
BUT had nothing to do with the original that is found only in 1-2 places on the internet and Dale M. Coulter recently directed me to a French source that was also taken down THATs the truth – the rest simply speaks of your character Link Hudson
Anonymous
Troy Day I was focusing on something specific relevant to our conversation. I don’t recall your out specific problems with the quotes from Irenaeus at the site like I requested, and who cares about spelling errors. If you are going to quote Sullivan, do you want me to keep associating you with post-trib, getting on your case over nothing like with my use of a random site to find a quote from Irenaeus.
If my quoting Irenaeus from the first site I came across, which I didn’t even know was a Gnostic site speaks of my character, then what does your linking to a full preterist’s site say of your character?
I tell what concerns me more about character– lying and misrepresenting people. You said, “You posted a gnostic text to defeat my argument”. No, I quoted Irenaeus.
Also, picking at people over nothing to keep stirring up discord..over nothing. I don’t mind if you quote Sullivan for a legitimate reason, but you should be consistent to have the same standards for yourself as you have for others. The constant picking and misrepresenting is not funny. If you thought I was some kind of Gnostic heretic, why would you offer me pages on your website? I’m still up in the air on that. One thing that caused me concern is you mixed that odd third-Pentecost article on the same page with the Cindy Jacobs prophecy/word…. whatever it was supposed to be… of Pak Niko. It didn’t represent either the author or the video well. I’ve seen some other misleading stuff on the site, too.
Anonymous
Troy Day From Sullivan, what point do you think he is making?
Some of the cessationists try to make out the oracle of Delphi’s utterances to be some kind of gibberish, and argue that that is the same thing as modern speaking in tongues.
But the history does not support the idea of the oracle of Delphi’s utterances being some kind of gibberish. That’s my take-away from the article as I recall from reading bits and pieces the other day. It lines up with what I read from Plutarch on the subject–defending he prophecies being prose sometimes and not on-the-spot prophetic high poetry visitors expected.
I recall the Roman legends of it were more along the lines of not understanding what the utterances meant. I took that to mean they were like riddles, not gibberish.
What did you get from his article that you think is relevant. I suspect you are honing in on a different part or just came to a different conclusion.
Anonymous
Link Hudson you didnt know oracle of Delphi spoke in tongues
he informs how similar is oracle of Delphi speaking in tongues
Anonymous
Troy Day how disimilar.
Anonymous
Link Hudson now this is open for interpretation
they spoke in tongues and had interpretations too – some accurate
Paul makes allusion to how this is NOT the Pentecostal tongues as gift; one can assume many knew of Delphi in close by Corinth and tried to act the same way Paul was telling them this is NOT the way
Anonymous
Troy Day what in Sullivan’s article did you think was similar between speaking in tongues in the Oracle of Delphi?
Where does Paul say anything at all related to the idea about the tongues not being the same kind of tongues as Pentecost? I can’t find that in the book.
Anonymous
So Christians lose the Holy Spirit? Interesting. I thought the word of God said that believers are Sealed with the Spirit. Apparently Troy Day has had a new revelation…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams Sorry my brother. I am not in the habit of posting during church while we minister to ppl in needs. Not sure how the rest of yall do it on Sundays but we stay pretty busy. You did not tag me in hope not to get a response I guess but this is not a personal revelation as you may suppose. Yes it differs from the heretical hyper calvinism you subscribe to but in Pentecostalism based on our Wesleyan Arminian Holiness tradition we believe the person has a choice – something John Mushenhouse Neil Steven Lawrence have both explained to you many times. And even Link Hudson dont believe OSAS last I checked perhaps he too knows more than myself about possesses ppl AS most ppl demonized in the BIBLE were ppl of the theonomistric OT covenant as in your covenant theology
Anonymous
Troy Day Those who criticize “Calvinism” (divine sovereign grace) do not understand the doctrines of God, man, sin and salvation.
Calvinism and OSAS (biblically defined) is simply an affirmation of God’s sovereignty and the doctrines of grace.
Those who get the Gospel right are “Calvinists”.
Anonymous
Troy Day I actually replied to that early this morning, prior to arriving for Church. I don’t do Facebook during Church either, so I understand. I also don’t know why you insist on mischaracterizing my veiws as “hyper Calvinism.” It’s absurd
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess Calvinism isn’t defined in the Bible. Calvin lived in the 1500s AD. So Calvinism isn’t Biblically defined. Just sayin’.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams Good 2no you dont post during church BUT as Link Hudson stated Calvinism isn’t defined in the Bible. Calvin wanted to create his own Christian UTOPIA and failed with the death sentencing of Servetus on 27 October 1553 – with this act and from this point on reformed theology went down the drain. Just too many failures!
Anonymous
Troy Day something we finally agree on.
Anonymous
To answer the question, No, the true saints of the living God do not have demons.
Teaching that believers can have demons is not deliverance, but bondage to lies and spiritual deception.
The so called “deliverance ministries” of the past several decades are essentially taken from fiction and turned into doctrine. Totally lacking discernment; biblically illiterate.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess true saints of the living God do not have demons IS correct The question raised with Kyle Williams was: What if they backslide?
Anonymous
Troy Day they have went out from among us that it might be made manifest that they were never of us. For if they had been of us they would have doubtlessly continued with us. Thats how scripture awnsers this.
Anonymous
UTOPIS @best
Anonymous
lots a ppl DO in CHURCH Isara Mo Roscoe Barnes III William DeArteaga
Anonymous
YES many do Duane L Burgess Philip Williams
Anonymous
Troy Day we struggle not against flesh and blood.
Anonymous
Troy Day No true saint of the living God has demons.
Do not be deceived, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
Anonymous
there arent even any demons.
angels cant fall, they are spirit beings made by God.
Anonymous
John Digsby NO? really – are you reading the SAME BIBLE?
Anonymous
Troy Day depends on what version you have. I use a king james but ya shouldnt need a book to know spiritual beings like angels, dont sin. They dont rebel, they obey God completely.
Ya understand sin is a carnal tendancy, right, cuz we have worldly concerns and are flesh<< beings, that the whole bible says, flesh beings sin.... and nowhere is an angel rebeling against God.. they kill humans on command of God and they dont say, no.. thanks.