|
|
| Walter Polasik |
Thank you! SOMEONE has to tell some of our Pentecostal friends about this defunct doctrine! Actually, the very name, “entire sanctification” is a misnomer come to think of it. Why? Because when a believer is born-again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, at that moment he or she stands before God ENTIRELY SANCTIFIED. This is the work of cleansing that Christ’s blood does. This is the work of Christ’s own imputed holiness. Why on earth this other doctrine was thought up, I’ll never know. |
| Mike Stidham |
In more recent days, theologians from “holiness” denominations are beginning to redefine “entire sanctification” away from a point in time where the sin nature is eradicated in favor of a series of such moments in the Christian life where one moves from one level of grace to the next. |
| Walter Polasik |
Mike Stidham No, that was actually the original doctrine. The way most Christians understand sanctification is two-fold: 1.) “Imputed” sanctification which I mention above and 2.) “Progressive” sanctification in which we draw close to Christ and holiness as we keep walking with Him. Neither of these two is what the Holiness or Church of God branches really recognize. They, instead, believe in sanctification by several “zaps”…i.e. experiences with the Holy Spirit. Problem: there’s not an iota of Scriptural proof that having an experience with the Holy Spirit gives one “instant holiness”. That Holy Spirit surely does sanctify, but not in that way. |
| Mike Stidham |
I’d mainly heard the doctrine in terms of a “once for all” moment subsequent to salvation in which more was promised than is actually delivered. The Nazarenes ask people who are candidates for ministry to state the time and place when they were “sanctified”.The “several zaps” sounds more congruent with progressive sanctification, but I don’t know that I’d quite agree with thinking of it like that for the reason you state; there is no Biblical case for such a point in time sanctification, whether one or several. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Then you as John Wesley did believe in Pentecostal Regeneration? |
| Mike Stidham |
I never could wrap my brain around that idea fully. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Too bad for you. A tin of scripture prove it to be true |
| Mike Stidham |
I’m willing to examine it. Go on. |
| Walter Polasik |
Mike Stidham “Progressive” means that we become more holy in our day-to-day life (at least we SHOULD) as we gain more of His wisdom, live out the Word, reflect the character of Christ in our lives and interactions with people, manifest the fruit of the Spirit’s work in our lives. The change and evidence is gradual but noticeable. It’s called Christian maturity. Incidentally, “mature” is the same word translated as “perfect” in Scripture. One day we WILL be “in the measure and stature of the fullness of Christ”. (Eph. 4:13) Until then, we “grow in grace” day by day. As for experiences in the Spirit? Absolutely they’re valid! The Spirit is the touch of heaven we have this side of eternity. Prayer at the altar and the touch of God there have been vital earmarks of Pentecostalism. These times show that He hasn’t stopped being “Immanuel”, “God WITH us” when He ascended to heaven. This was, of course, the whole point of Pentecost. “I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.” |
| Mike Stidham |
Walter Polasik Now I’m getting confused. I have no issue with “experiences in the Spirit”; I just don’t want to claim more for them than can be Scripturally justified. I have had such experiences, but I still struggle with the effects of sin in my life so I can’t say I’m “entirely sanctified”. |
| Walter Polasik |
Mike Stidham Don’t be confused, it seems we have the exact same understanding. Yep, same reasoning here. But then, I’m Assembly of God. Nazarene and Church of God have a bit different understanding. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Not u,til eradication of sinful nature |
| Walter Polasik |
Grover Katzmarek Sr Well, that’s what will definitely be the case when we see Jesus. Eph. 4:13. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
It can happen before death and must. Paul talks about putting to death the old man. In Romans 8 I believe vs 13 he tells us we have two choices. Only two no more, If one believes this happens only at death, then you my friend are a calvinistic perso, |
| Melvin Harter |
Walter, Read Ephesians 4:22(f). It stands in total opposition to your initial post. Read John 17:17. You need to read and study your Bible. |
| Walter Polasik |
Melvin Harter Well, Dr. Harter, what an honor. We finally get to “cross swords” (oddly enough we’re using the same Sword if I’m not mistaken. 😉 ). So, en garde. To your quoted passages, sir, John 17:17 certainly does say that as we get to know His Word more and apply it to our lives, we will grow in sanctification. Now, as to Ephesians 4:22 ff. having reviewed the passage in question, I find Paul telling the Ephesian believers to actively participate in “putting off” the old man, the kind of attitudes and responses which are so natural for us and our day-to-day, in-the-flesh living and instead to “put on” or really live out the “new man” that we have been made in Christ. This is in agreement with Romans 12:1,2 which talks about presenting our bodies, while alive, as a living offering to God, to live in honor and purity for Him. This is also a process of daily consistency, relying on His strength and holiness to fill up our lives daily. It does not, however, teach anything of the kind once taught in early Pentecostal-Holiness churches and earlier still by John Wesley himself: that there is a certain experience with the Holy Spirit, at “the altar” during a church service that, once experienced, will rid the believer of the need to struggle with sin. ()i.e. “sinless perfection” or “entire sanctification”) That sir, I flat-out posit is NOWHERE taught in Scripture nor can you make neither the English or the Greek teach it. The ball’s in your court, what say you? |
| Brian Crisp |
Who is entirely sanctified that’s alive? |
| Joe Absher |
Nobody is sanctified that’s alive you have to die to be sanctified. |
| Brian Crisp |
Entirely yes |
| Joe Absher |
Grace good sir. I’ll pass |
| Brian Crisp |
Pass on grace? |
| Joe Absher |
I’ll pass on trying to debate reckon your selves dead indeed unto sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ. We have plenty of powerful verses on grace sanctification and deliverance and victory over sin. But it’s not a matter of knowing verses it’s a matter of knowing Him. Jesus Christ. Jehovah M’kaddesh. The Lord who sanctifies you |
| Brian Crisp |
I believe in grace and sanctification but not like some teach. I go by the word. |
| Joe Absher |
Wonderful. Fight on good soldier |
| Wayne Dodd |
Brian I’m totally with you. I do believe to sanctify something simply means to “set it apart for use.” Through the baptism of the HG, God has done that for each one of us. “Ye shall receive power to be my witnesses.” It’s a finished work. Now, it’s up to us to walk in it, and as Paul said none of us have “become perfect” but we “press on.” |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Lord take the blinders off their eyes |
| Walter Polasik |
Sir, do you hold that doctrine? If you do, please show me Scripture for it. I have yet to talk to Dr. Melvin Harter about it. He claims he can prove it “from the Greek”. (which I highly doubt, as CONTEXT and not just a Greek word or two play a role in understanding biblical teaching). |
| Joe Absher |
paul was accused of many things but not being sanctified is a new one. |
| Walter Polasik |
He certainly was sanctified, as you and I are, In Christ. Just not in the way COG and Nazarene preach it. |
| Joe Absher |
I had a good answer sorry to say I’ve forgotten it. |
| Joe Absher |
If you can’t stop sinning ask God to help you. Pray for a deeper consecration. If you can’t get up and seek God in the morning forget about it. It’s called “my grace is sufficient…” You may have to eat some humble pie with your friends but you’ll have a friend in heaven. His name is Jesus. |
| Joe Absher |
Mr Walter Polasik sorry to say I don’t know COG doctrine or Nazarene doctrine. But I know Matthew 4:10 |
| Walter Polasik |
Street Preacherz I don’t take issue with that verse. What are you trying to say preacher-man? |
| Joe Absher |
Trying to serve God the best I know how. Leaning on him is all. I ain’t know body I think you know that but I know what Jesus did for me. Then we have Jesus words about abiding in him. Wish I could explain it is all. |
| Joe Absher |
When Jesus comes in he takes the junk out. You may have to box it up and carry it out but he’ll help you |
| Walter Polasik |
What’s that? You’re a nobody who knows Somebody who changed you and now you’re tellin’ everybody? 😉 Did I hear that right? |
| Joe Absher |
That’s about right. Wish every could meet him just once |
| Joe Absher |
Well I can’t help it sometimes I cry when I think about His unyeilding love. You can push and push and push but he’ll still love you. He doesn’t quit like some folks. Me too I quit but he doesn’t quit. He’ll walk you through it. Just stick around don’t run off. He’ll help you. He’s Almighty strong too. Jesus of course |
| Joe Absher |
Don’t you think Jesus can take sin out of a man’s heart and soul. |
| Wayne Dodd |
So we see in the epistles all kinds of exhortations to the people of God to flee sexual immorality – stuff someone who believes in the Wesleyan view of sanctification would say it would be impossible for them to even desire, much less engage in.When the HS comes into us, he takes out the heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh. But he doesn’t kill the flesh. Death will ultimately kill it, but it’s up to us to mortify (kill) it also. Sanctification is progressive my dear friends. As great of a guy as we all know Wesley was- he was indeed wrong. |
| Joe Absher |
Brother pick up your sword and fight. Have read Ephesians. Forget Wesley for a hot minute let’s talk about a Risen Christ an empty tomb and God who is able to deliver you! |
| Walter Polasik |
Wayne Dodd: Keep in mind that a lot of “disciples” put things into the denominational mold that the founders never intended nor believed. Calvinists morphed Calvin’s thought, Wesleyans Wesley’s. Also the fact that each of these men, while on the one hand unearthing vast territories of spiritual truth and unveiling biblical work for years to come, still failed to see on other issues clearly. This was the whole point in why Paul wrote, “For we know in part….we see through a glass, darkly.” Those almost cryptic words have rung true for many a denominational and doctrinal teacher. William Miller, a Baptist, dabbled in date-setting for Christ’s return. He had no idea he would spawn a whole movement like the Seventh-Day Adventists who in turn would spawn Jehovah’s Witnesses (and the same error would repeat itself over and over). Luther’s anti-Semitism would come back to haunt him. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) and their doctrine of the necessity of speaking in tongues for salvation would come to haunt them, as the exact same premise (that we are ALL automatically baptized in the Spirit I Cor. 12:13) is used by Cessationists to counter any Pentecostal claims. Pentecostalism’s allowance of women behind the pulpit (something which flatly contradicts biblical teaching) wiould come to haunt it as well. Feminism has made major inroads into both society and church since. Even the most well meaning of leaders forget that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”. |
| Joe Absher |
Dear Mr. Walter Polasik I never heard any church of God Cleveland preach you have to speak in tongues to be saved. Could you site a reference. sincerly your brother.Don’t you guys think the great creator of heaven and Earth who made man from the dust of the earth breathed into his nostrils and he became a living breathing soul can deliver a man from sin? |
| Walter Polasik |
Street Preacherz Isn’t Lee University Church of God, Cleveland? Lee does teach salvation as contingent upon speaking in tongues. Many Apostolic churches teach this as well. |
| Joe Absher |
News to me. Have to wait for a church of God Pastor to speak on it. Brother don’t you think that’s a red herring to the issue of deliverance from sin and it’s slavery. Did i read you are A of G. Don’t they preach deliverance from sin and satan? |
| Joe Absher |
Brother it’s late 3am forgive me maybe tomorrow? |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
I have studied and g followed Wesley for over 4 decades, never once have I’ve ever heard any Wesleyan say what you have said in this post. Yes sanctification is progressive but it is also instanteous. What messes most people up is the fact of Pentecostal regeneration. I heard some talk about initial and then complete fillings or baptism of the Holy Spirit. I’ve read read that in scripture. Wesley believed as I do that on the day of Pentecost was the time that the as apostles and others received the Holy Spirit and were regenerated, converted forgiven of sins or whatever terminology one wishes to use.Secondly to say Wesley was wrong is a cop out. As you have posted I can tell you only know about Wesley what you have been told. |
| Joe Absher |
I just don’t understand how you could be preacher and say God can’t help with the sin thing. He says ask for wisdom. We got weapons. We have grace aplenty. And God who is near! In Jesus Christ. He’s still the Lord our Shepherd. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Yes especially when Paul talks so much about us being dead to sin and all of that |
| Joe Absher |
“Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.” – Zechariah 4:7 |
| Troy Day |
And how was an unsanctified person carried to the 3rd heavens again? – just wondering |
| Walter Polasik |
Oh, he WAS sanctified, but not the way you think. 😉 |
| Troy Day |
Yes You finally got to admit it. Paul was entirely sanctified. |
| Walter Polasik |
Troy Day He was sanctified the same way all of us are. Through the blood of Christ, by Christ’s imputed holiness to us when we come to Him for salvation. No zaps required, no huge long process of “tarrying” for that that. For the presence of God? Yes. For the Baptism in the Spirit, yes. For standing before God as pure and holy? No. Progressive Sanctification is that “working out” of our salvation with fear and trembling. But we could not come before His presence were we not made holy to do so. So, actually, your doctrine is a misnomer. It’s not the way the BIBLE teaches “entire sanctification.” 😉 |
| Troy Day |
Yes you are right – entirely sanctified is true in the Bible and not true in the lives of so many un-sanctified believers in the church today |
| Paul Hughes |
From the linked article, Troy Day:”Paul was given an infirmity (astheneia, “weakness,†“illnessâ€) to stem potential pride and vanquish self-reliance. It served as a reminder that in spite of profound revelations, he had not and could not transcend the limitations of mortality, nor ascribe to spiritual attainments apart from gifts of grace, i.e., charismata. (To Paul, his authority to preach and teach came by virtue of the revelation he had received, which he described literally as “grace†[charis] which had been “given†to him.)” |
| Paul Hughes |
“It so follows that to Paul it is through charismata, bestowed by grace through Spirit Baptism, that the power of God is manifested in the Church, and Spirit-empowered ministry takes place (not via “praying through†to achieve an elite spiritual state, e.g., apotheosis); moreover, that training in sound doctrine and faithful Christian practice are vital to Christian strength and maturity.” |
| Troy Day |
bullocks 🙂 What does physical infirmity has to do with entire sanctification? BTW even you Dr. Paul Hughes cannot say with certainty what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was. This post is entirely speculative on so many levels |
| Walter Polasik |
That’s “bollocks” if you want to talk British, mate. 😉 |
| Mike Stidham |
Unless he was perhaps hinting at the source of BS, which indeed would be bullocks. 🙂 |
| Paul Hughes |
Obviously, we know WHY the “thorn” was given: to avert spiritual pride in achievement and self-reliance; to remind Paul he was still mortal, human, fallible, not “ascended” or “divinized.” |
| Paul Hughes |
An “Entirely Sanctified” person would not have a “thorn,” now would he? The concept is “entirely” at odds. |
| Walter Polasik |
to clarify, you are saying that if Paul was completely “perfect” and “sinless” then he wouldn’t need the humbling check of a “thorn in the flesh” would he? Since Paul, like all of us, struggled with sin, there is no one this side of heaven that can call themselves “sinlessly perfect”. |
| Troy Day |
The deep fallacy of your argument is that you equate entire sanctification with physical wellness – this argument is whole lot of bullocks and not so much theology (if any @ all) |
| Walter Polasik |
Troy Day You don’t get the point, Troy. It wasn’t the physical problem that is at issue. What is at issue is that Paul himself admitted that his physical problem was given to him because of his tendency towards pridefulness due to all that he was (a theologically trained Pharisee) and all that he had spiritually experienced (visions, miracle power etc.). Paul wasn’t in “sinless perfection” precisely because Paul knew he had sins to deal with. This didn’t mean that he didn’t have holy standing before God: he did, just not “sinless perfection”. |
| Troy Day |
So you are saying a whole lot of things BUT NOT answering my question, namely:How was it that unsanctified Paul was carried to the 3rd heavens and entered the presence of God without entire sanctification without which no man will see the Lord all and while Paul himself then admonished the believers in Hebrews 12:14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord? |
| Walter Polasik |
See my reply above. Your pie don’t fly. 😉 |
| Troy Day |
I see you keep on avoiding the question No fun Major fail on your part |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
No one Walter Polasik this side of heaven has sinless perfection, no,holiness preacher or writer I’ve ever studied after claims this. .a good book for one to read is by Richard S. Taylor, A bright Conception of Sin. Most today cannot give a biblical definition of sin. Entire sanctification is not sinless perfection because of our humanity we still commit sins of omission but not sins of commissiib |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Sorry not bright but Right. Conception of zzsin |
| Walter Polasik |
Thanks for the book (I’m a bookworm 😉 ) I’ll be sure to look it up. However, as to the definition of sin, it’s rather simple. 1.)The breaking of God’s Law as found in the Bible. 2.) Anything done not of faith. Or, if known to be wrong by the sinner. (Both of those definitions are in the Bible). Actually from Wesley on down to the Holiness movement, the idea of “Sinless Perfection” was quite prevalent so much so that D.L. Moody had to prove a point to a man at a dinner who professed it. He claimed that since the Holy Spirit had come upon him at church, he’d never once sinned or gotten out of hand. “Never used foul language?” Moody asked him. “No sir, never.” He replied. The conversation around the table continued while Moody quietly took a pitcher of milk on the table, walked around to where his guest sat and poured some down into his collar. The man got up, livid and began swearing profusely. Moody merely sat back down and smiled at him. The point was made and “sinless perfection” forgotten. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
No Wesley never believed in sinless perfection this side of heaven. He has been misquoted and misinterpretated by his enemies and enemies of the true gospel.As to sin the apostle john said sin is the transgression. Of a known law of God. Today some people say this is sin and that is sin but not biblically. I find it so amazing that people like you can actually believe that say the apostles lived a life of living in sin, when there are tons of scripture that tells us different. Like when Christ tells his followers if your righteousness doesn’t exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees you will not enter into the kingdom |
| Troy Day |
Paul Hughes Why done We take you on your weak argument this week? A bakers dozen has 13 in it. But your Dirty Dozen argumentation really has only 3. It’s more of a Terrible ThreeHow id unsanctified Paul get to the 3rd heaven ? #bullocksAnd even if Paul was not entirely sanctified does this proof anything for all of Christianity? What an ad-hock #bulolock approach for conclusion. Jesus was tempted – was he not sanctified too? Street Preacherz |
| Joe Absher |
Jesus now there’s a topic I’d love to discuss. How he emptied himself, was tempted yet without sin, suffered died was buried and rose victorious. And that it is he who is able to help and succour those that are tempted. |
| Joe Absher |
I wouldn’t give an inch Mr. Day. It’s a total misnomer. If the argument is against “entire sanctification” let it be against separation from sin. One it is God’s desire to separate us from sin and evil, it’s power and curse and bondage. So it is more than a question of our own feeble efforts.Second in Jesus Christ! lol in Jesus Christ is liberty and help and hope and strength and victory over sin. If the axe is laid to the root pick it up and start hacking away. A little violence against sin can only be a good thing. Heb. 4:12, is there a Christian that does not know the verse, or Matthew 4:10, or “My grace is sufficient…” I’m a novice. Ok I’m a novice. A novice that has met a living risen victorious sin destroying Christ. Jesus Christ the Righteous. |
| Troy Day |
No argument against entire sanctification is done in this article. There a 12 misleads that can be summed down to actually 3 not so Biblical arguments. I may arrest them later today just for fun BUT anyhow Paul makes a fine argument in the greek of Hebrews in favor of entire sanctification SO the buck stops here Melvin Harter |
| Joe Absher |
That’s not the way I read it. But it wouldn’t surprise me if I was humiliated. That would be true Christian perfection… |
| Joe Absher |
I’m not opposed to the theme of the piece or the theology of the piece. Maybe it’s the common misunderstanding of sanctification that allows for “progressive” sanctification. The arguments against entire sanctification are based on misconceptions as if nobody ever sins or fails. |
| Joe Absher |
I’ll take one glorious sanctified moment in the liberty of Christ over a thousand “you’ll never be free from sin in this life” accusations. |
| Troy Day |
As per the 12 listed here by Paul Hughes most of them refer to Paul’s words on salvation and not on sanctification. Paul says plenty on sanctification that Paul Hughes has chosen not to mention at all. One way or the other the posting of this poster shows deep misunderstanding of the teaching on entire sanctification thus equating it with the Assemblies of God teaching on salvation WHICH BTW also includes entire sanctification by the statement that the believer is sanctified in the salvation. In other words Walter Polasik Assemblies of God also teach entire sanctification in zap – in the zap of the salvation. So what kind of Pentecostal if not CoG, AoG or 4sq. it is yet to be established by the ones that simply dont know what they are talking about when it comes down to the Biblical understanding of the doctrine of sanctification #AMEN Melvin Harter Poster seemed to have abandoned the post Street Preacherz |
| Joe Absher |
Im in over my head anyways. Just seems like our Lord for all the work he did on the cross, his abundant mercy, overwhelming love, care, provision, he hung there brutally beaten, shamed, broken, hated despised rejected of men not a theologian but I think he did it so we could be free from sin it’s curse and bondage. And what’s more all the talk of holy living has to start somewhere and I would say it starts at sanctification. Of course in such a well ordered thoughtful piece on diligence and faithfulness it’s hard to argue different but To say Paul was not entirely sanctified, set aside to the service of God, and living victorious over sin provokes a little Pentecostal response feeble as that might be. I’ll walk away too. But It seems unreasonable to leave this one and go to the law of Moses. Which the good minister of Christ seems to have done. If my remarks were personal or unseemly or overexcited I offer my sincerest apologies. |
| Troy Day |
Well lets simplify b/c the post only makes 2-3 valuable points for Pentecostal theology Out the DIRTY DOZEN posted by Paul Hughes #1 and #2 have nothing to do with Paul and are completely OFF topic#4 and #5 deal with Paul’s understanding of salvation NOT sanctification. The very idea of mixing them both, and not understanding Second work of grace as defined by Wesley is subsequent to salvation, as well as the allusion that entire sanctification has to do with self righteousness, etc. shows a very deep misunderstanding of what Wesleyan / Holiness doctrine of entire sanctification actually is. #3, #6 #9 deal with the FLESH and Paul’s argument of demon sent to torment him by satan – all 3 of these argument have really nothing to do with entire sanctification as the author desires #10 and #12 are hearsays as we cant really tell for sure what Paul felt or expected. We only know what he said, and what he said about what he felt or expected simply do not match with what #10 and #12 said that Paul felt or expectedSo out of the dirty dozen we are left but we with a terrible 3 Street Preacherz |
| Joe Absher |
You don’t have to live holy to have demon attack you. But it makes a difference. At least there’s the possibility it’s for Christ. |
| Troy Day |
Out the DIRTY DOZEN posted by Paul Hughes, the only ones valuable to Pentecostal Theology are these terrible 3: #7 Paul’s personal inability in fact could be an ARGUMENT #1 IF we believed that entire sanctification is some sort of personal holiness done with personal works. Since this is clearly not the case ARGUMENT #1 is purely speculative and has no place in the list. |
| Joe Absher |
I find very little in the list that gives Christ his due |
| Troy Day |
Well furthermore #8 “Sinlessness could never become an established state of being prior to Final Redemption†– this part here actually sounds like some sort of theological appropriation so let’s look at it as a potential ARGUMENT #2John Wesley perceived the idea that Sinlessness could in fact become permanently established as it was in Jesus through entire sanctification. Furthermore, the idea of Final Redemption within the scope of classical Pentecostalism cares the connotation of “alredy-but-not-yet†reality. So if the author has meant that Sinlessness is not yet established state, in a Pentecostal way of thinking he/she must agree that Sinlessness is already-but-not-yet established state; which is exactly the theological tension within which entire sanctification operates doctrinally. |
| Joe Absher |
I try to follow along as best I can. Works don’t save us. They are evidence sure. They follow the believer. “..fruits meet for repentance.” And thorough​ly godly life is conjoined. Of course. Absolutely. But again to say Paul was not entirely sanctified implies what? He was partially sanctified? He was only partially separated from sin. He was only partially set aside for God’s service. He only served God on Saturday and Sunday but not Monday? He served God with all his heart but not his mind or passions or conversation? The whole argument against entire sanctification is just a bunch of bullies trying to steal the joy of a few dummies that believe God is able to save and deliver and keep. And there’s plenty of bible for that. Jesus is the best friend you will ever have. He’ll receive you and help you and deliver you and make you ready for that great day. That’s one appointment you can’t break. And Jesus is gonna be there. Me I ain’t trying to go empty handed or harboring sin and grudges. Alright gotta go to work |
| Dan Irving |
I have never been to Africa. I speak from the standpoint of having researched ministries. |
| Troy Day |
FINALLY #10 is real fun if we accept it as ARGUMENT #3 IT appears to have theological heavy weight but is as premature as it gets for PentecostalsThe “charismata†as used by Paul (in gifts and all) follows the baptism with the Holy Spirit defined by early Pentecostals as gateway to the charismata (gifts of the Spirit). In other words all gifts prerequisite the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the initial evidence of Speaking tongues; whereas the Holy Spirit enters a human only following saved and clean (i.e. entirely sanctified) heart. So this part of argument #3 actually proves the need for entire sanctification before “charismata†can operate. If this was not so any drunk out there could claim speaking in tongues and why not even interpretation of tongues after a court of jack daniels. In the second greek word of Argument #3 apotheosis from the Greek aποθεόω, “apotheoņas used by the apostle Paul is exactly a state of being close to God – in likeness of the righteousness of God. It was understood in this way by virtually ALL mystics in the Early Church and it was understood like this by Paul himself. This argument may work somehow if Pentecostalism is completely separate from early church mystics and denies them holistically. But try proving that SINCE Pentecostalism believed, embraced and practiced namely the pneumatic experience of many if not most early church mystics… |
| Joe Absher |
Hungh? Close God is nice but it could be dangerous. just saying. Could wreck your plans for the day. |
| Link Hudson |
I’ve never heard prerequisite used as a verb, and if it could be, I’d imagine it would have to be used the opposite of how you are using it. Are you going to start using ‘impacts’, a plural form, and ‘disrespect’ as a verb now? |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day Which early Pentecostals taught that one couldn’t experience any of the charismata before speaking in tongues first? What about the faith cure movement and experience in healing many of the Pentecostals had before speaking in tongues? Parham was said to have been healed of a clubbed foot if I recall correctly. |
| Terry Wiles |
Happy to have “sufficient grace.” |
| Troy Day |
“sufficient grace.” has recently turned to hyper grace, Lordship works of Jesus and once saved always saved Link Hudson you are killing me with your non-Pentecostal questions brotherHave you heard of(1) Spirit baptism as “gateway” to the gifts(2) fullness in the Spirit – some early Pentecostals even taught you cant be saved without the baptism(3) if you really were raised as Pentecostal in CoG you should at least have heard the expression “I’ve been saved sanctified filled with the Holy ghost”and this is even before early Pentecostals how believed tongues was the initial evidence, prerequisite to an of the gift of speaking – how else would one practice the gifts of speaking and interpreting of new tongues? |
| Link Hudson |
That last bit there must be misworded. I am not sure what you are saying.I’ve heard the idea of being baptized with the Holy Spirit as being a gateway to other gifts. I just haven’t read early Pentecostals (e.g. Azusa Street era) said that. I spent about a year in the COG in high school. I moved during that year, and the one I went to most of that time didn’t have a Pentecostal feel to it. A lot of non-Pentecostals had started attending. GBI is a bit different in terms of culture and doctrinal emphasis. |
| Mike Stidham |
What’s GBI? |
| Link Hudson |
Gereja Bethel Indonesia, the Bethel Church of Indonesia, which is the COG branch in Indonesia. The missionaries that started the GPDI (Pentecostal church in Indonesia) denomination were from Bethel Temple in Seattle back in 1921. GBI is a couple of denomination splits from that denomination. GBI is the biggest national branch of the COG Cleveland. Foursquare just grew quite a bit a few years ago when it joined with GPDI. It’s funny. I think of COG as more old timey Pentecostal and conservative than Foursquare. But in Indonesia, GPDI seems more old fashioned and conservative, with some churches insisting men wear white, long-sleeved shirts, being against going to the movies and such. Some of the GBIs call themselves ‘Charismatic.’ |
| Mike Stidham |
Thanks. I keep forgetting you’re overseas, Link. |
| Troy Day |
How woudl you propose one practices the gift of tongues if not baptised with the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues? |
| Link Hudson |
I do not believe that the Holy Spirit has to give speaking in tongues when someone is baptized with the Holy Ghost, so I don’t see tongues as a ‘gateway gift.’ Many early Pentecostals did not think one was baptized with the Holy Spirit if he did not speak in tongues, but yet had experienced supernatural healing prior to speaking in tongues. If Smith Wigglesworth was an ‘early Pentecostal’, he is a good example, since he witnessed people he laid hands on healed before he spoke in tongues. I read that Parham was healed of a clubbed foot. There were a number of Pentecostal preachers who had been to Zion Illinois, a city ran by an excentric preacher with a healing ministry. |
| Troy Day |
OK so in your “theoretical” pentecostalism a person could be baptized without speaking in tongues AND how would they practice the gift of speaking in tongues then? |
| Link Hudson |
I’m not sure I get your question. Would you allow for the idea that someone, maybe an Ephesian who liked John the Baptist’s teaching for example, might be filled with the Spirit and then prophesy instead of speaking in tongues? |
| Inoke Danford |
That is possible |
| Wayne Dodd |
According to the Bible, speaking in tongues occurs when someone is baptized with the HG. This is the doctrine of all traditional Pentecostals. What you are talking about Link is charismatic doctrine, which traditional Pentecostal reject. I wouldn’t call it a gateway gift- most of the time it’s not a gift, just a sign. There are folks gifted with tongues who speak in tongues after the baptism, then there are folks that do it the rest of their lives. God is not in a box. He can heal without the gift and use people without the gift- but the gift is of great importance. |
| Link Hudson |
Wayne Dodd The Bible doesn’t say that speaking in tongues occurs when someone is baptized with the Holy Ghost. It shows an occasion in which all spoke with tongues when they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, another occasion where some or all spoke in tongues when they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, and another occasion when the Spirit came on some men and the men either spoken in tongues and/or prophesied. We should be careful about reading doctrines into the very texts we are supposed to get the doctrines from.I was reading the Indonesian Bible the other day, and instead of saying they all spake with tongues in Acts 2, it says the apostles spoke with tongues. Talk about putting an interpretation into a translation. That’s based on a faulty ‘rule’ of Greek, apparently. |
| Wayne Dodd |
Link – yes I know exactly what you mean and exactly where you are coming from – and with the biblical examples I wholeheartedly reject your position. You hit in something very useful- you have shown the difference in traditional Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement. I certainly don’t think you have to be traditional Pentecostal to be saved- you’re my brother- I just wholeheartedly and emphatically disagree. GBU |
| Link Hudson |
I wouldn’t call that a ‘Charismatic position’ since a lot of Charismatics are just like Pentecostals on initial evidence. Maybe its more common among so-called ’empowered evangelical’ groups that started emerging in the 1980’s |
| Wayne Dodd |
Link you may call it whatever you’d like but I will respectfully stick with “error.” I have many charismatic friends who share your position. It is my contention it is incorrect. I do believe when Jesus said “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”The sound spoke of is tongues. |
| Link Hudson |
Wayne Dodd It’s wiser to reserve the term ‘error’ when someone actual contradicts Biblical teaching. The initial evidence doctrine relies on a bit of inference/speculation. |
| Wayne Dodd |
Link we disagree here and I’m happy to disagree. I think it is error. I didn’t say heresy. 🙂 |
| Troy Day |
Wayne Dodd “What you are talking about Link is charismatic doctrine, which traditional Pentecostal reject.” – I have to second that |
| Walter Polasik |
I skimmed through the back-and-forth (will thoroughly go thru it later) but here’s my $ .02. As far as what the Bible actually SHOWS about what happened to people when the Holy Spirit came upon them and endued them with power, it shows that this “falling upon” was evidenced in a manifest way. People spoke in tongues (in fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Mk. 16:17) and this is evident from the text at least 5 times. I would agree with my Baptist friends that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is about more than just empowerment (it is a work of the New Covenant and descriptions in the Gospels concerning it encompass the New Birth). Still, the “other side” (my Baptist friends again) miss out on that important fact that Jesus WAS in fact talking about EMPOWERMENT as well (Acts 1:8). So, Charismatic doctrine, (which is almost no doctrine at all!) which teaches that the “initial, physical evidence” of the Baptism, could be almost anything at all (I’ve read a Charismatic Catholic describe his as ‘feeling goosebumps’) is, from a biblical standpoint, misleading to say the least. In the great wave of revivals from 1901 forward (thru the Charismatic Renewal and the inception of what is known as “The Third Wave”) speaking in other languages has been the overwhelmingly-reported phenomenon. Reading the histories by church historians like Vinson Synan and Richard Riss, you get a feel for that, and these aren’t Classical Pentecostals by theology. |
| Troy Day |
Walter Polasik BACK to the discussion on ENTIRE sanctification In addition to prayers for holiness, the Bible contains commands that we be holy. “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” is one of several passages that call us to a high plane of living (Leviticus 19:2; see also Matthew 5:48 and Hebrews 6:1).ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION or CHRISTIAN PERFECTION is Taught in the Greek New Testament“The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.ALL these verses all say that believers “are sanctified†in the perfect tense (Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; Heb. 2:11; Heb. 10:10; Jude 1:1).The word in these passages is “á¼Î³Î¹Î¬Î¶Ï‰â€ and it means to be consecrated or dedicated to God. The use of the perfect tense means that believers have been completely sanctified or that their sanctification has been accomplished completely.If sanctification were a present or ongoing process the New Testament would not have used the perfect tense in these verses or at least would have used the imperfect tense to express that a durative process had taken place.FURTHERMORE – 1 Cor. 6:11 uses the aorist tense to say that believers “are sanctified†but it also uses the aorist tense in that verse to say that believers “are justified.†So just as justification is spoken of as a past event that is completed and not an ongoing event, so also is sanctification spoken of as a past event that is completed and is not an ongoing event. Melvin Harter https://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/988/ |
| Link Hudson |
None of the verses mentioned indicate that a believer is sanctified during a crisis experience some time after he is saved. Believers are sanctified when they are first ‘in Christ’, and need to continue being sanctified. The Corinthians Paul wrote to were already sanctified in a verse cited in that article, but Paul had to warn them about not sleeping with prostitutes or getting drunk at (what was supposed to be) the Lord’s supper. I Corinthians 6 tells the readers they are sanctified, and then warned them not to be joined with prostitutes. I Thessalonians is written to believers, but Paul expresses his desire that his readers be sanctified and not commit fornication. So we have been sanctified, but we also need to continue to be sanctified. But again, there is no evidence for the post-salvation emotional crisis experience of salvation as a normative pattern for the saints. I think a lot of the old time holiness folks read the crisis event idea into the word ‘sanctified’ in scripture. The rest of us Christians don’t do that. |
| Joe Absher |
The Bible says Jesus is our Sanctification. You gotta learn to lean on him not Egypt, and hide in him the Rock not works and rest in him the good Shepherd he knows where all the best pastures and still waters are.. He’s good at what he does. He doeth all things well. That’s Bible. |
| Paul Hughes |
It is the Entirely Sanctified argument that is lame. The concept actually comes from Neoplatonic Mysticism, though John Wesley in particular, and employs shaded interpretation of prooftexts rather than accepting clear Scripture. The point of the linked article is that it is unarguable that the Apostle Paul, whose texts are twisted the most by ES advocates, clearly did not claim to be ES, quite the contrary. |
| Paul Hughes |
Some study of the concept of Eschatology might do wonders to clear up your misconceptions, Troy Day. Our “perfection” is clearly eschatological, as the article makes clear. |
| Dan Irving |
Paul Hughes, I’m thinking of that verse, “And the very God of peace sanctify you WHOLLY.” (I Thess. 5:23) ie. “Entire Sanctification.” Doesn’t that imply degrees of sanctification, as well as complete sanctification in this life? |
| Paul Hughes |
Like I said, “wholly” refers to “your whole spirit and soul and body,” describing not the completion of sanctification but its scope. And like I said, the optative mood of the verb signifies well-wishing, not didactic teaching on sanctification. |
| Dan Irving |
even STRONGLY imply? |
| Walter Polasik |
God does wholly sanctify, but HOW? Read Romans 5:1,2. We stand in His grace and His holiness by virtue of being washed in his blood and having His holiness imputed to us. This is what the Scripture teaches. Positionally, we stand PERFECT before the Father. However, practically, we are still a long way from. Eph. 4:11-13 tells us that one day we WILL arrive at the “measure and stature of the fullness of Christ”. Until that day, we can’t, IN PRACTICE claim “sinless perfection”. |
| Link Hudson |
What it doesn’t say is that it happens at one moment, and you never have to be concerned with sanctification again, because you reached that state, or that you could never sin again if you were sanctified, or that it happens once… or a lot of other assumptions people have made since the early Methodist revivals. |
| Dan Irving |
Link Hudson Yes, It is best to keep our doctrines solidly in the Bible, and our theories in a file marked “Theories.” That being said, There is no verse saying it DOESN’T happen in a moment, and that is the testimony of many, although perhaps not most. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
I see some do not understand sanctification clearly |
| Dan Irving |
I have yet to have met the individual who understood sanctification, including myself. We all wonder about, groping at the wall. |
| Joe Absher |
does this help? i got jesus on the inside working on the outside oh what a joy in my life… |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Well there are many who have understood it. John and Charles Wesley, Adam Clarke, John Fletcher, daniel Steele then Richard S. Taylor two good books God, Man and Salvation and A Right Conception of Sin. Plus numerous others. |
| Joe Absher |
what about the story of the vine. Jesus is the vine! |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
So true. |
| Dan Irving |
Wesley originated the “3rd blessing” error. So then, while he taught eloquently on sanctification, he by no means had a complete handle. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
I like how some you of come up with new things about Wesley like you just posted. |
| Dan Irving |
Grover Katzmarek Sr You think I would make something like that up? 😮 |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
I would hope not, no I don’t think you would. Either elaborate or give me references.I do know that he saw 2 1,000 year periods in revelation. I like he, Adam Clarke, John Fletcher, Daniel Steele and a slew of others believe that revelation was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. |
| Dan Irving |
John Wesley and John Fletcher were concerned that the Methodist message did not incorporate the principle of Pentecost. Because of this, and, in response to criticisms of his teaching on sanctification (both from Calvinists within Methodism and from the Church of England), Wesley commissioned John Fletcher’s work, “Checks to Antinomianism,” which is an exhaustive explanation of Wesleyan theology. The doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a “Third Blessing” was therein appended to Wesley’s teachings and became the doctrine of Wesleyan Methodism. This taught that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a Third experience sitting atop Entire Sanctification. This led to considerable stumbling at the Pentecostal Renewal, particularly at Azusa Street and the years immediately following. |
| Dan Irving |
Grover Katzmarek Sr A good book to read, that goes into great detail on this issue is, “The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism,” by Laurence W. Wood. |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
Well I know john Wesley believed in Pentecostal Regeneration which I do now after years of not seeing this.This afternoon I shall dig out Flevthers book to see what you may be talking about |
| Dan Irving |
https://www.amazon.com/Meanin…/dp/0810845253/ref=sr_1_7… |
| Joe Absher |
If you want to be free from sin you can. Jesus is that good! |
| Troy Day |
People who have not been sanctified should not talk about sanctification like they have been sanctified Melvin Harter |
| Joe Absher |
Well we have to talk about it. Study about it. Pray about it. Shout about it. I mean sure it’s a big church word. Maybe consecration would be easier to communicate. Church words are like a city bus. Seems like you gotta practically jump in front of them to get them to stop. Then, they have lower the kneeler just to get on. Then, is it going where you’re​ trying to go. And don’t fall asleep. Because you’re gonna have to go all the back around. A layman’s definition of Righteousness.It means of course being made right with God by Jesus Cross and mediation But more than that it means I’m gonna do right by God or die trying. My family my pastor my church my friends. Eat that humble pie. Man up. Own it. Move on in the grace and strength God gives us. With sword in one hand and a trowel in the other |
| Paul Hughes |
Wishing someone well, that God will continue to sanctify someone (1 Th 5:23) is just that, well-wishing (hence the optative verb), and a far cry from teaching Entire Sanctification, Dan Irving. It can just as easily suggest progressive sanctification, especially since Paul’s hope is that God will continue to actively sanctify up to the time of the Parousia. Moreover, “wholly” is almost certainly supporting the idea of “your whole spirit and soul and body” (the scope of the sanctification) rather than implying any terminal completion of the sanctification. |
| Joe Absher |
“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” – Matthew 4:10 |
| Paul Hughes |
Relevance? |
| Joe Absher |
ONLY |
| Paul Hughes |
Huh? |
| Joe Absher |
AND HIM ONLY |
| Joe Absher |
“…AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE” |
| Dan Irving |
Except . . that’s not what he says. He does not say “CONTINUE” to sanctify, he writes, “WHOLY sanctify.” But if you apply this to the three parts of man (ie. spirit, soul, and body,) that seems even more suggestive of a staged process culminating in a completed state (ie. entire) sanctification. |
| Troy Day |
Street Preacherz I see now that except from common pub talk Paul Hughes is failing to address with theology proper ANY of my refutation of his poor 3-point argumentation against Biblical sanctification. Should we even bother to recap again and again for people who are not sanctified neither have desire to experience the holiness of God ? I think not Melvin Harter |
| Joe Absher |
Sometimes you gotta wait on God. He’s pretty thorough… |
| Paul Hughes |
Way to stay positive, Troy Day. Wrong, but positive! |
| Troy Day |
I would love to discuss the topic with Paul Hughes IF he takes the time to honestly review the refutation of his poorly presented “argumentation” and address the only 3 points whereas he makes some Biblical sense Otherwise we can all talk the common pub talk and get nowhere with theology proper. Sanctification is for the saints! |
| Joe Absher |
I was thinking about this very thing today. Jesus suffered outside the gate. Now we are commended to go to him. What does that mean? |
| Melvin Harter |
To all Holiness Preachers. It is pointless to have any discussion with the liberal Progressives. Their minds are made up and they reject the Word of God as it regards Entire Sanctification. We are commanded not to “cast our pearls before swine.” Time is too short, Jesus is coming soon. Plant the seed of holiness into hearts that genuinely love the Lord and His Word. |
| Wayne Dodd |
We are not liberal, we are not progressive. We don’t condone sin. There is more than one Pentecostal view of sanctification- some of us see it as a progressive work beginning at the infilling of the HG and not ending here. No need to call the brothers and sisters you have in the Lord swine. We are of the same body. If ye bite and devour one another…you know the rest I’m sure. |
| Link Hudson |
Who exactly are liberal progressives here? |
| Wayne Dodd |
Cmon Link we both know it’s whoever doesn’t agree with his theology! |
| Melvin Harter |
Wayne Dodd, you do not even know me to make such a conclusion regarding myself. I have chatted with Link Hudson many times, and I no longer wish to continue And I am not calling anyone a hog, I have only quoted the Bible. And besides that, there are no other views than Entire Sanctification and Progressive Sanctification in theological circles. But evidently, you create your own personal view of the time frame by moving it to the infilling of the Holy Spirit, which as you write, you still call it PROGRESSIVE, even though there is not even one scriptural support for such a thought. |
| Troy Day |
Link Hudson some modern Progressives have bapticostal mindset Wayne Dodd are you too joining the pub talk or do you actually have any Biblical arguments / knowledge on the subject of holiness ? |
| Wayne Dodd |
Troy Day no. I’ve already discussed elsewhere. I’ll probably dump this group shortly. Not because of beliefs but because it’s unfriendly and basically just a bunch of grouchy old men. |
| Link Hudson |
Im not grouchy. How old is old? |
| Troy Day |
and I’m not old 🙂 |
| Dan Irving |
I’m 55. But I haven’t noticed any particular meanness. |
| Wayne Dodd |
lol, being grouchy and meanness are not the same thing |
| Dan Irving |
I’ve resigned myself that if I’m going to discuss doctrine with Pentecostal people (especially ministers) I must develop a thick skin. (My assumption is they’re not accustomed to being contradicted.) BTW, that is no swipe at anyone in this group (I’m thinking of experiences in several other chat groups, in which the mere suggestion of disagreement can earn you insults.) Remember the Lord’s word to Ezekiel (Ez. 3:7) There is something about Pentecost that renders us “impudent and hard-hearted” until that revelation of Grace truly breaks through. And even afterward, it is an easy thing to lose patience with others. |
| Walter Polasik |
Not I sir. You are welcome to ask questions and receive a gentleman’s discussion any time. 😠|
| Link Hudson |
I don’t know if there are absolutely no other views besides progressive sanctification and entire sanctification in theological circles, like Melvine Melvin Harter says, but I know there are preachers who have other views. I remember campus preacher Brother Jed said something about along the lines of being perfect in the seed perfect in the full grown plant. I can’t remember the stages he said. The Bible uses sanctification as something that occurred in the past in I Corinthians 6. The believers Paul wrote to had been washed, sanctified, and justified. The way a lot of Holiness people think, that’s out of order, sanctification before justification. But it makes sense if it happened at the same time, at salvation. When we are saved, we are set apart for God’s purpose. But we have to continue to remain sanctified all along the way. Anyone who stops living a sanctified life needs to be sanctified. If, by progressive sanctification, you mean you aren’t really sanctified along the way, I don’t believe in that. I do not believe Christians have to sin. Some Baptists think that way. I don’t.I don’t see anything in the Bible that indicates that believers aren’t sanctified until a one-time crisis moment and its all settled forever right there that they are sanctified— that before they weren’t, and now they are. New, baby believers should be sanctified. Relatively young believers should be sanctified. Mature believers should be sanctified. I can’t find the one time crisis moment of sanctification in the believers life (aside from the ‘crisis moment’ where one comes to faith or perhaps where one is baptized) in the BIble. Some people say they get saved and some time later have a sanctification experience where they got sanctified. Well, if that’s there experience, I can’t say it can’t happen that way. But I can’t see any examples or teaching of this kind of experience in the Bible. I can’t find people seeing gold dust in church services as some kind of miracle in the Bible, but I can’t say it absolutely couldn’t happen, either. But I do think it is a hindrance to people to make them think they have to have some emotional crisis experience of ‘sanctification’ before they can be filled with the Spirit or operate in spiritual gifts, instead of teaching them to be sanctified like the Bible does. People can end up waiting around for years, going to an altar, waiting to experience some kind of emotional thing like someone else they heard testify, when the idea that they have to have that experience isn’t even in the Bible. |
| Link Hudson |
Brother Melvin Harter If you haven’t done so already, you might want to take down that video where you invite anyone who wants to to discuss sanctification with you. If you think its not profitable to do so, it’s best not to have the offer up.As I recall our conversation, you quoted from Paul in Thessalonians where he wished his readers to be sanctified. I pointed out that he wanted them to be sanctified and not engage in fornication. I asked, if sanctification is a one-time event after salvation all believers don’t have, then is it normative for those who haven’t experienced it to fornicate? He was telling them to be sanctified, not go have an emotional crisis experience where they aren’t going to ever have to struggle against sin again. Sanctification is an ongoing thing we walk in.I recall your argument that the Greek proved your beliefs about sanctification, that you argued the Greek tense used in a certain verse indicated that sanctification was a completed action in the past. I asked for evidence that that tense means that sanctification occured in the past, but some time after salvation. The sanctification that occurs at salvation can be seen as a completed action in the past. I do not recall your ever actually answering this point, and it was some time around then that you decided that you did not want to dialogue with me. |
| Walter Polasik |
See my response to Dr. Harter’s post that it’s “not profitable” to discuss theology with those who disagree. First he says we’re wrong, then he won’t show us how. Hmmmm…….where have I heard that before? |
| Link Hudson |
Btw, this article lists three approaches to sanctification, with the other being the sacerdotal approach, focused on the sacraments.http://www.enterhisrest.org/doorway/notions_sanct.pdf |
| Paul Hughes |
Only to an ES fanatic would I look like a Liberal Progressive.That would make me the first and only Liberal Progressive to support Ted Cruz. |
| Walter Polasik |
😉 |
| Paul Hughes |
As I noted but ES supporters here have ignored, ES or “Christian Perfection” originates from Neoplatonism, which was shoe-horned into some types of Pentecostalism via John Wesley. Wesley read heavily from the platonizing Greek Fathers, and re-published their works, though editing out the more extreme elements of Mysticism, and also was much affected by more contemporary German mystics such as Tauler and Tersteegen.I literally wrote a book showing how Neoplatonism got passed down through platonizing theologians, down to this day.https://books.google.com/books?id=zMYIBgAAQBAJ |
| Troy Day |
Go read thomas aquinas on perfection of the believer after salvation before making such uninformed argument from church history again Walter Polasik Paul Hughes Wayne Dodd my ol pa will preach you under the pew on holiness any given sunday |
| Melvin Harter |
I like your pic |
| Troy Day |
Holiness church in Ohio I think – not a real cog but still same by name |
| Walter Polasik |
So, on the issue of SANCTIFICATION you’re siding with those with whom you’d disagree with about JUSTIFICATION? Smooth. Great logic. The only thing you’re missing now Troy is the Baptism with Fire. You maybe water baptized and Spirit baptized and entirely sanctifized but you lack one thing. Go to the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church an d they’ll explain THAT one to you as well. 😉 |
| Paul Hughes |
We are appealing to Medieval monks now? |
| Paul Hughes |
Yeah, as I wrote in Neoplatonist Stew,”That Thomas Aquinas, for example, adopted many theological ideas from the Theurgist known as Pseudo-Dionysius is “not to be spoken of”; or rather, to be explained away. The usual approaches are to insist that historical theologians simply utilized Platonic and Neoplatonic termiÂnolÂogy and categories in order to systematize and refine Christian theology; or, less scientifically, to claim that Neoplatonism and TheÂurgy have been somehow “baptized” or sanctified by the good intenÂtions of their Christian advocates and by the beneficial use to which they have now been applied. It is an old ploy, in the light of much Scripture to the contrary, to submit that God would not allow well-intentioned believers to fall into error. In retrospect, I have to regard either approach as ranging from disingenuousness to an exerÂcise in self-delusion to outright deception.” |
| Paul Hughes |
Also,”The textbooks credit Aquinas with being an Aristotelian, rationalist scholastic, yet Inge calls him “nearer to Plotinus than to the real ArisÂtotle.” John F. Wippel catalogs a number of instances in which AquiÂnas’s theology follows Plato (pp. 287, 288), Dionysius (pp. 9, 144, 159, 164, 287, 288), or some other Neoplatonist (pp. 10, 281), as well as Augustine’s Book of Eighty-Three Questions (pp. 287 f.), rather than Aristotle. Dionysius’ book on divine names was one of Aquinas’s favorites, though in some ways misÂapprehended.” |
| Paul Hughes |
Morever, Aquinas mixed Neoplatonism with Theurgy:”A divine idea, according to Aquinas, “exists in God”; moreover, folÂlowing Aristotle, “like produces like.” “The sacramental event”—now following Neoplatonism—has a “single hidden origin in the ‘being, living and thinkÂing’ of contingent beings”; therefore “sacraÂments function as events which bring believers into harmony with this origin.” In this “context, sacramental grace is defined according to a causality-scheme” in such a way that it “causes/realises what it signiÂfies,” which is grace “proÂduced” by God. Since “grace is nothing else than a certain shared similitude to the divine nature” (Aquinas), folÂlowing the circular reasoning that sacraments are the “means of grace” that God has provided, then it is the sacraments by which “God proÂduces grace.” |
| Paul Hughes |
“Besides sacramental grace, Aquinas presents a mode, if not a methÂodology, by which a soul may transcend, albeit temporarily, to MystiÂcal Union with God. The only means he admits is “by grace,” through having been granted the lumen gloriae, the “light of glory.” This “vision of God by the blessed in Heaven is not mere vision, but union,” writes A. B. Sharpe. It does not come by a Plotinian “discurÂsive intellectual process”; rather, “they see God as He is in Himself, not from a distance … but from within.”1 This degree of personal reveÂlation of God, one notes, is certainÂly a bold claim, if not to say a presumption, one hardly made by the Prophets. The picture of tranÂscendence which Aquinas presents perhaps describes ecstasy, of the AugustÂinian type, but goes beyond ecstasy. It does not seem to go quite so far as “displacement” or “possession” as Philo asÂcribed to the Prophets, since “self-consciousness” remains; but seems definitely to describe a superimposition of God’s mind on one’s own,2 which one presumes automatically produces spiritual formation—apotheosis, if not theopoiÂesis.” |
| Walter Polasik |
Paul Hughes: I like your writing. (Though it might go over the heads of some). How can I get a paper copy of your book again? Amazon, did you say? |
| Troy Day |
Walter Polasik I clearly stated my reasons above. Only 3 out of the 12 pseudo “proofs” by one Paul Hughes were close to Biblical and deserved attention. The rest were simply pub talk not theology. I refuted the 3 pseudo reasons and Paul Hughes failed to offer any further proof. Bottom line – entire sanctification stands as Biblically proven doctrine. The rest is heresy. |
| Walter Polasik |
Troy Day: I have scrolled up and read your theological train of thought. 1.) You have made as if to refute Paul Hughes’ article by listing the points that you find either irrelevant to the topic or weakly argued. Yet, you don’t concretely show either what the points say (restatement) or where the flaw is in the argumentation. 2.) Your tack is in trying to discredit the article and hold up “Entire Sanctification”. You even mention Wesley again and ask “How does this kind of thinking stack up against Wesley’s ‘Second Work of Grace’ view?” But you forget: the standard for the correctness of a doctrine isn’t some paragon from later church history. The standard is: can you see it clearly taught in the Bible. Thus far, I have not heard from ANYONE of our conversationalists the ES doctrine clearly delineated from the Bible. Of course, the simple reason is that it CAN’T be, period. 3.) At the VERY BEGINNING of the article Paul makes a great point (and one that to any non-COG believer is as plain as the nose on your face, Troy): All believers are called “hagioi” (saints) because upon coming to Christ, all believers have been made holy by Him. That, friend, is positional sanctification which the Bible CLEARLY teaches and which I have alluded to in the past. This ALONE makes the “Second Work of Grace” (as far as sanctification tied up with a cathartic Holy Spirit experience) theory invalid. And, as Paul Hughes says right after that point, the Apostle Paul then does go on to encourage Christians to grow in that very same sanctifying grace of Christ so that any of the verses dealing with holiness that you, Street Preacherz and others have mentioned have to do not with a zap during a Sunday evening service but with that same growth in grace we have been talking about. |
| Link Hudson |
As far as theories of sanctification goes, I can see why someone would believe in sanctification at baptism. Ananias told Saul of Tarsus to calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away his sin. Saul/Paul repeated that in an evangelistic message. I don’t think a sacerdote has to perform a baptism, so maybe that’s not sacertodal sanctification. We are set apart when we come to Christ. Paul wrote, ‘And such were some of you, but now ye are washed; now ye are sanctified; now ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.’ If these are meant as sequential ‘steps’ why would sanctification be after justification? I believe Paul is referring to former unbelievers being sanctified now that they are beleivers. But they and to walk in it. It wasn’t just an instantaneous experience where they never had to be concerned with sanctification again. He warned these people who’d been sanctified right after that about sleeping with prostitutes. |
| Walter Polasik |
Link Hudson: That’s such a beautiful verse you quoted. (I Cor. 6:11) And yes, Paul is referring to the washing and sanctification which happened at the New Birth. It is not that these believers don’t have to watch or care how they walk in Christ, it is that they don’t have to worry that they somehow haven’t gotten “the full deal” yet, from God. Had pulpiteering and pastoring been better in the days of our American Pentecost (as well as in American frontier days when many “circuit-riding” Methodist preachers went about with basically a smattering of biblical understanding), any believer who would have been asked by some hapless Holiness advocate, “Have you been SANCTIFIED brother?” the immediate response would have been a fully assured “Yes!”. Had believers but understood what the Scripture taught and what Christ did for them at the New Birth. Similarly, to Roman Catholics, they would understand that if a believer comes “into” Christ, he automatically “stands” in God’s grace. There is therefore no more need of “extra grace dispensing” via sacraments or good works, penance etc., as the RCC teaches. This was simply a way for early false teachers to gain control of believers. It’s call “spiritual-mongering”. Apparently, believers forgot Paul’s injunction “Ye are complete in Him” (in so many words). Peter testified that God has given to us “all that pertains to life and godliness”. Neither mortification of the flesh nor extra time “on the carpet” will change that. Anything that IS genuinely of the Spirit and that benefits us is simply more out of the abundance of God’s lavish blessings on us IN HIM. It doesn’t change our position as “saints” nor make us an iota “more holy”. |
| Link Hudson |
I see receiving grace as an ongoing thing. Grace operates through spiritual gifts. I can’t think of a specific verse that ties baptism or communion to grace, but the idea of grace working through these things as feasible considering scripture. We can get more grace if we are humble as well. |
| Paul Hughes |
Baptism and Communion are symbols and confessions of faith, not means of grace. Paul emphasized the eschatological element of baptism in his metaphor of “burial” with Christ and being “raised to new life.” Because we have accepted Christ’s cleansing in baptism, eschatologically, we are ever after to “reckon” ourselves both cleansed from sin and dead to sin, upon the promise of ultimate realization of freedom from condemnation. |
| Link Hudson |
Paul Hughes, many Pentecostals think that the power of the Holy Spirit can rest upon and move through a handkercheif, but just think water baptism and communion are merely symbolic. |
| Paul Hughes |
Such believers, to their credit, Link Hudson, at least believe what the Word of God plainly says, and do not embellish it with external dogma. |
| Paul Hughes |
The watchword on Communion is “in rememberance of me.” Sacramentalists gloss over the memorial aspect and go right for Theurgy. |
| Link Hudson |
Paul Hughes Certain branches of sacramentalists tend to focus on John 6, for example about having eternal life, like John 6:54, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”Communion is a memorial, but in I Corinthians, it is also fellowship of the body of Christ. The church is the body. The body is the bread. The bread is Jesus’ body. The church is Jesus body.There are lots of things practices, etc. that are holy. ‘Sacramentalists’ choose to focus on certain things, sometimes identified by tradition. If a sacrament is something through which God’s grace works, then many things are sacraments. Preaching and the exercise of spiritual gifts like tongues, prophecy, and healing should be considered sacraments if that is the definition. |
| Paul Hughes |
I have studied John 6 at length, and frankly sacraments just aren’t there. As I have said, there was no bread at Cana, and no wine on the Mount. The only connection in ideas is the metaphor of bread as Christ’s body.Moreover, Jesus himself denies the realism of “bread from heaven.” He said, “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they are all dead!”I call sacramental dogma “a convenient sacramental hermeneutic.”https://biblequestion.wordpress.com/…/pagan-origins-of…/ |
| Link Hudson |
Many of the sacramentalists disagree with that interpretation. But whether you see communion in John 6 or not, it is clearly more than ‘just a symbol.’ It is fellowship with the body of Christ. Water baptism is not presented as merely symbolic either. The ‘just a symbol’ seems to fit well with englihtenment type thought, or the type of thinking that emerged just before that after the Reformation, IMO. |
| Paul Hughes |
The situation is complex and not well-documented. When early in Acts the brethren “break bread from house to house,” it is simple, traditional Jewish “table fellowship,” as Klappert points out in NIDNTT. To fulfill the implications of the Last Supper, which is a reflection and re-imaging of the Exodus (actually, applying its original, typological meaning), it could be done only once a year, at Passover time. Both Passover and the Last Supper are memorials. The early church also had fellowship meals. We see this in the Didache, when the Eucharist does not include Communion, then after the service everyone goes to a fellowship meal elsewhere (so agrees Pliny the Younger).The upshot is that in their enthusism for both fellowship and Communion, all these events got blended together, and often confused. We see resultant confusion already at work in 1 Corinthians 11, which is one of the issues Paul intends to correct. |
| Link Hudson |
Paul Hughes, if you could refresh my memory on the Didache with a quote of the relevant portion, I would appreciate it. |
| Paul Hughes |
The order of church service is this:Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”Communion is mentioned elsewhere, but not in the order of service.James Shotwell writes, “The whole piece is suffused with teaching, and the mention of church usages when the author descends to details, is only the frame-work for his homily. Nothing is said about the place or manner of celebration of the Lord’s Supper. No distinction is made between the common meal and a memorial ceremony. There is not even a sign of separation between meetings for the Word and those for the breaking of bread” ~A study in the history of the eucharist (1905), p. 28.Also, “*The Lord’s Supper, the “breaking of bread” which is here described, is apparently not a mere rite but a real meal. The expression “after being filled” shows distinctly that this is the case. There is no express repetition of Christ’s last supper, and no reference to its prophetic import. But the simple meal itself is transformed into something that bears a close resemblance to it. If it were not for that one phrase, it might have been possible to interpret the rest of the description as implying a repetition of the Last Supper. For the cup and the bread after all suggest, if they do not expressly symbolize, the blood and body of Christ. Yet as it stands there is no memorial of Christ’s death” (p. 30). |
| Link Hudson |
Paul Hughes I read that and come away with a very different conclusion. That is why I was surprised that you would bring up the Didache.In Matthew 16 and I Corinthians 11, the supper, and what was supposed to be the Lord’s Supper but wasn’t handle right, was an actual meal. My understanding is that the earliest believers had an actual meal together. It may be that a practice, rooted in Jewish origins, of giving thanks over a particular piece of bread, was eventually separated from the ‘full meal’ love feast practice as a stand-alone mini-ceremony, and that historically this morphed into the priest preparing the bread only for congregants while he took the wine. I looked it up and the word translated ‘supper’ in ‘The Lord’s Supper’ and it means ‘supper.’ It doesn’t mean tiny snack. |
| Walter Polasik |
Furthermore, paragraph #3 in the article states so simply what all non-COG, Nazarene believers on this page have been trying to say over and over: complete, sinless perfection will NOT be done “in a day”. Ephesians 4:13 says as much. So, the only think you, Dr. Harter and other COG Pentecostals can reasonably and biblically argue for is the need for personal holiness in the believer’s life. (Practical, as differentiated from Positional holiness) with which I would totally agree. That the Holy Spirit does things in our lives, even experientially that would spur us on and encourage us to walk in holiness, I have no doubt. Just notice Paul’s struggle with his “thorn in the flesh”, with his persecutors and various circumstances and with his own flesh even. And yet, God gave to him experiences such as the one he describes in 2 Corinthians 12. Jesus appeared to him in vision several times. That is no something every believer can claim. Peter talks about the Jesus that, “whom having NOT seen, we love”. Also, Troy Day, in saying that you agree with Augustine concerning sanctification, are you also agreeing with the Catholic mystics in their attempts to transcend the daily struggle against sin in order to arrive at some beatific state of “higher life” through an enlightened experience? (Such as some of them had claimed to have done?) No wonder early on biblical Christians called Catholics out on getting involved in Neo-Platonism and having forms of Gnosticism in their midst. You may recall in 19-th century England that the Keswickian “Higher Life” movement became popular. Its’ general emphasis, upon holiness, was not wrong. What WAS wrong about it was its’ link with the Wesleyan “sinless perfection” doctrine, as well as with a developing legalism which later translated to the continuing history of the Pentecostal-Holiness tradition (and also to some of the Assemblies of God churches as well). It is historically ironic that two stripes of Christianity, Pentecostalism and Fundamental Baptists, were both infected with the same theological bug: legalism. Roman Catholic monks, abbots, bishops, cardinals and popes tried to show the world how holy they were by their vestments and fancy dress (and elaborate ceremonies and rituals). These Protestant Christians tried to show the world how holy they were in the number of things they DIDN’T do. So many things became “carnal” and “fleshly” and “of the world” of “of the devil” that all that was left to do was work, sit at home and come to church 4 or 5 times a week. (!) (In fact, there’s a lot about legalism in Ronald Enroth’s great and sobering book, “Churches that Abuse”). So, overall, I can’t say that the impact of touting this doctrine (ES) to the church and world did a lot of good. (Except, in the end, to show how hypocritical Christians can be). |
| Grover Katzmarek Sr |
First Wesley never believed in sinless perfection this side of heaven. Those that say he did do not have a biblical and or scriptural meaning of what sin is. Secondly Paul did not struggle as you put it with h is thorn in the flesh. We do,not know what that thorn was. One must be a legalist if he wishes to obey God. How are we to obey the Ten Comma,dents or ones that Jesus gave without being a legalist. |
| Terry Wiles |
It is true that only COG pastors hold to their sanctification doctrine which is their distinctive difference. Virtually none have been able to explain it successfully nor give objective examples. My position remains to be that Grace covers my sin and the Holy Spirit moves me step by step into Christlikeness. If put the matter to a secret ballot my guess is that the majority embrace the doctrine of progressive sanctification with a fundamentalist few who use legalism to put hand cuffs on those who cannot attain the level of sanctification that they themselves teach but knowingly do not possess. |
| Melvin Harter |
Bro Terry Wiles, in response to your recent post, let me say to your 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, “Perhaps to only those you have met.” |
| Walter Polasik |
Well, I’ve been waiting on a successful explanation from YOU for a little while now and haven’t gotten it so, until I see that, I’ll back up Terry’s statement. 😉 |
| Melvin Harter |
Walter Polasik, wait until my Sanctification book is published. Then ask your questions. God bless you my brother. |
| Walter Polasik |
Sounds to me like you refuse to engage. I call that retreat by any other name, brother. A simple and succinct statement of your position, coupled with Scriptural support will suffice. I do the same in other theological forums when asked my beliefs concerning OSAS, or Calvinism in general, or the Baptism and gifts of the Spirit, etc. No problem. If it’s biblical I can lay it out. The same being true for my position on the erroneous “eternal sonship” doctrine of Christ. (Held by some here as well. The OTHER ‘ES’ doctrine). So, I don’t see why, if Entire Sanctification, (COG version) is biblical, why you can’t handily state HOW SO. |
| Terry Wiles |
It is true. I have only met those on this group post. Virtually none have been able to explain it successfully nor give objective examples. Blessings. |
| Melvin Harter |
I had an Assembly of God minister visit with us at Miracle Valley a few years ago. He brought a bus load of his people with him. At the end of our tour of the grounds, the pastor asked me what was the difference between our beliefs. I proceeded to give our different views regarding the Doctrine of Sanctification. He responded by stating that my believing Entire Sanctification was no problem whatsoever. He went in to say that even the majority of his membership believe in a SECOND, DEFINITE WORK OF SANCTIFICATION and did not actually adhere to the AoG’s progressive statement. I thought that was rather strange indeed. Praise God, it showed me that the Lord still has a people who hold to the truth of the scriptures. |
| Walter Polasik |
No, in that instance it only showed that Pentecostalism has some of its’ own traditions as well, however biblically untenable they may be. The proof of the puddin’, the saying goes, is on the eatin’, and so far you haven’t presented the pudding. There are a lot of Assembly of God people who are legalists as well. That doesn’t “prove” the rightness of a legalistic stance to Christian living. At the end of the day, we must get back to the Word. |
| Melvin Harter |
Walter Polasik it does prove, regardless of your thoughts, that there are people who still believe in Entire Sanctification. |
| Walter Polasik |
By that reasoning Dr. Harter, I can legitimize polygamy because there are still plenty of people (both men AND women) who still believe in THAT. But it doesn’t prove its’ position biblically, not by a long shot. There are still plenty of people who believe Unitarianism (JW’s, Orthodox Jews, Apostolics & United Pentecostals). Does this mean anything? Some of our earliest Pentecostals were, since the “revelation” at Arroyo Seco, “Jesus Only”. Does the foundational time-frame (within Pentecostalism) of this belief prove its’ truth biblically? What say you? |
| Link Hudson |
Show us the scriptures that teach that. We never got to that part, beyond your claiming that the Greek proved your doctrine, but not showing how the Greek was referring to something that occured after salvation. |
| Paul Hughes |
The only legitimate, formal “second work” after salvation is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, who then begins to teach us and bring Christ’s teachings to our remembrance, leading us progressively into acting out in reality our sanctification that was immediately possessed at salvation in an eschatological sense.An apt metaphor to the eschatological promise of sanctification is that of Israel under Moses being promised the Land, progressively moving into it and taking possession of it. But of course, it was due to their unbelief and sin nature that Israel was never able to fully possess the Land. Full possession still awaits Christ’s Parousia, when he as Messiah will establish his Kingdom in reality.In Paul’s terms, we are to consider ourselves dead to sin, and consciously choose to forever act that way. But we never reach a point at which we no longer are tempted by the flesh, as long as we are in the flesh. The flesh literally “embodies” our sin nature. To claim ES is to claim to have somehow (in Neoplatonist fashion) “ascended” toward God (apotheosis) to a higher, immaterial plane.Moreover, ES proponents are wrong to claim that they have at some point “arrived” at total holiness and sinlessness before the actual Parousia of Christ. That is sheer presumption that leads to hypocrisy. |
| Paul Hughes |
ES believers got the idea from John Wesley, who craved a spiritual answer for conquering his own doubts about his salvation, and pilgrimaged to the German mystics trying to solve his dilemma. As we see in my article now linked, Wesley was much influenced by the Neoplatonist theologians that he read and republished, as well as Germans like Tauler and Tersteegen.https://biblequestion.wordpress.com/…/john-wesley…/ |
| Melvin Harter |
Link Hudson, you and I have had numerous discussions. You are not open to the scriptures. You are set in your ways. There is no need to have any further discussion with you. I am simply wasting my time. Go ahead and believe what you want because you are going to do it anyway. God bless. |
| Walter Polasik |
Dr. Harter, you claim Link Hudson is “not open to the Scriptures”. Ok, which scriptures would those be?Have you shown where the Bible teaches a second, definite work of sanctification in the believer aside from what he possesses by virtue of his position in Christ? Have you shown how sanctification is given a believer via a one-time experience? We’re still waiting for you to state your case, either in the Greek or in plain English. 😠|
| Melvin Harter |
Yes I have. |
| Walter Polasik |
Where? I haven’t come across such a post or response. Dr. Harter, I’m sure were we to engage in other topics, your long time knowledge of the Scriptures would quickly come to the fore. I’m sure you could handle the cults with ease. My guess is that ES is just as much a doctrinal staple among COG & Nazarene believers as Cessationism is among Independent Fundamental Baptists. It can’t really be biblically defended without doing harm to sound hermenuetics, but it’s held doggedly as a “denominational distinctive” regardless of its’ lack of biblical support. Same for paedo/credo baptism. Try telling a Presbyterian it’s not biblical. |
| Paul Hughes |
If there is any group that is “not open to the Scriptures,” it is the ES contingent, which twists Scriptures by imposing on them their preconceived, Neoplatonist dogma. Sacramentalists do the same thing. |
| Link Hudson |
Melvin Harter I dont have anything against you personally and my impression of you is that you genuinely want to minster the word of God but are also convinced your traditions are right. You seem to be not open to the scriptures or considering whether you understand them on this issue. You did not offer any real evidence for the traditional Holiness position(s) on sanctification either. Showing sanctification is a completed action in the past (if those were the words you used to describe the Greek tense) doesn’t show that sanctification happens after salvation. ‘Regular Christians’ reading those verses take them to refer to when a believer is saved (or baptized, etc.) Where is the evidence for the post-salvation crisis experience? It seems like you are so convinced you are right, you are convinced the Bible must teach it, and aren’t willing to consider and dig into the details. Saying the Greek teaches it and you knew because you know and used to teach Greek isn’t the same as actually presenting a Biblical case. When you want to convince someone the Greek says something that the English translation does not, you need to explain why that is the case. If the Bible teaches a post ‘getting saved’ one-time sanctification experience, I’m open to that. But I’m not going to believe in it based on the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. |
| Troy Day |
Paul Hughes still not answering my refutation of his only 3 pseudo arguments that come anywhere close to the Bible in his article. The rest is just cheap pub talk and mixed with even cheaper personal attacks |
| Paul Hughes |
I think why bother, Troy Day, your “refutation” is nonsense not worthy of even this present comment. |
| Troy Day |
Paul Hughes Abandoning your own topic is a good way to admit defeat. Good luck with your future research On this one you got refuted in a zap like Walter Polasik likes to call it Melvin Harter Thank God for Hebrews 12:14 – a stumbling block for many progressos today:Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. |
Varnel Watson
Joe Absher I’d say very much but cant say the same about RichardAnna Boyce
Joe Absher
The same ones that hated Jesus hate Paul
Louise Cummings
Joe Absher very true.
Louise Cummings
Joe Absher They hated him so much , he even had s fortune teller following him and Silas around , saying , These men are of the most High God. I think she was trying to get the place stirred up to get against Paul and Silas. Many to throw them out. Just my thought. But Bible now. Paul got tired of the devil given him messages , even if she was telling the truth , but not for the right reason. So Paul got tired of it and he cast the devil out of her. Of course she couldn’t make the city money off her fortunes. Because she couldn’t tell them anymore. You know what happened. They ended up in jail. But the way they had them boing , caused them much pain. But at Midnight those Holiness preachers began to sing. The jail house doors swing open and they were set free. The devil hates singing , I believe. Because he was the song leader in Heaven before he was cast out. If you have noticed he makes singing as prevented as he can. Even tried to get some in the church. But Jesus prevails and beautiful last day songs are written. Songs that’s fits for what is going on in the last days. There is much more Paul went through. I won’t have room to write down.
Louise Cummings
Yes.
Isara Mo
Can we measure sanctification by our epistles,sermons preaching and popularity?
Paul is not here but Benny Hinn is alive and might help to answer that question…
Louise Cummings
It wasn’t Paul’s popularity. It was the Holy Spirit that was in Him. Who would suffer like Paul did without the pure love and the Spirit in him. He couldn’t have cast out a Devil without the Holy Spirit in Him.
Lyndsey Dunn
Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
Joe Absher
Jesus not only takes the sin away he takes the “want to” sin away.
Varnel Watson
well we cant expect RichardAnna Boyce to be like apostle
Varnel Watson
I submit to you that ap Pail was fully sanctified
Joe Absher
To be sure its the devil wants to discredit Paul and the revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord our sanctifier
Anonymous
Yes
Anonymous
YES Neil Steven Lawrence