JCT wrote: It is simple. If he eccecpted jesus as his lord and saviour and he was repented of any sin in his life and he was baptised in water and fire, then yes.
This is not according to the Apostles. Evidently it's a different gospel, just like the false gospel of Expositor aka Russell Harris below. The true Gospel is that if the pope was trusting fully by faith only for righteousness and justification before God, then he'd be in heaven("Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."). No evidence in the scriptures, nor even in RC doctrine teaches a baptism of water and fire combined with repentance sets one in a right standing before God.
Ruggio and others, this may be helpful, although I take wikipedia with sugar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fox_Parham
As for Parham's experience? So far as I know Parham was of the evangelical confession, namely Christ by faith alone is the Savior through grace alone. If this was his honest confession, he was a true Christian whether he spoke in tongues or not. I don't deny one can possibly speak in tongues and that tongues are AN evidence(key word being "an" vs. only initial evidence), but I do deny Parham's Initial Evidence doctrine and I flatly reject tongues as the only uncontestable evidence one has the Holy Spirit and is a true Christian. If what the Wikipedia article says is all true(some things I never knew about Parham--scandals, etc) it's evident Parham had struggles like we all do. If he connected tongues to justification before God and applied this to himself then he fell for a different gospel and was not a true Christian.
Ruggio, to the best of my knowledge it began about 100 years ago at Charles Parham's Bible school. Mr. Parham was a Holiness preacher. He was confused over the baptism with the Holy Ghost and the manifestations. Anyway, before leaving on a trip, he told his students to find out what the initial evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost is. He comes back, they have tongues for the answer and shortly after his students started speaking thus. This was not universally accepted in the Holiness movement and it's visible yet today with the various denominations(Assembly of God vs. Church of the Nazarene, etc.) That's my understanding from studying the history of the Holiness and later pentecostal movements.
Thank you CBC, and Alan. The one thing I'm still wrestling with is the place of tongues and other revelations in the church. I've generally believed they are still valid and worthy messages provided they are in agreement with scripture. But then when I see Jesus saying of the Apostles "He who hears you, hears me," I wonder if such gifts are necessary or will cease or have ceased. Just some thoughts of mine which I feel free to submit here and I welcome any input. I"ve enjoyed our fruitful dialogue.
Fellow Saint wrote: God provided a way for the elect and predestinated to come before his throne...namely by the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Any works of one's own volition to appease God are a mockery to this one time sacrifice of his dear Son.
And I'd like to add to this an apology to everyone for previously espousing a a faith based on works for salvation instead of works based on saving faith. I agree I was beginning to accept and propagate a different gospel.
God provided a way for the elect and predestinated to come before his throne without being consumed, namely by the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ, his finished work on the cross of Calvary. This was foreseen in the Old Testament with the sacrificial lamb for the people's sins. Any works of one's own volition to appease God are a mockery to this one time sacrifice of his dear Son.
The majority can what it wants, but one thing it can't do is take my faith away, and it's a faith contrary to the majority, and as long as I am able, I will exercise that faith accordingly even if I'm a minority.
Good one from Dan. As for me, I'd be about my regular business without worry because I know the sovreign God I serve is taking care of me and will see me through it, my faith being strengthened by the Scriptures.
Technical question for you all(Sorry to get off topic). How do you get those quotations like JD did with CBC's words? And do these kind of quotes take up any of the limited number of characters in each posting? Thank you.
Abigail, Regarding CBC's view of the Gospels in light of the Epistles, Jesus told the Apostles that whoever hears them(the Apostles) hears God. "He who hears you, hears me..." Logically, we should see what the Apostles had to say about the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit. The Apostle Paul clearly showed the nature of both manifestations and the gifts. I took CBC's advice and read 1 Cor. 12 - 14. When these are used to interpret the discussion about tongues in both the Gospels and Acts, the Pentecostal doctrine just can't stand, particularly initial evidence of tongues. Do I deny the gifts? No. Nor do I deny the Holy Spirit baptism. What I do deny are certain doctrines about the Holy Spirit. As for the Reformers and gifts, aside from Calvin(if he was opposed to the gifts, some documentation from him would help), what others were against the gifts? There are Reformation churches today which confess faith in the Holy Spirit and do not forbid those who believe in a present day administration of the gifts, yet will shy away (scripturally) from Initial Evidence. One pentecostal author I read says there is possible evidence Martin Luther(a reformer) spoke in tongues. A hundred years before Luther there were the Moravians, considered protestant, and having manifestations.
Wow, what a change from the days I was in a California school. I'm glad I'm not there now. Arnold obviously can't fight the onslaught of the devil even with big muscles. Sad. But that's what happens without the strength found only by faith in the Lord. "Apart from me you can do nothing."
I confess the Protestant faith: Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, God's Glory Alone.
Derek, there were people who could clearly be considered "protestant" long before Luther. To the best of my knowledge they didn't commit nor approve crimes against others of a different interpretation of Scripture. Many protestants suffered at the hands of Roman Catholics(consider the Huguenots and pre-Luther Moravians, just to name a couple). I've read some stories about Baptists who have failed in keeping the flesh crucifed, resulting in some rather bad crimes. We all struggle with sin and what's considered cultural norms. These must be fought with faith and brought to nought by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
Abigail, Jesus told the Apostles that who hears them hears the Lord, so I confess what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 12 - 14. Clearly from this, not all speak in tongues initially or as a separate gift. Paul address both manifestations and gifts and clearly shows it will vary according to God's will.
However, believers are the elect, are they not? If one is chosen, are they not elect? If they are called, are they not elect? I say they are. They were chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ, and predestinated, called, justified and glorified, scriptural terms applied to the believers. And for these Christ died and has provided a way for them to have forgiveness of sins and access to the Father. To me it makes sense, but maybe others have a different opinion on the how's and why's of the atonement and salvation. Ok, off to work folks.
Lurker, thanks. I have realized more about God's grace and less about my efforts. It's "Christ in me" not me getting to Christ. He chose me and I come, not the other way around. I'm not sure why the debate about election rages on, but seems to me Ephesians 1 shows clearly the place the Cross has in election and predestination and this hasn't been denied by you or others of the same persuasion, since you're being accused of denying the cross. Thanks again for the dialogue and challenges.