 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Randy Johnson |
I don't have Scripture for this, but I believe that God wants us to eagerly desire the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in our church meetings and in our lives. I also believe tongues is the easiest place to start, but God does not intend for us to stay there.
My mother and I were discipled in the things of the Spirit by an older saint who is now in her mid-80s and still pastoring a church in northern Vigo county in Indiana. She taught us to act in faith when we felt the Spirit prompting us to give a message in tongues in a service and to go on from that and pray for the interpretation. Being a highly impressionable 11 year old boy taught to respect his elders (I still don't call anyone by their first name unless they tell me to), I obeyed her instructions and began giving messages in tongues appropriately.
I don't know how the people in the church reacted to it, but the pastor thought it was genuine and he was no pushover (when I got to be an older teen he once told me I had an ego that needed flushed down the toilet, I've been carrying a spiritual plunger around ever since). By the time I was eighteen I had progressed in faith to give interpretations. I say progressed in faith because, quite frankly, it takes faith to operate in the manifestations of the Spirit, at least faith to believe it is the Holy Spirit prompting you to speak (I never lost consciousness or the ability to stop).
I believe it is God's will for all of the nine manifestations of the Spirit to be present and active in all of our churches at the appropriate time. In the past, we have settled for three or four, but I think we receive what we have faith for. It takes faith to speak out in tongues, it takes more faith in my opinion to speak out in interpretation and prophecy (because people understand what you are saying and can judge it).
The Charismatic movement had faith for the word of knowledge but I think it has been turned into a carnival sideshow by some. Who is having faith for, and can recognize, a word of wisdom when it is spoken under the inspiration of the Spirit? These manifestations should be present in our churches and not just reserved to the professional Christians who have bible college and seminary degrees and hold credentials with manmade organizations.
People who have tender hearts stand in awe at the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit among God's people. Those with hard hearts despise them and simply look for more loaves and fishes.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5431
10/1/09 6:08 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Power to BE witnesses |
MS7777 |
I too decry the notion that tongues and the vocal gifts are the be all and end all for the Pentecostal church. I think that the 9 gifts and all the fruits of the Spirit should be in evidence in our lives personally and corporately in the manner the Spirit of God dictates. To relegate ourselves to be described by tongues is an aberration of who we are.
My contention has always been that the church should allow the Spiritual Gifts to be manifested in the life of the church. My main point has been to decry the notion that the realm of the supernatural has NO role in the life of the church today, especially on Sunday morning. Initial evidence notwithstanding, the entry way into the power to BE witnesses is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. To diminish this understanding and truth is to diminish us as Pentecostal and relegate us to the great evangelical hordes of today.
1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Paul understood that it took the power of God in physical manifestation to express who God was and that His words were true. THe miraculous, supernatural manifestations of God always bear witness and often provide a preaching point to the Word of God.
Wherever I preach around the world, the Word of God is preached but as God confirms the Word with signs following, people understand the Words we have spoken are indeed the Word of God and they believe it.
It should be understood that the Western Church still needs a demonstration of the power of God. It doesn't need wild fire, or just tongues or even prophecy but when God manifests His power in a service in the real way, whether it is tongues or the miracle of healing, people understand that only God could hav done this and it make them prone to beleive the other word spoken.
When we disallow the move of the Spirit (whether from fear or lack of teaching or whatever) we have diminished our ability to BE witnesses. IT takes the Spirit and His power to show a world bereft of love, bereft of hope and bereft of faith that there is a God in heaven who still cares for His creation. And He shows His care by His power!
The only way to access that power is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and we must allow the Spirit of God to still operate in our churches. That has been my consistent point. Styles of preaching, styles of dress, style and preferences of singing are just that - style preferences. Be as relevant as you wish, but I contend that the POWER OF GOD IS STILL RELEVANT TO GOD"S CREATION!
Forbid not tongues and might I say Forbid not the Spirit.
Be Blessed
_________________
Acts 1:8 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 725
10/2/09 12:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Pentecostal Growth |
Emergent Earl |
| Ichthus77 wrote: | | Something draws people to this kind of church and it ISNT video vignettes and secular rock clips, or dancers shaking their hips, or Starbucks coffee. |
Why must you demean those of us who are emergent?
_________________
Earl |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 528
10/2/09 10:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| RE: |
Rick Metzgar Jr |
http://www.christian-life.com/index
I have very close friends of mine whom I attend church with on a regular basis, they were big members at christian life assembly in camp hill pa. They don't actively teach on tongues nor have they heard it embraced in membership of over 20 years. They are more of a Neo pentecostal approach. There is a lot of autonomy given to the local churches in the a/g now days so basically its as it is locally interpretted.
Look at the churches doctrinal statement, nowhere is tongues even mentioned. |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2003
10/6/09 5:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: RE: |
Randy Johnson |
| Rick Metzgar Jr wrote: | http://www.christian-life.com/index
I have very close friends of mine whom I attend church with on a regular basis, they were big members at christian life assembly in camp hill pa. They don't actively teach on tongues nor have they heard it embraced in membership of over 20 years. They are more of a Neo pentecostal approach. There is a lot of autonomy given to the local churches in the a/g now days so basically its as it is locally interpretted.
Look at the churches doctrinal statement, nowhere is tongues even mentioned. |
That's sad, really really sad.
There has always been autonomy local A/G churches, that is, for the congregations (they are the ones with the most "rights").
Maybe the real problem is that Pentecostals have shot themselves in the tongue by not doing more with their "Pentecostal experience" than speaking in tongues and having emotionally driven church services.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5431
10/7/09 5:40 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| This is exactly my point |
MS7777 |
While local AG churches are sovereign (that is they call their own pastor, own their own buildings and land, can incur indebtedness and set their own membership, etc.) they are still bound by the charter of the AG General Council. EVERY AG church has in its constitution a statement endorsing ALL 16 tenets of Faith (which includes a statement on the baptism in the Holy Spirit and a statement endorsing the Initial Physical Evidence of speaking in other tongues). Just because a local church doesn't have this statement on their website (intentionally) http://www.christian-life.com/aboutus/whatwebelieve.html doesn't mean it's not in their constitution - it has to be!
If an AG (or COG) church goes away from it's foundational moorings then while it may be able to in practice it is not technically able to do so in theory. This is exactly why the issue arose in our last General Council as we re-affirmed the Initial Physical Evidence doctrine. THis is how this thread got started - see the first post. You are being disingenuous (liar) if your constitution says one thing and your practice another all for the sake of getting a crowd.
I have no trouble with a church moving away from their Pentecostal roots (actually I do but....) but don't stay affiliated with an organization that is Pentecostal (at least in name). Leave quietly, go be a cessassionist in a denomination that believes the same as you (Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian et al). (The reason they don't leave is 2 fold: 1) In many instances there is a reversion clause in the local constitution reverting the property to the AG if the local church leaves and 2) The General COuncil would lose members and more imprtantly serious money (as every AG church sends a portion of their General FUnd each month to the District COuncil and annually to the General Council and also these churches still support missions in a BIG way - which is why the Districts and General COuncil don't call these churches on their beliefs and practices - kind of like don't ask - don't tell).
We have bought into the lie that the Holy Spirit has no active role in visible manifestation in our world and churches today. It is sad!
Blessings
_________________
Acts 1:8 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 725
10/7/09 8:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| It seems odd ... |
Mat |
It seems odd to me that "Initial Evidence" is the "line in the sand" that many Pentecostal denominations and organizations (like the PCCNA) have chosen. Yes, being raised in the COGOP I have both preached and taught the "concept" of Initial Evidence, however, as I have "grown in the Spirit" over the years, and as I studied Pentecostal history, as well as my own family’s experience in the Baptism of the Spirit, I have come to question the focus on "Initial" and the lack of focus on continuing "Evidence" in the operation of the "Gifts of the Spirit". Often at the local church I pastor we have the operation of the Gifts of the Spirit, including but not limited to, speaking in Tongues. Those visiting from larger Pentecostal/Spirit-filled type churches (including AGs) will say to me or other members of our church that it has been years since they heard "tongues" in their church. I do not feel taking a "hard line" on "Initial Evidence" is the key, rather, it is the pastoral leadership of the local church allowing and seeking the operation of the Gifts in the worship service that is the issue. Why now and why "Initial Evidence", as the dividing point, when so many other "hard line" teachings developed during the formative years of Pentecostalism has been "soften"? Is there a secondary agenda of denominational leadership?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
10/7/09 12:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: It seems odd ... |
Randy Johnson |
| Mat wrote: | It seems odd to me that "Initial Evidence" is the "line in the sand" that many Pentecostal denominations and organizations (like the PCCNA) have chosen. Yes, being raised in the COGOP I have both preached and taught the "concept" of Initial Evidence, however, as I have "grown in the Spirit" over the years, and as I studied Pentecostal history, as well as my own family’s experience in the Baptism of the Spirit, I have come to question the focus on "Initial" and the lack of focus on continuing "Evidence" in the operation of the "Gifts of the Spirit". Often at the local church I pastor we have the operation of the Gifts of the Spirit, including but not limited to, speaking in Tongues. Those visiting from larger Pentecostal/Spirit-filled type churches (including AGs) will say to me or other members of our church that it has been years since they heard "tongues" in their church. I do not feel taking a "hard line" on "Initial Evidence" is the key, rather, it is the pastoral leadership of the local church allowing and seeking the operation of the Gifts in the worship service that is the issue. Why now and why "Initial Evidence", as the dividing point, when so many other "hard line" teachings developed during the formative years of Pentecostalism has been "soften"? Is there a secondary agenda of denominational leadership?
Mat |
Mat, I agree with you, we should be seeking the operation of all the manifestations of the Spirit in our worship services, however, you have to start somewhere, you have to have a point of beginning.
The point of beginning is the event of being baptized in the Holy Spirit in the first place. The question is, and was historically, how can we know when we have been baptized in the Holy Spirit? How can we know when the event has happened? Seeking to answer this question is what led to Parham's students studying the Scriptures in Acts. From that study came the conclusion that when people were baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts, most often they spoke in tongues (3/5 or 60%, more than half, of the times).
Expecting and looking for continuing evidences is a valid exercise and expectation as well, but it is a different issue entirely from determining the way to know one has been Spirit-baptized to begin with.
All initial evidence is concerned with is initial baptism; not the continuing walk in the Spirit and His manifestations - which is certainly a second valid and necessary concern.
We must not judge a valid Scriptural teaching on the basis of the behavior or misbehavior of people who incorrectly or inadequately try to practice the teaching. Yet, I believe that when it comes to the teaching of initial evidence, that is exactly what many people do. They judge the teaching by the behavior of Pentecostals they have known or heard about, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves and finding out what the text teaches.
My own personal study of the Scriptures have led me to honestly say that speaking in tongues and/or prophecy may be an initial evidence of Spirit baptism; or possibly even one of the other 7 manifestations of the Spirit. In any event, something supernatural should take place when one is baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures point to this fact no matter which manifestation of the Spirit you choose as evidene.
One thing I am convinced the Scriptures do not teach is that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is identical with the New Birth. I believe the Scriptures teach that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is an event separate from and subsequent to the New Birth (even though the passage of time between the two events may be milliseconds, as in the case with Cornelius' household).
I believe the Shearer Schoolhouse Revival of 1896 demonstrates and supports the idea of Spirit baptism separate from the New Birth. Especially since the attenders were already saved and they weren't seeking tongues. The Holy Spirit came upon them and the tongues came with Him, just like they did in the New Testament.
What they, and other Pentecostals, have done afterwards, after receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, in no way reflects falsely on the truth of the Scriptural teaching of Spirit baptism. Let God be true and every man a liar!
Paul had to address similar type issues in Romans regarding grace and people continuing to sin after they had made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Some were accusing Paul and others of saying that Christ promoted sin because people were no longer under the law but under grace. Paul refuted that assumption and laid the blame of continuance in sin at the feet of the sinner where it belonged, not on the teaching salvation by grace.
The same principle is true of Spirit baptism and initial evidence. The truth of a Scriptural teaching is not negated by the ill-advised behavior of its supposed adherents. It is still true regardless of how people act.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5431
10/7/09 3:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Daniel Rushing |
This is still better than wrestling WHILE speaking in tongues.  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3063
10/7/09 3:36 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
