Today at church (I got to an apostolic oneness church) I witnessed an entire group of people become slain in the spirit. First time actually seeing this in person it was kinda amazing. I plan on getting baptized so I can receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Have any anons on here experience tongues or being slain in the spirit?
PROTESTANT HERETICS WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE FITS OF DEMONIC POSSESSION, AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS GOD EMBRACING THEM.
>>18439308*eye roll* whatever dude i got to be present today at a holy spirit service and saw miracles before my own eyes. if this wasn't God working then idk what is. my family is catholic, ok? I never saw anything like this in a catholic church service.
YOU ARE SO STUPID.
>>18439314you just believe in unbiblical things.
>>18439315SO IRONICAL, COMING FROM A HERETIC; THE VERY EXISTENCE OF PROTESTANTISM IS BASED UPON BELIEVING AND PRACTICING «UNBIBLICAL THINGS».NOTHING UNBIBLICAL ABOUT CATHOLICISM; EVERYTHING UNBIBLICAL ABOUT PROTESTANTISM.CHRIST FOUNDED THE CHURCH; JOHN DOE FOUNDED YOUR SECT.
>>18439321>NOTHING UNBIBLICAL ABOUT CATHOLICISMwhere in the bible does it say priests can't marry, or to even have priests at all, much less monarchial bishops?
>>18439321you don't know how wrong you are wow! your church literally got founded at the council of nicaea by constantine, who was a pagan. the trinity contradicts the Bible which teaches "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." I have never once seen the works of the holy Spirit in a troman catholic church because you don't have the spirit of Jesus in you. ive been to Bible studies friend and I know the Bible teaches about the coming of the holy spirit and the gifts given to people who are baptized with the holy spirit.
>>18439308>>18439314>>18439321No wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.
>>18439326I. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT SOMETHING IS MADE EXPLICIT IN THE HOLY BIBLE FOR IT TO BE MADE NORMATIVE, OR MANDATORY, OR DOGMATIC; IT NEEDS TO BE TRUTHFUL, COHERENT, AND CONDUCIVE TO EFFICIENT AND EFFICACIOUS CLERICAL OPERATION; THE HOLY BIBLE IS SACRED SCRIPTURE, NOT AN INSTRUCITON MANUAL.II. THE HOLY BIBLE IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF DOCTRINE.III. CHRIST ESTABLISHED THE CLERICAL HIERARCHY; IF YOU ACTUALLY READ AND UNDERSTOOD SACRED SCRIPTURE, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.
>>18439327OK, RETARD.
>>18439337PROTESTANTS ARE SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH: ANTICHRISTIANS, NOT CHRISTIANS.
>>18439343stop my derailing my thread! I asked if anyone ever experience being slain in the spirit and tongues and clearly you have not!
>>18439354THAT IS RIGHT, I HAVE NEVER BEEN POSSESSED BY A DEMON, THANK GOD.
>>18439355The Bible teaches that reception of the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation. Read Acts!
>>18439356IF YOU ARE CONVULSING, AND BABBLING GIBBERISH, AND YOU ARE NOT FEIGNING, YOU ARE, EITHER, DEMONICALLY POSSESSED, OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING POSSESSED.
>slain in the spiritInteresting possible origin of this phrase, from 1920, in a book called The Holy Spirit by Maria Woodworth-Etter: >"It will come to pass in the last days," says the Lord, "that I will plead with all flesh, with the sword and fire, 'and the slain of the Lord shall be many.'" (See Isaiah 66:16.) The sword is the Word of God. The fire is the Holy Spirit. The slain of the Lord are those who fall under conviction or who fall like dead men under the power of God.But that seems like a very optimistic interpretation. First because "plead" seems to be peculiar to the KJV; most translations, even very old ones including the 1599 Geneva Bible as well as English translations of the very, very old Greek Septuagint, go with "judge" there. And second because, in context, it looks more like a final judgment than a conversion operation. The verse immediately before refers to the Lord coming with fire "to render his anger with fury and his rebuke with flames of fire," and, immediately after, it refers to people performing what looks like some idolatrous practice and says they "shall come to an end together." And then the chapter ends off with, "And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me, for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh," which happens to be the same verse Jesus refers to in Mark 9:48, where you're supposed to prefer tearing out your eyes over ending up in that situation.
>>18439358The Bible says differently. Daniel trembled and fell onto the ground when the hand of the Lord touched him in daniel 10:5-18. John says he fell at the feet of the Lord as dead in revelation 1:17. The Bible teaches speaking in tongues as well in Acts 2. Acts 10:10 says Peter was put into a trance. When the Holy Spirit has influence over you it is solely by his will that he works in you and he can do as he pleases, just like when he died for us on the cross.
>>18439370The tongues in Acts 2 aren't gibberish>When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?There is the idea in Paul's letters of speaking in tongues as unintelligible (the tongues of angels), but regarding this Paul says, "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."
>>18439379Paul is not saying every tongue needs to be interpreted, this had specifically to do with tongues of prophecy, not tongues of praise and worship, which Paul says he wishes that everyone would have.
Even though the theological slap fighting on this board can be really annoying at times, I have to say, it is really interesting seeing how anons on /his/ really highlight all the different types of Christianity there are and what they actually do and believe in. They're all really interesting in their own right. Most anons on here though are Catholic/Orthodox/Confessional Protestants though so we don't get too many threads around here talking about Pentecostal distinctives or distictives of other Evangelicals (except for IFB KJV onlyism because of its meme status). Anyway OP, I am a Lutheran, we do not have "slain in the Spirit" because our worship style is liturgical, not charismatic. Also you really shouldn't be in a Oneness denomination OP, the Trinity is of central importance in the Christian faith. Modalism was declared a heresy a long long time ago for being contrary to the scriptures. Nicene Christianity is where it's at. There's my 2 cents.
>>18439423Where do you see the distinction between "tongues of prophecy" and "tongues of praise"? To me, in 1 Corinthians 14, tongues and prophecy seem to be consistently opposed, and the rule is that tongues may be spoken in church, but only if they can be interpreted. Paul does say he wishes that all would speak in tongues, but "those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God" and "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive." So speaking in tongues without interpretation seems to be regarded as a form of prayer, in which case it falls under Jesus' rule "Do not be like the hypocrites... but whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." So also Paul says "But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God."
>>184394375 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?The Bible is saying that prophecy is better than tongues, unless the tongues are tongues of prophecy. Then they need interpretation. If they are without interpretation they do nit build up. this is what the Bible says. We agree that with the Bible that worship should be regulated and that nobody should speak a tongue during regulated worship. But this is what Paul is talking about. In tongues of praise this is done in a non-regulated prayer service. we are praying with tongues yes. We are doing it outside of regulated worship though which is different. Apostolic Christians do both and I am an Apostolic Christian. I confess the Oneness of God. And I confess that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.
>>18439437Tongues is necessary for salvation because Jesus said unless you are born of water and spirit you cannot enter the kingdom. This is the desire for us to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because baptism with the Holy Spirit always accompanies water baptism, which is also why baptism with water is necessary. This is why the bible says in baptism our sins are forgiven. We are born again in Spirit baptism during water baptism. We are baptized in the name of Jesus because this is what Acts says. We are the church of Acts. We are a apostolic Christians like the ones in the first century ad. I hope to be baptized soon and be born again.
>>18439431I do not believe in nicene "christianity". It contradicts the Bible which teaches Oneness. The Bible is not Trinitarian it is Oneness.
>>18439308CONTINUATIONISM IS YOUR THING PABLO
>>18439308The Vatican Bears the name of Peter. Peter is a false god.
>>18440338When have you ever seen a Christian honoring The NAME?
>>18439605Yeah you're a heretic then. To be a Christians = to believe in the Trinity. Repent or enjoy hell.
>>18439599NTA >this is what Acts saysLiterally that verse in Acts 8 you're referring to says that the Spirit had not descended upon them yet, that they had only been baptized.What this means is, they had not been empowered with ordination yet.The grace of the Holy Spirit had been imparted to them through baptism, but they did not yet have the fullness of it's power.That is to say, with the ministry of the Holy Spirit that imparts real binding and loosing authority, and the power to forgive sins. As is written in John.Jesus said to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.You're ignoring this command, and instead privileging this misreading of Acts 8.You're supposed to be baptized *in the name of* Jesus, but not *by* or *with* the name of Jesus. Baptised *in persona Christi*, the minister acts as his instrument. It's like delegating someone to do something in your name. It doesn't mean they literally use your name to perform the act, rather that you authorized them specifically.And that it is the form of baptism which Jesus instituted specifically (trinitarian), and not that of someone else.Case in point, in Acts 19 Paul questions the Ephesians as to whether or not they had heard of the Holy Spirit. They responded in the negative, because they had received *John's* baptism. Namely, one that does not invoke the Holy Spirit, unlike Jesus' baptism which does.So when Paul baptises them again, this time correctly, when it is written that they are baptized in the name of Jesus it means that Jesus is the one baptizing them through Paul who is acting as his instrument. And this is effected through simply repeating the words of Jesus to that end, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.The fact that they had not heard of the Holy Spirit means that they hadn't received Jesus' baptism, one that has his namesake, since that baptism explicitly names the Holy Spirit in unity with the Father and the Son.cont
>>18440930If Christ's baptism originally omitted the name of the Holy Spirit and merely used his human name as you claim, Paul would not have immediately known why they did not know of him. Namely, that they lacked the baptism which identifies the Holy Spirit.Clearly, if they had received Jesus' baptism they would have heard of the Holy Spirit since it's invocation is an essential element. Since they knew nothing of what Paul spake, it follows necessarily that they had not received Jesus' baptism.It is a man's name, but the person of the Son is much more than man alone. You are being consecrated to God in the fullness of his divinity, rather than merely to the human nature which the name of Jesus was given to. Because Jesus is the Son, through his death into which you are baptized you die to sin according to your shared human nature and then through his Godhood share in his rising again.When teaching the apostles how to baptize for the first time, he instructs them to use a trinitarian formula. I know of no other point where a precise baptism formula is given in the entire bible. That should tell you how important these words are. You should at least comment on them.>>18439605What does "oneness" mean to you exactly?I'm curious as to how you can jettison the idea of divine persons united as one God, and still accept that God is love. This love is eternal, it was perfect before creation.Because love is a relationship between two or more people; love of self (self centeredness) is lesser in perfection than the love you give to another. It's impossible to give yourself a gift. Love isn't just a feeling or emotional state. An ontological reality which affects people emotionally as a secondary effect.When you love someone else, your life begins to revolve around them. You're ready to die for them, because you would rather die than live without them. When you love yourself, nothing like this can occur. Simple as.
>>18439308Try reading the Bible
>inb4 le the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is just Jesus ezExcept that it is written in Revelation 19 the Son has a hidden, secret name. One that men do not know, but him alone.Meaning, Jesus is the name given to his human nature, the incarnate savior sent to men as man.It is not the original divine name of the coeternal Son. This name is yet to be revealed.Jesus is the name by which we can know the Son, through his earthly ministry and as one man to another. As regards this mysterious divine name, we have to wait.Long story short, the name Jesus applies to a fleshly body which was created just like Adam was created and also to his human soul.Not to the uncreated divine person of the Son, who is consubstantial with the Father.
>>18439299I can't tell if you are making this up. Are you? What is being slain in the spirit?
