ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2014
- seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
What do John Wesley and Pentecostalism have in common? In this interview, Larry Wood hosts Pentecostal scholar Frank Macchia as they discuss Wesley's Aldersgate experience and the similarities between Pentecostal and Wesleyan spirituality.
I'm absolutely adoring this series.
Two points I found a problem with here in Pt 2:
1) I recall reading elsewhere where Wesley was quoted as saying the C. life should be one of loving all others at all times and in all ways in all places (the writer claimed it to be JWs most famous quote).
[ed.+ Not para.:
"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can."]
While listening to the AoG man here towards the end of this Pt 2, and him referencing sanctification as something resulting in an outflow of good works (para.), it connected in my mind to JWs above quote.
Wrong. We get no further with God when we take whatever spiritual gift degree He's given us, and wield it where, when and to whom we decide. We bypass what was intended an overall orchestration by the Holy Ghost, who alone knows what someone REALLY needs, WHEN they should best have it [or not have it], and...
We likely do it out of frustration, us not being outwardly used of God and incorrectly judging Him for the voids.
In our formation of doctrine, we forget to always add: as the Spirit leads, leaning not unto our own understanding. Otherwise, in the above case it's "Christian" self-righteousness, flesh, and "the flesh profits nothing [eternally]."
2) Why complicate it, sanctification? Jesus put it into one terse verse. John 15:2. We start out with a baptism of repentance. Next step, baptized into Christ (recall, John the B. had to symbolically 1st come). Then we get "firstfruits" of the Fruits of the Spirit. If we don't use them, if we bury our one "talent" (KJV) in the sand, we don't move on. Maybe even have our talent taken away? (Rhet.)
If we are stewards of the firstfruits, if we exercise them when God is pruning us to force them to the surface, we become canditates for the next step of further Grace/sanctification, the next cleansing and equipping.
And so on, and so on, and so on. Whether the empowering of the Holy Ghost UPON us to momentarily fill us as needed (okay, who'd I lose there; who just shut down?), or the circumcision/cleansing (thank you, Dr. Wood) of unforgiveness or hatred or envy & strife or lust or whatever, and fullness of Agape' Love in its sted; or later a cleansing of arrogance replaced with perfect Meekness (the needed veil upon our haughty [SELF-confident] countenances); or, as was missing in the evangelists of the 90s (and beyond) referred to in the video, the heart cleansed of its love of money/the world....
On and on and on. John 15:2. Period (kinda).
God ordained few ever reach the place of perfect Peace "in their own rented house" the waning years of life. Needed to get there are a half dozen or so visits to the Mount of Further Transformation.[/Transfiguration, not stopping after the 1st visit if cessationist or 2nd if continuationist or even 3rd if holiness perfectionist, building a monumental alter upon which we place our holy experience(s), worshipping it/them as an idol of the heart instead of coming back down the mountain, getting pruned some more; and then going back up for another, yeah, momentarily painful and somewhat frightening/intimidating, face-to-face encounter. - ed.+]
[Another analogy may be how we would prefer to discuss a dead guy's take on something (the monumental), over interacting with a living and in-our-face one (the uncomfortable, the uncovering, the challenging, the sobering - a troublesome fellow)?]
Have you considered my "non-scholarly" book?
Sounds to me like that Wesleyan Holiness movement’s idea of Baptism in the Spirit as entire sanctification and the Pentecostal idea of Baptism in the Spirit as signs and wonders need to come together were Wesleyan and Pentecostal can say the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace that brings about a purity in heart and intention that is manifested in the world through the charismatic gifts and fruits of the Spirit in love for God and humanity.
They cannot "come together," they are separate baptizings (not to be confused with "one baptism") - rarely together, that is.
Well, the problem is that sanctification is a process, a long and sometimes seemingly unendurable process. Sanctification happens along the path of reading, understanding, and embracing obedience to God's word. We are sanctified by His words, His words as written in the Bible. We are transformed by His words, we are corrected by His words, we see Jesus us in ourselves when we hear and obey His words. There are no instant purifications, there are only daily battles of love, putting off the flesh, and putting on Jesus. When "ministers" try to simplify that process into an instantaneous act that God does by Himself, they do great harm to the young people who want to follow the truth. Baptism in the Spirit begins our sense of awareness of Him working within in us, but it is just the beginning of the process of sanctification.
@@understandingthebible427
You say, "they [Wesleyans/Methodists] do great harm to the young people who want to follow the truth."
That is a very divisive and hugely unfair statement. I'm certain you do not have a monopoly on truth.
This is a Wesleyan thread. You must be a sola scriptura person, based on your post. Wesleyans are not sola scriptura. They are quadrilateral.
When formulating doctrine quadrilateraly, taken into account are, preeminently the Holy Bible, reasoning, experience, and tradition: the four/quad facets.
Wesleyans/Methodists/Nazarenes/etc. have historically had the experiences of the fullness of God's Love dropped into them instantaneously.
If someone has not had such an experience, it's ridiculous (for lack of a better word) to claim such an experience is invalid. This is analagous to the cessationist vs. charismatic schism. Such divisive issues do not need more fuel, more than enough already exists in today's Body. Please stop. Please.
[Give up, let Him. - ed.]
Posted in another comment somewhere in my channel and copied and pasted here:
Man (yeah, was written in pre-PC days), even born-again Christian man, will always limit theology to either that which they've personally experienced, or what they're willing to yet undergo and have [God's]/the Faith to believe.
It's difficult for people who try to define God and the pentecostal experience to see it as a sweet spiritual interaction between God and His children, not totally different from a man and his newborn child. Trying to elevate it into some kind of Divine mysticism takes away the sweet, joyful love that a father feels when he looks at his newborn child. and all He feels is love and protection.Why is it necessary to interject a lot of "lofty" theological wording to explain this? We can understand the pentecostal experience apart from the radical modern day pentecostal displays of fleshly indulgence only when we understand that we don't need to, and actually can't, fake it, as some people try to do. When the day of pentecost happened, they were not emulating something they had heard about, they were experiencing something that was new and real. Some, maybe quite a bit, of what we see today is not real. But, some of what we see today is totally real and it is, just as it was on the original day of pentecost, a life changing experience with God.
The "theological wording" is not neccesarily necessary, but it can be practical.
As example, if before we were to discuss justification, i.e., the New Birth, I would need to precede it with what occurs prior, I can either do so in several explanatory sentences or paragraphs, or "simply" and concisely say, "subsequent to prevenient and convicting Grace...."
Such also alows us to be unquestionably more precise, hindering ambiguity and potentially resultant confusion, as well as meet the human organizational need to categorize and label.
And there's other reasons as well.
But, yes, at times it also gets in the way of the Way.
If the doctrine is not correct, which Jesus warned against endlessly, why would God give you signs and wonders to bring edification to incorrect doctrine?
He is not ! That’s man ! 2 Corinthians 11 verse 14
@@douggauzy6258 You totally took that verse out of context to establish a false narrative. What he was referencing was the Judaising teachers had claimed the authority of an angelic message for the gospel which they preached, and set this against the authority of the angelic visions which St. Luke had recorded in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:2). It is probable, that the Christ-party at Corinth, as distinct from that of Cephas, had affinities with the Jewish sect of the Essenes, and they, we know, were addicted to the worship of angels.
Christians rarely do it correctly. God takes our errors and extracts a percentage, turns them around, ac nd wins despite us. That sometimes comes along with a small degree of signs and wonders.
Otherwise, almost nothing would ever get done.
New Apostolic Reformation have abandoned Christ's teachings in favor of New Age teachings.