[CS-FSLUG] RFC: Change of Statement of Faith

Tue Sep 6 05:14:33 CDT 2005

Interesting,

> > I for one am happy not being baptized,
circumcised, 
> > slain in the spirit, speaking in tongues, or any
of 
> > that other stuff. I won't say it's wrong since 
> > that's not my place, but personally I think  
> > most of that today is wrongfully interpreted and
> > has become superstition.

It seems to me that interpretation is everything:

-------------------------------------------------
BAPTISM:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have
commanded you.' " 
Matthew 26:18-20

"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you
except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you
were baptized into my name ... For Christ did not send
me to baptize, but to preach the gospel ..." 
I Corinthians 1:14-17

So, Christ commands believers to be baptized and
discipled. Paul, however, forgoes baptism to prevent
division in the Church. Question: Are the non-baptized
people in Corinth disobeying Christ? Is Paul wrong? Is
this command similar to the Sabbath command (made for
man rather than to bind him)?

--------------------------------------------------
I have no need to speak about circumcision.
--------------------------------------------------
SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT

"When I saw Him (Jesus) I fell at his feet as though
dead."
Revelations 1:17

"I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the
men with me did not see it, but such terror
overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So
I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had
no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I
was helpless. Then I heard him speaking, and as I
listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to
the ground."
Daniel 10:7-9

Upon seeing a vision of the Holy One, such fear and
awe overcame Daniel and John that they froze and
eventually passed out. A very emotional, yet not
unexpected, response

>From my experience, "slain is the spirit" is indeed an
emotional response (or at worst an act to fit into the
crowd). For those of us who attended a Pentecostal
bible school, watching people work themselves into
complete anarchy isn't all that unusual or unexpected.
People like releasing excess emotion and "letting go".
It's a good stress releiver. 

That said, when the whole group was speaking in
tongues and falling out all over while the same song
droned on and on, it scared me. It appeared as if all
control had been lost. The dull moans and chattering
nonsense sounded to me like suffering souls from the
pit of hell has made their voices heard in our
presence. In other words, chaos is NOT of God. Of
course, what do I know?

This much is, however, obvious. Here's the formula
(taken from ol' Benny):
1) "God is moving ... don't you feel Him."
2) "This is what is going to happen if the Holy Spirit
is in you" (think emperor's new clothes).
3) "The Spirit is moving!"
4) "Oh God, I want to be like everyone else!"

... I'll say no more.

-------------------------------------------------
SPEAKING IN TONGUES:

"When that day of pentecost came, they were all
together in one place. Suddenly a sound like a blowing
of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the
whole house where they were sitting.  They saw what
seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came
to rest on each fo them. All of them were filled with
the Holy Spirit and all began to speak in other
tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Now there were staying in Jerusalem Godfearing Jews
from every nation under heaven. When they heard this
sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because
each one heard them speaking in his own language."
Acts 2:1-6

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to
men but to God. Indeed, no one understand him; he
utters mysteries with his spirit."
"Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues,
what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some
revelation or knowledge or prophecy or work of
instruction?"
"Undoubtably there are all sorts of languages in the
world, yet none of them without meaning. If then I do
not grasp the meaning of when someone is saying, I am
a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to
me."
I Corinthians 14:2,6,10-11

So it appears that tongues are speaking of the
mysteries of God in foreign languages. God gives this
gift (and I've seen it used correctly where a
non-english speaker got saved).I challenge anyone to
prove that babbling or "speaking in the tongues of
angels" is true speaking in tongues or even biblical.
In looking at all gifts, I keep this in mind: God is
concerned with salvation.

That said, perhaps a clear teaching on the subject
will help.

"Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for
unbelievers ... So if the whole Church comes together
and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not
understand or unbelievers come in, will they not say
that you are out of your mind?"
I Corinthians 14:22-23

"All of these things must be done for the
strenghtening of the church. If anyone speaks in a
tongue, two - or at 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 God."
I Corinthians 14: 26b-28

If it is disorderly and does not strenghten the church
it is wrongly used. And yes, people do think a church
is insane if everyone is speaking in tongues (fake or
real). There are good rules to keep a church service
from getting out of hand. Or, in a nutshell:

"For God is not the God of disorder but of peace."
I Corinthians 14:33

-------------------------------------------------

> Well, I'd disagree with that, with regard to
> communion and baptism. As others have noted, Jesus 
> has specifically commanded those two (hence, in the 
> statement, we chose the term "sacraments" for  
> referring to them). I personally do not believe they
> are necessary, but given that it is specifically 
> rejecting Jesus' command ...  
> If I were you, I'd consider requesting to have a
> baptism with a smaller number of people (i.e. maybe 
> just family), if you are avoiding it due to shyness,

> rather than avoiding it altogether.

Indeed, identifying with the church (the ekklesia) is
what baptism is all about. Kind of like the initiation
ritual. The Jews used it prior to Jesus. It was a way
to become recognized as part of a group, whether Jew,
Christian or other. Other than that, it isn't going to
determine salvation.

---------------------------------------------------

> For what it is worth, I'm one of the "sprinkled" 
> ones. I have considered doing an immersion baptism, 
> but tend to feel there is something valid about 
> infant baptism and so long as I do, I'm dubious 
> about rebaptizing... (I'm no anabaptist :-))

I've been a baptist (first), then a pentecostal
(later) then a non-denom (now). It is my conviction
that if an infant chooses to join the church then let
them be baptized. As a matter of fact, all people,
regardless of age, choosing to join the assembly
should be baptized. 

So, simply ask the infant if they believe:
1) Jesus is the one and only Son of God
2) Jesus died in their place to pay for their sins
3) Jesus rose from the dead

If the infant is willing to follow Jesus and turn from
their sin then baptize away. 

So, therefore I agree, infant baptism can be valid.

Gabe

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 