Comments on: How Fake Moves of the Holy Spirit Started in America

By: IndependentConservative

IndependentConservative — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:59:15 +0000

Hi seekingdaily – Use the search box on the upper left of the page and you’ll find plenty. Anytime there’s a guy telling you to praise ANY MAN it’s a cult.

By: seekingdaily

seekingdaily — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:55:22 +0000

I just happened across this website and I must say there is an incredible amount of info here…I was curious about Paula White because the new praise and worship leader at a church I just left is from her church. He likes to sing in tongues and he recently lifted the Pastors arms and told the congregation to praise him(the Pastor) I am seeing many similarities emerge with the church as with all the BIG name preachers out there. Matter of Fact the Pastor was recently on TBN with Steve Hill. I feel like I am narrowly escaping a cult.

By: art123

art123 — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:35:09 +0000

art123 Says: November 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm IC, I have just found this website a couple of days ago about the Azuza street revival movement and that this form of Pentacostal is revolved around the occult. The website is www.seekgod.ca/quakers.htm

By: art123

art123 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:44:01 +0000

If you listen to Bynum, she babbles a lot.

By: KyleAndrews

KyleAndrews — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:58:21 +0000

Healtheland,

You will know them by their fruits.

The COGIC Church and the Assemblies of God were created from the Azusa Street Revival.

Kyle

By: healtheland

healtheland — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:48:17 +0000

IndependentConservative: Not making excuses for Seymour. Again, my aim is to work through my personal doctrine and theology, not defend someone who sat around and allowed a mason to tell him that if you do not speak in tongues you are not saved when I Corinthians explicitly says otherwise. That was why I shifted to Smith Wigglesworth and the pre – Azusa charismatics, which if I am correct also includes Andrew Lobias Murray. Yeah, this “if you do not get healed it is because you lack faith”, I still shudder when I remember how I was so lost not so long ago that I actually sat around and listened to Ken Hagin’s prideful sermon on how he verbally and spiritually abused a brave sister in Christ that was in a wheelchair and was at a Christian conference promoting her book on how legitimate faith could help you face any trials that was based on her own experience. Hagin actually took pride in the fact that he told that woman that she didn’t have true faith, because if she did she would get up and walk out of that wheelchair, and reduced the woman to tears. I actually tried to order one of Hagin’s books over the Internet after hearing that sermon, but the transaction kept failing! Ah well.

By: IndependentConservative

IndependentConservative — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:25:01 +0000

art123 - If speaking in tongues was required to have the Holy Spirit, it would mean that you are not saved unless you spoke in tongues. (Even those claiming they have the gift of tongues are faking it even if they don't admit it to themselves, they can't minister to ANY unbeliever of another language. They'd pee their pants if you put a foreign speaking Jew in front of them and put them to the test.) It would make the apostolics 100% correct, but they are wrong, because they fail to see that all who are saved are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion and it does not require any expression of tongues. The best example being when the Holy Spirit feel on Christ, it fell like a dove and He did not speak in tongues. Not that He was some "new convert" but He did not speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit fell on him, to show he was the Messiah. In Acts 2 it was like fire and they spoke in tongues. In Acts Acts 8 the apostles laid hands and the Holy Spirit came and there is no mention of tongues. Still we know they were baptized in the fire of the Holy Spirit. Why the delay? Because the apostles needed to see that the Samaritans would receive it. Remember, the Samaritans were not formerly held in high regard at all. Christ told the 12 not to minister to them in Matthew 10:5. But they needed to go to the Samaritans in Acts 8 and see that even the Samaritans were part of the salvation plan. And is it written: Acts 11:15 (New American Standard Bible)

15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.

Peter shows in this statement that the Holy Spirit can come as it desires, but it came for the Gentiles the first time as it did for the Jews. Why? This was a sign to Peter, who was a Jew himself who accepted Christ. That the Gentiles were worthy of the same as himself, that salvation has no partiality in Christ. In some cases there were tongues, in others no tongues, but in every case of tongues in scripture, there was a Jew present.

By: IndependentConservative

IndependentConservative — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:03:21 +0000

Healtheland said:

Well, that settles it right there then. I did not know that Seymour preached that.

I get the feeling that you're making excuses for this man in part because of the racial oppression he faced. Let's make no mistake, his doctrine was as false as that of his teacher. They made it clear that they felt you don't have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues. They did not say it was required for salvation, but for someone to add that makes twisted sense considering scripture such as Ephesians 1:13-14. I've seen pimps like Paul Morton claim that once saved you are "sealed" but need to speak in tongues as the sign that you are "filled". Which is absolute garbage. Morton said that at Club New Birth some years back, before Morton moved his own club to Atlanta. Parham clearly taught that you needed to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit and so did his student Seymour. They also felt you lacked faith if you were not healed of sickness. These are basic tenants of the charismatic movement, a movement you know I grew up in and I know you grew up in. Let's not sugar coat it. Just because we grew up in it does not make any part of it right. It falls short of scripture.

By: art123

art123 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:31:38 +0000

To IC and Healtheland,
I once asked the pastor of my old church does it mean I’m not saved if I don’t speak in tongues. He told me no. Now, I see why when folks in the congregation start ’speaking in tongues’ or cut a rug, passing out, I notice the pastor and the deacons snickering at them. It’s true.

By: healtheland

healtheland — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:17:47 +0000

IndependentConservative: “Brother, he claimed you don’t have the Holy Spirit unless you’re babbling like a brook.” Well, that settles it right there then. I did not know that Seymour preached that. (I know, the Wikipedia thing said “Tongues as evidence of Spirit Baptism.” but I thought that it referred to … oh never mind). I thought that the “you must speak in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit” developed later.

“Parham started leading church meetings at age 15, Joseph Smith FALSELY claimed to see God at age 15. Just interesting…” That is more than “just interesting” … when you consider the witchcraft demons that are involved in masonry, it is not a coincidence at all.

I do know that a lot of the pre – Azusa Street charismatics, Smith Wigglesworth and people like that, taught that the gifts of the Holy Spirit was an anointing or blessing that often (but not always) came at a later date from salvation. They further use Paul’s exhortion to “seek the best gifts” in I Corinthians 14:12 to assert that it means that often (but not always!) God will grant these gifts (again, not always tongues, prophecy, or healings, but gifts!) to people that desire them for a legitimate purpose and request them of Him. I was under the impression that the movement towards “everyone needs or should have or should request THESE SPECIFIC GIFTS” and then the “unless you have THESE SPECIFIC GIFTS you aren’t saved” came out of Azusa Street.