Posted on 08/26/2019 3:14:52 AM PDT by Cronos
Some churches that claim to be Pentecostal but deny the Trinity, a Fundamental of the Christian Faith are the United Pentecostal Church, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, and all other "Jesus Only" or "oneness" churches.
>>Some churches that claim to be Pentecostal but have a works based salvation are the so-called holiness groups. They teach that in order to remain saved you can’t sin. Every time you sin you lose your salvation. They believe that your salvation hinges on you and not on Jesus. This group is ultra-arminian in doctrine. Pentecostal Holiness Church International is one example of a holiness denomination. Since, the holiness group errs from the faith in that they are wrong on salvation they no longer are truly Pentecostal. A works based salvation is not salvation by grace and thus we will not spend eternity together with them.<<
Is he saying that someone who believes in Jesus, but also believes that works are also necessary, is not saved?
I don’t know - he has his email so you can ask him. I just found the vast range of beliefs under the Pentecostal umbrella interesting - even if one denies the Trinity one can be called a Oneness Pentecostal.
And I thought the Trinity was the foundation of a Christian belief
I lived with a pentacostal roommate for about 2 years. They don’t let their women wear makeup, they don’t let their women have pierced ears, they make them wear denim dresses down to the floor so you can’t see their ankles, their women can’t do their hair, I’m talking zero beautification. And of the woman doesn’t have breakfast ready when the man gets back from church, she gets punched around the kitchen. It’s basically islam with the volume turned down.
“It’s basically islam with the volume turned down.” — interesting, thank you
Um, not quite. The first part was an old attitude coming from Paul talking about women being modestly adorned, but some took it to extreme.
The second part of your experience - pure wrong. No Christ-following Christian, Pentecostal or otherwise, would/should ever lay a hand on their wife for ANYTHING, let alone not having breakfast ready. Any man who did that was sinning before The Lord, pure and simple.
Any woman that patronizes a denomination willingly, does so ... ahem .... willingly.
Does it ever occur to anyone in this sex filled society that there are women that actually believe they should dress modestly ?
Parents have absolute rights over their minor children so leave THAT one out of the argument.
If someone believes, do you think God's grace will necessarily save him, or that it depends on whether God chooses to extend His grace to him?
All I know is I got sick of how he treated his wife and it came to a head when he beat her for not havi g food ready one Sunday afternoon. I introduced his face to a mohogany table for it. He called the police, but they saw the marks on his wife, but she refused to press charges. Of course this was in backwoods Louisiana so they didn’t take me in when they saw what he did to his wife.
The whole experience put a bad taste in my mouth about pentacostals, and this guys parents and one brother of his that I did meet were the same way.
thank you for this.
I am NOT a pentecostal, but I do appreciate this reasoned, irenic and dispassionate review of the basic tenets of Pentecostalism.
While I differ with their insistence that “tongues” are a necessary manifestation of a second blessing or baptism or whatever you wish to call it, I find their insistence that a renewed “coming” of the Holy Spirit is biblical.
The majority of evangelicals today are ignorant both of the biblical teaching on this AND of the history of revivals, both of which clearly demonstrate that a fresh outpouring or “baptism” or “second blessing” or “revival” whatever you wish to call it... is both necessary for the extension of the gospel..... and LONG overdue in the west. It is why there is functionally no difference between the lives of the average atheist and the average professing believer, save a higher moral standard and a few religious observances.
I commend the charismatics/pentecostals for this, even in their bad theology about “tongues” and would recommend any non pentecostal to read the book “REVIVAL” by D Martyn Lloyd Jones (hardly a pentecostal and a brand name among Reformed people) to shake up our rationalistic, Spirit ignoring theological positions.
Just as different Protestants denominations vary, so do Pentecostal churches. E.g., the Assemblies of God, which are considered Pentecostal, do not impose all the legalistic rules and restrictions your roommate displayed. I think it's also true that with virtually any Christian church or denomination, emphasize on particular doctrine, rules, restrictions, etc., are based on what the Pastor and leadership choose to elevate.
Your answer assumes that belief is a result of God's grace, rather than a freely made choice.
And if a person later decides he no longer believes, does that mean that he is no longer saved?
This topic, the perception that once the progressive revelation of the Holy Scriptures was finished, speaking in Scripture-unsupported Gentile/Barbarian tongues would fade away, has been negated by the cults claiming to be Pentecostal in intent. In fact and in experience, the paradigm of "speaking in tongues" (whatever one thinks that consists of) was displaced by the multiplication of copies the only authoritative God-inspired Scriptures written by the Apostles or their personally approved amansueses.
The controversial issue is addressed in a scholarly paper obtainable from the Happy Heralds, Inc. site, titled "THAT WHICH IS PERFECT" (click here) by Dr. Fred Wittman.
From the abstract of the link to the paper:
. . . a letter was received from a pastor who objected and took exception to the doctrinal statement of one of our churches. He expressed his objection concerning the interpretation of "that which is perfect" (1 Corinthians 13:8). He stated,The principle involved is that God's Holy Spirit gave and preserved the Inspired Written Word in only three human languages: Hebrew (the language of Adam and Eve), Aramaic (passages of the OT in Daniel as well as a few words transliterated or translated in the NT record), and the Koine (common) Greek of the civilized world in Jesus' time."Verse 13:8 ff in 1 Corinthians says nothing about The New Testament, but is referring to Christ as the perfect one and the gifts will pass away when He comes."Just what does the phrase "that which is perfect" refer to? And can one be sure of its meaning or is it up in the air for grabs? This paper carefully deals with these questions in the light of Scripture and the meaning of "perfect," the grammar, syntax, context, the term used elsewhere in Scripture, the term in the light of Progressive Revelation and the culture of the people to whom it was written, with special attention paid to the Greek word translated "perfect."
"Happy Heralds" has received numerous e-mails that have indicated a lack of understanding of the miraculous gifts."
Nowhere in the Bible record does God or His Spirit speak to humans in any other sounds, sensible or nonsensical. But the messages of the Holy Scripture has been put into non-biblical languages in various levels of competence by well-meaning but uninspired translators.
For sure, there are no Spirit-inspired messages written in unintelligible sound patterns that do not even have an alphabet, let alone words that convey the thoughts of God to a human audience.
But in their mistaken concepts, the cults misappropriate as their title the Jewish religious event identifying the Spiritual birth date of Christ's inclusive company of New Covenant regenerated servants. In doing so, they do a great damage to misidentify and misrepresent God's way of communicating to the human race in this day of history. The method they employ is highly susceptible to manipulation by malicious religious con-men.
The antidote to being misled by humans is through truly Spirit-led Bible-teaching and -preaching assemblies where the Scriptures alone are the unimpeachable authority for all constituents.
Worth a read, so I'm passing it on.
I don’t understand you - speaking in tongues is talking in languages you couldn’t know, right? Like the apostles at Pentecost speaking in Amharic and Persian etc.
Wouldn’t it be that we chose to believe, but the fact that we can choose to and stick to believe be due to God’s grace?
If a person later decides he no longer believes, then he doesn’t follow what Jesus prescribed “he that endureth to the end will be saved”
if one reads scripture, what does Jesus say saves us?
Matt. 24:13
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
Matt 25:31-46 “34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”
Jesus says that if you endure to the end you get salvation, that if you helped your fellow man you inherit the kingdom of God (you get salvation) —> note these are HIS own words
1 Pet. 3:20-21: “ It (Baptism )saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Note — also in Acts 16:31 we are told to believe and you will be saved — so Faith is definitely one of the things needed,
yet as you see above, it is not ONLY faith. Remember — James says “even the demons believe - and shudder” — it is not faith ALONE that saves
Jesus said it is not faith ALONE. We are saved by God’s GRACE. Full-stop.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. — it’s never faith ALONE. Note that the faith brings out fruits in us - our “works” can’t save us, but yet those who faith, those with grace, show it in their works.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
[U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3)<,li> [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
no one is denying that one MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE. As shown above, Jesus Himself said that
He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
[U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3
[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
So, we have the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation. Of course, these don’t “save us” per se, since it is Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject
The problem happens when one takes one section of the word in isolation.
They did believe you could lose your salvation though. One of our major disagreements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.