Denominational Problems, How does yours stand up? Options

[Kontroll]

Not all protestants. I guess I am sorta considered a Protestant cause that is a form of Christianity but I am falling more in the catagory of Pentacostal.

Demonic influences. Holy spirit and tongues are both brought up in the Bible, so are you denying God's word about tongues? I think they are FAR from demonic. I have a Question, are you a Christian? If so, what Faith are you? Because I don't know one Christian that believes that tongues is demonic. Heres some verses from the Bible:

Acts 2:4 - All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

1 Corinthians 14:39 - Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

If the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues are demonic why would God say to speak in tongues and not deny it. Did you know that denying the holy ghost is blasphemy and is unforgivable by God?

I KNOW ITS LONG. BUT ITS INFORMATIVE.

NOTE: It's useful to know that the two main sects of Christianity are Catholic and Protestant. When I say Protestant I mean any denomination that falls under that category.

Now, onto the fun stuff.

I'm not saying in any way, shape or form that the Pentecostal denomination is incorrect. They believe that you must be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus to enter into Heaven.

We both have that in common.

Now, what in my faith that is present in yours is the topic of charismatic beliefs. Such as what was discussed earlier.

http://www.bible-truth.org/tongues.htm
I will note what I am citing from outside sources.
- - -
For the many Charismatics, their prayer life is one of praying in ecstatic speech without their understanding. Prayer is thus reduced to an emotional experience instead of pouring out their hearts in thanksgiving and presenting their petitions and supplications to the Lord. Those "praying in tongues" do not even know what they are praying. The services of the tongues movement is completely opposite of what the Bible teaches concerning worshiping God. They come to "receive" a blessing from the service, instead of coming to lift up other believers and worship the Lord as the Bible teaches. The "worship" of these churches is little more than a form of entertainment with an emotional experience, not unlike what happens in a musical rock concert.

John 4:24 clearly states, those that worship the Lord must do so in "spirit and truth."

How Does the Modern Gift of Tongues Compare to the Examples in the Book of Acts?

1. Missing in the modern practice of tongues is the supernatural acts of God as the event being accompanied by the sound as of a mighty rushing wind which fills the whole house and the appearance of cloven tongues of fire.

2. The modern gift of tongues is used as a so called "prayer language." There is only one verse in the Bible that seems to associate tongues with prayer. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, Paul says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the result then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit and will also sing with understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say, `Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? You indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all, yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

Paul goes on to say, "Brethren, do not be children in understanding: however, in malice babes, but in understanding be mature." Clearly Paul is condemning the misuse of tongues among the Corinthians as a prayer language. His rebuke is plain and establishes clearly that the gift of biblical tongues was not a prayer language. I says he would rather speak five word with his understanding that ten thousand words in tongues. Could God be make it any clearer that tongues is not given as a prayer language.

Is tongues a valid prayer language? The answer is no. At Pentecost it was a sign to unbelieving Jews, in which they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:11, it says that those present testified, ". . . we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:11) Paul in 1 Corinthians 14: 14, is correcting the error of using tongues as prayer language. He says, in verse 15, that he would pray and sing both with his understanding, because to do otherwise is unfruitful. Plainly Paul is condemning those that had perverted the gift of tongues by teaching it was a prayer language. Earlier in verse 2, he concluded that when men spoke in tongues no one understood but God. He points out the singing and praying in a language that no one else knows does not help that person by teaching those present the truth. This is always in view in the Biblical and correct use of tongues. Paul emphatically states that tongues is not for believers, but a sign for unbelievers who hear the Gospel truth in their own language. The whole thesis of Paul addressing "tongues" in 1 Corinthians is that no one should be speaking tongues in the presence of others hearers who could not understand what was being said. (1 Cor. 14:33-40)

Using tongues as prayer language clearly violates 1 Corinthians 14:22, and this condemns the modern tongues movement as false, because it teaches in error it is special prayer language.

I believe in a movement called Cessationism. "In Christian theology, cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history.

Cessationists usually believe the miraculous gifts were given only for the foundation of the Church, during the time between the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, c. AD 33 (see Acts 2) and the fulfillment of God's purposes in history, usually identified as either the completion of the last book of the New Testament or the death of the last Apostle. Its counterpart is continuationism."

Words in quotes are from www.wikipedia.org

That's my two cents.

[*Uronacid*]

I'm a non-denominational Christian I read the bible and interpret it for myself... I think you are wrong. You're going to hell Jake. I pray for you every night...

[sweetangel2128]

I'm a non-denominational Christian I read the bible and interpret it for myself.

The Bible is not to interpret for yourself but understand what God truly wants. I actually was amazed you were even Christian since you don't believe that Jesus is God. I am also from a non-denominational faith but will soon be attending a pentacostal church.

[*Uronacid*]

The Bible is not to interpret for yourself but understand what God truly wants. I actually was amazed you were even Christian since you don't believe that Jesus is God. I am also from a non-denominational faith but will soon be attending a pentacostal church.

Heath21, you have to understand that not everything is explained in the Bible. Different people interpret God differently. One interpretation is not any more right than another because no-one can truly know for a fact which one is correct (There are obviously exceptions... crazy people).

Denominations consist of people who agree on an interpretation of the Bible. Just because more people in a certain group interpret the Bible one way then another group interprets the bible in another way doesn't mean that the member s of the minority are wrong. Do you honestly think that I would try to interpret the Bible in a way I thought God didn't want me to interpret it? No, why would I do that? I believe that there are essentials to being a Christian, and some of those essentials include:

• Loving God
• Believing that his son bore the burden of our sins on the cross to give us the ability to enter into Heaven.

[sweetangel2128]

Heath21, you have to understand that not everything is explained in the Bible. Different people interpret God differently. One interpretation is not any more right than another because no-one can truly know for a fact which one is correct (There are obviously exceptions... crazy people).

Denominations consist of people who agree on an interpretation of the Bible. Just because more people in a certain group interpret the Bible one way then another group interprets the bible in another way doesn't mean that the member s of the minority are wrong. Do you honestly think that I would try to interpret the Bible in a way I thought God didn't want me to interpret it? No, why would I do that? I believe that there are essentials to being a Christian, and some of those essentials include:

• Loving God
• Believing that his son bore the burden of our sins on the cross to give us the ability to enter into Heaven.

Well, that's what I'm trying to say, that we shouldn't interpret the way God didn't intend. But my Question is why would he want us to interpret our own way, meaning our own "meaning" rather then understand basically what he was trying to say?

Okay I'm in a non-demoninational pentacostal Church(well I just came back from church an hour ago), If I interpreted your post correctly your saying that the Bible contradicts itself in the use of Tongues, tongues are not for the masses, It does not edify other of the Church, It edifies you, it strengthens you and strenthens the relationship between you and Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 14:2
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.
1 Corinthians 14:4
A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.

The Bible says that we can also confess our sins to God Himself.

Also with all this denomination talk has got me worried as

Luke11:17
Any Kingdom at was with itself is doomed. A divided home is alos doomed

I think People get Accepting and Agreeing confused, we dont have to agree with one another in little aspects but what we should do it accept one another.

yeah. hope that made sense.

To those in this thread

I actually have a newfound respect for you all, since all of you have the conviction to spread God's word despite others attesting to your beliefs and conflicts in the Christianity threads I read, I've been acutally struggling to be more outspoken about Christianity and defending the truth for a while.

VERY well put. I enjoyed reading what you had to say

[Simba]

Well, that's what I'm trying to say, that we shouldn't interpret the way God didn't intend. But my Question is why would he want us to interpret our own way, meaning our own "meaning" rather then understand basically what he was trying to say?

The possibility of misinterpretation is always there when there is no bona fide teacher and/or faith from the heart.

Simply reading the scripts and automatically understanding what God wanted you to know is as good as impossible. There will be the need for interpretation every time, and your interpretation may not always be the same as someone else's interpretation. I mean, if you look at some scriptures that include explanations in them (for example, Bhagavad Gita As It Is), a verse may only be about one sentence, but the explanations are usually much, much longer.

[sweetangel2128]

The possibility of misinterpretation is always there when there is no bona fide teacher and/or faith from the heart.

Simply reading the scripts and automatically understanding what God wanted you to know is as good as impossible. There will be the need for interpretation every time, and your interpretation may not always be the same as someone else's interpretation. I mean, if you look at some scriptures that include explanations in them (for example, Bhagavad Gita As It Is), a verse may only be about one sentence, but the explanations are usually much, much longer.

I get what your saying but a lot of the Bible isn't really up for interpretation, it is pretty clear what he means when he says something, I mean in a lot of verses you can look right at a line and say "Yeah that makes sense, I get what they are saying" unless of course your reading the King James Version which is a bit harder to understand which is why I have both that one and the New Living Translation.

Well, we can't interpret His word in His way because He never "told" us how to interpret it. The only thing we can do is interpret it the best we can. Therefore, as long as you're trying your best to interpret it in the way that you believe God meant the Bible was to be interpreted you should be ok. Just because you to listen and interpret the Bible the way Pentecostals (I think that's what you are) interpret the Bible doesn't mean that it's correct. For all we know God could have meant certain text in the Bible to mean something that neither of us believe it means... How do you know what the right meaning is?

The only thing you can do is interpret the text to the best of your ability. Isn't that what you're doing right now, interpreting the text that you're reading? At this very moment you are trying to figure what I'm trying to say by interpreting the text that you are reading to the best of your ability. You are trying to find out what I'm trying to say. How often do you take things that the members of cB say out of context? I think that you would be surprised at how often you do. You don't see the expressions or emotions that the members are expressing while you look at the faint blue background with black text. You can only make an educated guess at what exactly they meant by words they used to express what their thoughts were at the time they emptied them into their keyboard.

I am not taking things out of context for one. And secondly, some verses are pretty clear on what there meanings are but people change them around such as Jesus being the son of God and not being God at all, it's pretty clear in a lot of verses that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.

As for Pentacostals, they teach the true word of God and don't leave stuff out and don't add things to it. I am a follower of Jesus and that is all I like to be called. I am not really a pentacostal but I guess you would call me one since I plan on going to there church.

Ps: You say that pentacostals are not exactly right well either are other religions.

[*Uronacid*]

I get what your saying but a lot of the Bible isn't really up for interpretation, it is pretty clear what he means when he says something, I mean in a lot of verses you can look right at a line and say "Yeah that makes sense, I get what they are saying" unless of course your reading the King James Version which is a bit harder to understand which is why I have both that one and the New Living Translation.
I am not taking things out of context for one. And secondly, some verses are pretty clear on what there meanings are but people change them around such as Jesus being the son of God and not being God at all, it's pretty clear in a lot of verses that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.

As for Pentacostals, they teach the true word of God and don't leave stuff out and don't add things to it. I am a follower of Jesus and that is all I like to be called. I am not really a pentacostal but I guess you would call me one since I plan on going to there church.

Ps: You say that pentacostals are not exactly right well either are other religions.

Some verses are clear, and some verses aren't. Some things are implied, and some things aren't implied. Everything I'm writing to you right now implies that I have understood everything you are writing to me. When you're reading the Bible, how do you know that you have understood everything the way it was meant to be understood 100%.

"The New Living Translation" is just another interpretation of the text found in the Bible. How do you know that they aren't taking certain text of the Bible out of context? You can't possibly know with 100% certainty that every verse in "The New Living Translation" Bible is translated the way it was meant to be read. It's impossible.

There are sections of the Bible that are clear, sections like "The Ten Commandments" or "John 3:16" are obvious in their meaning, and there are sections of uncertainty. Those areas are up for interpretation. Just because you interpret those verse in the way that you see best fit doesn't make them right. It only makes them interpreted in the best way you see fit. My way of interpreting those verses aren't any more right than yours.

By the way, the "P.S." you added was exactly what I'm trying to say. There is no point in arguing what Denomination is better. We are all trying to follow the Word of God to the best of our ability, and this is what matters most that we love God enough to want to understand Him to the best of our ability. This is exactly why I choose to be non-denominational.

[sweetangel2128]

Some verses are clear, and some verses aren't. Some things are implied, and some things aren't implied. Everything I'm writing to you right now implies that I have understood everything you are writing to me. When you're reading the Bible, how do you know that you have understood everything the way it was meant to be understood 100%.

"The New Living Translation" is just another interpretation of the text found in the Bible. How do you know that they aren't taking certain text of the Bible out of context? You can't possibly know with 100% certainty that every verse in "The New Living Translation" Bible is translated the way it was meant to be read. It's impossible.

There are sections of the Bible that are clear, sections like "The Ten Commandments" or "John 3:16" are obvious in their meaning, and there are sections of uncertainty. Those areas are up for interpretation. Just because you interpret those verse in the way that you see best fit doesn't make them right. It only makes them interpreted in the best way you see fit. My way of interpreting those verses aren't any more right than yours.

By the way, the "P.S." you added was exactly what I'm trying to say. There is no point in arguing what Denomination is better. We are all trying to follow the Word of God to the best of our ability, and this is what matters most that we love God enough to want to understand Him to the best of our ability. This is exactly why I choose to be non-denominational.

Your right. It shouldn't matter how we live for God as long as were living for him right? All, I am saying is yeah we interpret certain verses different ways but what I'm saying you can't take a VERY clear verse and change it around. For an example of what I mean:

I had an argument with my ex friend (hence she's my ex because religion tore us apart, not God but religion). Anyways....in the Bible it says that you shouldn't be around un-believers, my ex friend used that against me because I am in a relationship with a man who is not a believer and I am a believer...she made it sound like a sin and used it as a reason to protect herself...you see, she judged my relationship and began telling me that it shouldn't happen. Basically, when she looks at the verse in the Bible stating this, she sees it as a sin but God doesn't state that it is a sin, he just points it out so what I get out of it and I did tell her this is that it is a warning to let people know if they do enter a relationship like this be prepared for what "might" happen, he didn't say "You can't do it or it's a sin". That's what I mean when people interpret things the "wrong" way.

Or when someone reads a verse and says Jesus isn't God...but in another verse it clearly states he is by saying - "The Word meaning God came into our world in the flesh"..ect...

As for the New Living Translation..no because I use both books and sometimes will read 1 John in one and then read the same one in the other which will help me make more sense when I read the King James Version, they are no different from eachother, the New Living Translation is just much easier to understand in our terms. But they didn't make up stuff.