What do Pentecostals believe?

[psalms 91]

From my experience, Pentecostals believe in original sin (as it is taught in the Bible, but not the Calvinist logical conclusions based upon those scriptures) however it is not a matter heavily stressed. Each person has more than enough willful sin in their life to need a savior without arguing about whether babies are born sinful.

The Tithe is taught from Malachi as a promise from God for a blessing in response to obedience. It is recommended, but not required. It is also the teaching of this particular Pentecostal Church. Since most (if not all) are independent, it is a matter that will differ from local church to local church.

Personally, I disagree with the requirement and recommendation to tithe ... for a variety of scriptural reasons ... yet I choose to voluntarily give 10% just as Abraham voluntarily gave 10% to the King of Salem. No Law, all Grace ... I give the first 10% because it reminds me that I love God more than money.

This is also what our church teachs and believes

 

[Andrew]

Each person has more than enough willful sin in their life to need a savior without arguing about whether babies are born sinful.

Amen to that. So true


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Ah, the old SOME Protestants argument again.

There probably are "some" Protestants who can be found somewhere believing in almost any idea the mind of man can think up. More important is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Protestants and Protestant churches reject this notion.

Well there is one Catholic church with one understanding and one mind, protestants ('protesters') vary so I say "some" because they don't all agree, saying "all" would be incorrect.
Catholicism doesn't necessarily define wor..... Nvrmnd...

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[user1234]

However, she did say that her source identified these as the main groupings, which is probably correct.


It doesn't especially matter if some people would just as soon not be identified by that term. If they believe X, then its fair to identify them as such. And its not as though this word is an insult.

Not really, except for two groups of people: 1. Catholics who try to use it as a kind of insult and 2. people who do not know what the word means.


My personal opinion is that we routinely classify hundreds of groups of people, things, and ideas in order to make our understanding of them and comparisons between them more accurate and informative...and this one is no exception.

And that shouldnt be in the body of Christ.
I think it's really insulting when a person says, 'Please dont call me a protestant' and some ignoramus thumbs his nose at him and calls him that anyway.

If ppl want to categorize and label themselves with some religious group, thats fine for them, but there are and have been millions of ppl who are saved believers in Jesus that have no identification nor desire to have, with the group calling itself protestant, especially under todays protestant umbrella.

Millions have been saved long before any protestations to reform the Roman Catholic denomination were attempted, and many since have come to be saved by Jesus without knowing or needing to know what a 'protestant' (or catholic is), but they're members of equal standing in the body of Christ as much as any denominationalist or institutionalized hierarchy or popeship, and in those cases probably moreso.

Its really not right to insist on labeling someone something theyre not or maybe dont wish to be.

I'm not saying dont be a Baptist or a Methodist, etc, Im just asking, dont be that and then automatically assume or identify every other believer as a protestant that isnt RC or EO.

As Imalive pointed out ... That's just how it was for a long time, you assumed if a person wasnt a catholic, they were a protestant.
Most of us thought like that.
(Were you raised protestant or catholic?) was a common question, and no, I'm not saying it was always meant to be offensive, that's just how it was growing up.

Just, Maybe its time for a little more reformation in 2017-18 and drop an unnecessary label or stop applying it to ppl where it doesnt belong.

 

[Imalive]

And that shouldnt be in the body of Christ.
I think it's really insulting when a person says, 'Please dont call me a protestant' and some ignoramus thumbs his nose at him and calls him that anyway.

If ppl want to categorize and label themselves with some religious group, thats fine for them, but there are and have been millions of ppl who are saved believers in Jesus that have no identification nor desire to have, with the group calling itself protestant, especially under todays protestant umbrella.

Millions have been saved long before any protestations to reform the Roman Catholic denomination were attempted, and many since have come to be saved by Jesus without knowing or needing to know what a 'protestant' (or catholic is), but they're members of equal standing in the body of Christ as much as any denominationalist or institutionalized hierarchy or popeship, and in those cases probably moreso.

Its really not right to insist on labeling someone something theyre not or maybe dont wish to be.

I'm not saying dont be a Baptist or a Methodist, etc, Im just asking, dont be that and then automatically assume or identify every other believer as a protestant that isnt RC or EO.

As Imalive pointed out ... That's just how it was for a long time, you assumed if a person wasnt a catholic, they were a protestant.
Most of us thought like that.
(Were you raised protestant or catholic?) was a common question, and no, I'm not saying it was always meant to be offensive, that's just how it was growing up.

Just, Maybe its time for a little more reformation in 2017-18 and drop an unnecessary label or stop applying it to ppl where it doesnt belong.

You find that offensive to be called a protestant?
Oh I'm really sorry. I had no idea. I won't do it anymore protestant.

 

[Andrew]

.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Well there is one Catholic church with one understanding and one mind, protestants ('protesters') vary so I say "some" because they don't all agree, saying "all" would be incorrect.

Yes, but that wasn't really the point there. It was more that it is possible to say "some" Protestants believe (whatever) and be correct about that in a technical sense, but how misleading it is to talk that way if only a hanful of Protestants do!

To do that is to talk as though whatever the idea may be is commonplace among Protestants when it usually is not. For example: "Some Protestants believe in snake handling during worship."





.

 

[Imalive]

Yes, but that wasn't really the point there. It was more that it is possible to say "some" Protestants believe (whatever) and be correct about that in a technical sense, but how misleading it is to talk that way if only a hanful of Protestants do!

To do that is to talk as though whatever the idea may be is commonplace among Protestants when it usually is not. For example: "Some Protestants believe in snake handling during worship."





.

I see nothing wrong w that sentence, but I would say there is a tiny protestant group somewhere that does that but theyre weird. But believing no works.. I'm afraid thats more than you think. I dont think there are many among the reformed for instance, but from all believers I'm afraid it's quite a lot.

 

[Andrew]

I see nothing wrong w that sentence, but I would say there is a tiny protestant group somewhere that does that but theyre weird. But believing no works.. I'm afraid thats more than you think. I dont think there are many among the reformed for instance, but from all believers I'm afraid it's quite a lot.

lol I was trying to avoid saying the word "works" when replying to Albions comment. So I can see how it might have seemed misleading.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

I see nothing wrong w that sentence, but I would say there is a tiny protestant group somewhere that does that but theyre weird. But believing no works.. I'm afraid thats more than you think. I dont think there are many among the reformed for instance, but from all believers I'm afraid it's quite a lot.

"Did you know that some Netherlanders have sex with infants? How awful a thing that is."



Am I correct in thinking that you see nothing wrong w that sentence, either?? BUT IF the sentence had been "there is a tiny protestant group somewhere that does that but theyre weird" THEN there would have been nothing wrong.

 

[Imalive]

"Did you know that some Netherlanders have sex with infants? How awful a thing that is."



Am I correct in thinking that you see nothing wrong w that sentence, either?? BUT IF the sentence had been "there is a tiny protestant group somewhere that does that but theyre weird" THEN there would have been nothing wrong.

:=D:
Such horrible people they are!
Ah I get what you mean now.

 

[George]

I thought just the ones who arent catholic. That is it in Holland cause we dont have so many splinter groups here. It's just catholic or protestant: reformed, together on the road, evangelical. So to me all those other denoms are protestant too. Eastern orthodox I'd call catholic. The ones who dont care about Mary I call protestant.

Not sure why you would call us Catholic. Views might be similar, doesn't mean we are Catholic, nor does it look respectful to lump them into the same group.

 

[George]

.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

:lol::lol:

 

[Imalive]

Not sure why you would call us Catholic. Views might be similar, doesn't mean we are Catholic, nor does it look respectful to lump them into the same group.

Before I came to this forum I didn't even know they existed. If I have to choose between protestant or catholic I'd say it looks more like catholic.

 

[MennoSota]

Here is the statement of beliefs from the Pentecostal Church I attend:

following salvation a believer, by offering himself/herself to God as a living sacrifice, (Romans 12:1,2) can experience a deeper work of the Holy Spirit in which the believer is said to be “filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). This experience speaks of the Holy Spirit possessing the spirit and soul of the believer.


Any questions?

Your church believes that Christians can be possessed by the Holy Ghost?
How do you go from being filled with the Spirit to being possessed by the Spirit?

 

[Andrew]

I had the understanding that Pentacostal was non-protestant nor Catholic, just a resurrected stripped down and bare naked church based solely on the church in the day of pentecost according to acts, just people in a small building praising and worshipping, baptising, preaching the gospel and following apostle teachings. It wasn't even around or at least not in the main stream until the recent revival... I bet it could be fair to say that the Catholic church protested against us first making both Catholics and Protestants - Protestant... am I turning any heads here?


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Your church believes that Christians can be possessed by the Holy Ghost?
How do you go from being filled with the Spirit to being possessed by the Spirit?

Possession is the same as being "filled" in this context no?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

Your church believes that Christians can be possessed by the Holy Ghost?
How do you go from being filled with the Spirit to being possessed by the Spirit?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but in the book of Acts, the followers were promised that they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit when He came upon them beginning at Pentecost. The testimony of the rest of Acts confirms that the believers were empowered by the Holy Spirit after Pentecost.

So do believers command and control the Holy Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit command and control believers?
It is the same question you are asking me to explain for Pentecostals, so what is the Reformed answer so I can respond from your frame of understanding.

 

[MennoSota]

Possession is the same as being "filled" in this context no?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

No, no it's not.

 

[MennoSota]

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but in the book of Acts, the followers were promised that they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit when He came upon them beginning at Pentecost. The testimony of the rest of Acts confirms that the believers were empowered by the Holy Spirit after Pentecost.

So do believers command and control the Holy Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit command and control believers?
It is the same question you are asking me to explain for Pentecostals, so what is the Reformed answer so I can respond from your frame of understanding.

Are you inferring that the Spirit, at Pentacost, possessed the believers?
There is a difference between being empowered and being possessed. Your church chose the word "possessed." Why use that specific word?