Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Recently, I went back to visit my former Pastor's church for Wed night service. I loved being there and loved listening to his teaching. I felt at home, and there was no pressure from people asking a whole bunch of questions. It seemed like this was where I belonged.
I can explain away, look the other way, agree to disagree with most of my objections with the doctrines of the American 21st century Apostolic churches I've had the privilege of being a member of.
However, I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting that the Bible teaches that one MUST speak in tongues in order to be saved, or to show proof that one is saved.
I find this idea simply unbiblical. I am thinking about going back to visit this Sunday morning. Part of me thinks I am setting myself up for failure and pain again, as it was a personally agonizing decision to leave in the first place.
I miss my former Pastor and my former church.
But why should I even go back to visit when I already know the deal with these precious people and their doctrine?
This thread is pointless. Been down this road mentally how many times? But I sure do miss my former Pastor.
Why do Apostolics teach that a Christian must speak in tongues in the course of one's salvation?
|
The so-called, self-labeled 'Apostolics' teach that because they do not understand, or outright reject, the redemptive power of the blood of the Lamb of God. They cannot reconcile the teaching of tongues with the sufficiency of the blood of the Lamb.
I'm using the term "salvation" as I think 'Apostolics' would use it, i.e., that the individual would not go to hell but to heaven upon death. In reality, there is a difference between redemption and salvation. But that's for another thread.
Threaded Mode
