Refutation of Pentecostal Beliefs

[Dillxn]

I wrote this article and would like some of you to tell me where you think I'm wrong. Please use Biblical references only and not your opinion. Thank you very much, gang

p.s.: as my girlfriend's parents took this as "bashing," I wish to assure everyone that in no way do I intend to offend anyone! these are simply my beliefs and my goal is to be RIGHT about my interpretation of God's word! Hopefully that's your goal too. So please keep an open heart and mind as you read this. If you have actual scripture to refute my positions here, please provide me with this so that I can determine more precisely what I believe. Thank you!

Pentecostals' Misinterpretations Revised: A Focus On Miracles, Tongues, and Instrumental Worship

Dillon Riecke



My girlfriend, a now former Pentecostal, prompted me to study even more in-depth than the last time I did a personal study on the Pentecostal religion. It would seem that the evidences I had effected from the Bible before were not sufficient. And while going in I wasn't sure I'd find anything more the second time around, going out I had a much better understanding of the subject. I had gained all of this new knowledge, thence the beginning of work on this revision to my earlier article. This is re-written from scratch in order to more properly explain why it is that the Pentecostal belief is that of a fallacious one.



What are miracles? Well, the word "miracle" has taken on at least a few definitions, prominently colloquial ones; however, this article aims to focus on the religious meaning of the word. Miracles are from God. Their purpose is to confirm God's word. This holds true even with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. In Mark 16:17-18 it describes several miracles that would "follow them that believe" including casting out devils, speaking in new tongues, taking up serpents, drinking any "deadly thing" which would not hurt them, and healing the sick by laying their hands on them. The 20th verse of this chapter explains that these miracles were to confirm the word: "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."



I've found that it's easiest to define miracles by explaining that they are things which cannot be "faked;" they are things that break the laws of nature and cannot be mimicked in any way by someone acting or pretending. So if someone can purposely "fake" the "miracles" found in Pentecostal congregations by acting or whatnot, then it's not a miracle to begin with – genuine in its execution or not. For example, what Pentecostals consider the miracle of tongues can indeed be faked by someone muttering whatever comes to mind. This is not to say that Pentecostals are purposely "faking" this alleged miracle; it just means that it's not a miraculous thing.



Speaking of the miracle of speaking in tongues, let's discuss what that really means. Contrary to what Pentecostals believe, this is not some heavenly unknown-to-all language. It is an unknown language, however just to the person speaking it. All of it was of human languages. Reading in Acts the second chapter, we find where speaking in tongues is defined: verse 3 and 4 read "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."Notice where it says "other tongues." This means that the person speaking was not speaking in their own language. So what language were they speaking? Verses 5 and 6 say "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."



To paraphrase: all of these men, coming together in one place, who were from several different nations ("every nation under heaven") and spoke differing languages heard these men speak in their own native tongue ("every man heard them speak in his own language"). Continuing, we read in verses 7 and 8 "And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"



So they're amazed because all of whom which were speaking were Galilaeans – meaning the Galilaean language would be their native language. This is amazing to them, because they are hearing them now speak in their own native languages. It was, by definition, miraculous. To further confirm that these men were speaking in the listeners' native languages, verses 9 – 11 state "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phyrgia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."



So why do Pentecostals believe that the aforementioned speaking-in-tongues miracle is of some language unknown to humans? Perhaps because of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13. In the first verse, he mentions something in there about speaking with the tongues of angels: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." However, reading in context reveals what Paul is really saying: he's chastising these people for comparing their spiritual gifts against one another. He makes the point in the 12th chapter wherein he compares the gifts to the body of Christ.



He says that all of it is necessary – that one gift is not greater than another. He goes on to explain in the next chapter that what is important in all of this is "charity;" stating that it would not matter even if he spoke in the tongues of angels, Paul iterates that that miracle would be no better than the others. Also, if he were citing a real miracle, he would be defeating his own purpose in this explanation in that he would be promoting the idea that speaking in the tongues of angels was better than the other miracles of the Holy Ghost so much that he would use it to make a point out of it. So obviously he would have had to pick something that did not exist, even at the time, in order to make a valid point and not work against himself.



He says it would be worthless ("become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal"), despite his example miracle, without charity. Reading on, he reiterates this point throughout this chapter several times. In chapters 8 – 10 he explains why the "charity" is so important: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." He's saying that the miracles themselves are going to cease or vanish away at some point, for those are temporary, but what we need to keep after that point is the charity that went along with them. He clearly puts the focus on the charity for this reason.



Now at what point did Paul say these things would go away? It's in verse 10, where it says "when that which is perfect is come." Many Pentecostals believe that the phrase "that which is perfect" refers to Jesus Christ and "is come" refers to his second coming. There are three major reasons why we know this just isn't the case.

[Dillxn]

Had to post this in two parts because it was too long to post in one. Thank you for understanding.

First, he states that the information we're getting from the prophecies is only in part: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." He goes on to say that "that which is perfect" will come at the same time "that which is in part shall be done away" with, referring to the word which – now confirmed and in its entirety – we know as the Holy Bible. To restate: the word was in part when prophecies (and the other associated miracles) existed, which meant the Bible did not exist at that time. When the word (which we now have as the Bible) is complete (or, "that which is in part shall be done away") then "that which is perfect is come." So therefore, we can logically conclude that he's referring to the Bible's completion.



The second clue we have as to why we know Paul is referring to the confirmed word of God rather than Jesus is the word "that" used in the 10th verse. "But when that which is perfect is come" cannot refer to Jesus simply because he said "that which" rather than "He who." If he really were referring to Jesus it would be the only case in the Bible where a word referring to the Lord was not in masculine form and capitalized.



Thirdly (and lastly) we know that he cannot be referring to Jesus in this passage because Mark 16 clearly points out to us that these miracles were used to confirm the word; so it can only make sense that when the word is confirmed, the miracles which were used to confirm the word would go away. We can make this conclusion even without the direct statement in 1 Corinthians 13.



So let's step back a moment, here, and let me point out that not only are Pentecostals wrong in their definition of 'tongues' as well as the time period in which they practice it, but also the way they practice it. According to the Bible, what they do (even if they were practicing on the very day of Pentecost and speaking in unknown, but human languages) is incorrect. For lots of reasons, too. Just read through 1 Corinthians 14 and see for yourself.



To name a few examples: verse 9 points out that tongues were meant to be understood by those listening "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Verse 19 reiterates: "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." Verse 27 shows us that they took turns, and were not to speak more than at most three at a time, and let there be an interpreter present "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." Verse 28 says that if there is no interpreter present then you shouldn't speak in tongues at all "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." Verse 34 shows us that women are not even allowed to speak in the churches "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." And finally, I'll leave you with verse 33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."



How often do you see a woman or women "speaking in tongues" in Pentecostal congregations? How often do those around those who speak not understand what the speaker of tongues is saying? How often do more than three speak in tongues at a time? How often do they take turns? And how often can you make out one person's speech and understand it with clarity, rather than confusion? There are so many more verses in chapter 14 that further solidify this point. Keep reading your Bible.



Speaking of the Bible, how do we know it's the confirmed word? Well, because a book referring to itself, calling it complete, is paradoxical, it's hard to tell just by reading the Bible itself. We do have the other evidences I gave you earlier that would suggest so (since prophesying and having the knowledge to add to the word of God is a miracle described above), but there are two very important hints that we do see in the Bible. 2 Peter 1:3 states "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue." Jude 3 says "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." So perhaps the word that needed confirming by the miracles listed in Mark 16 was already confirmed by that point. But that's our best conclusion from that. Anything else would have to rely on external evidences.



However, even if we had no other way of knowing if the Holy Bible were the confirmed and complete word of God or not, we can look at this simple truth: many of the miracles described in the New Testament are obviously not here today. If nothing else, then consider one miracle described in Mark 16: drinking any deadly thing, and it not hurting you. This miracle, in the same passage, was listed right among speaking in new tongues. If you drank a cup of ethylene glycol, would you expect to not be hurt? On the off chance you think you won't – don't do it. It will kill you if you ingest too much.



So why would God do away with some miracles but not all of them? It makes no sense. Either they are here or they are gone. Look at that cup of ethylene glycol you have there and you tell me with a straight face that these miracles still exist today. These miracles had a very specific purpose and that purpose has been served. Then, as Paul stated would happen, the miracles ended.



Past the point of miracles, however, Pentecostals believe that worship should (or is, under God's authority, "allowed to") be done with instrumental music. They often cite a passage that appears in Psalms which instructs Jews under the old law to worship the Lord with harps and other instruments. However, the flaw in this logic is where they are taking this passage from, and to whom it was directed towards. If we are, as Christians, intended to obey the old Jewish laws and instruction, then why is it that we don't stone our disobedient children? Deuteronomy 21:18-21 reads: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Why don't we force our sister-in-laws to marry us upon our brother's death? Deuteronomy 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." Why do we eat pork? Leviticus 11:7 "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."



There is a simple answer for all of this: Jesus. Jesus brought with Himself the new law which we now live under today as Christians. We are to follow this in its entirety: nothing more, and nothing less. The new law that Jesus brought did away with the old law entirely, starting anew. Hebrews 8:13 says "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." We should not take the liberty to create our own rules to worship under. God's law, as it stands today, is to govern us today! While it may be more "fun" to worship with music, it is not what God intends, as according to His word. We are instead commanded to make melody to our Lord in our hearts, not with instruments. Ephesians 5:19 tells us this: "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." Nowhere in the new testament does it say we should worship with music. Lastly, if the Holy Spirit did not deem the concept of worshiping with instruments something worthy to carry as a part of the word of God to the writers of the new testament, then it must not be something that we should be doing, and it must not be the word of God.



Read your Bible, and see that there is no way that Pentecostalism fits the word of our Lord today. Amen.

Edit: Oh, I have just now read your forum's rules and see now where it says that propagating any doctrine contrary to this forum's is illegal. My sincerest apologies for breaking the rules; and I understand completely if this thread is closed / deleted.

[Sam]

The only time it is recorded that people understood what was spoken in tongues was on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when there are about 15 languages mentioned for the 120 who were speaking with tongues. When speaking with tongues is mentioned in Acts 10 and Acts 19 and inferred in Acts 8 there is nothing said about someone understanding what was said. In the Corinthian assembly the Apostle Paul says that when someone speaks with tongues nobody understands what it said (1 Corinthians 12:2) and that the speaker is not really speaking to men (verse 2 also) and that is why the gift of interpretation is necessary.

"When that which is perfect is come" is taken by some to mean the completed canon of the Scriptures. Others see it as the perfection (rapture) of the church when faith will give way to sight and hope will turn to experience (1 Cor 13:10) when we will no longer see an imperfect image in the mirror of the Word (1 Corinthians 13:12). This is some times compared to the need for the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers until the church reaches perfection in Ephesians 4:11-15.

[acerrak]

it sounds like you have become a church of christ member.
though i am not going to adress everything, i am going to address the music.
we see in the old testament that music was used to glorify God, we see this in many scriptures.

Though it should never be a heaven or hell issue.

#1 when the wallwas rebuilt by nehemiah, they used a choir and music instruements to praise God nehemiah 12

#2 the tabernacle of david, was basically a choir and musician service 1 chronicles 15 & 16. we also see that God will restore the tabernacle of David with the Gentiles

#3 the parable of the Lost son, I always love this one, because many people who dont want music in there church, dont like the meaning of this.
luke 15:11-32

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing

Hey the Father represents God, sinners are the Lost sons comming Home, and in the Fathers house is music and dancing.

again, people need to understand that church<-- is not a building, there is nothing holy about the building, you are the church, so weather you play music inside of a building you call church or at home, there is no difference.

the church is a Body of believers, not a building. but what ever you do, do it with faith,
But i would actually like to see from you were music isnt allowed in this building called "church"

1 Chronicles 15:16
David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals


Psalm 150
Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty expanse. Praise Him for His mighty deeds; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments andpipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD

[acerrak]

Now at what point did Paul say these things would go away? It's in verse 10, where it says "when that which is perfect is come." Many Pentecostals believe that the phrase "that which is perfect" refers to Jesus Christ and "is come" refers to his second coming. There are three major reasons why we know this just isn't the case.

the thing Here is your interpretation of the bible correct? which bible is more correct than others, Jesus stated to the Pharassee's that you search these scriptures thinking you will find eternal life, but the scriptures testify of Me.

the Bible is a testimony of Gods Grace, and Paul aslo stated we look through a darkened glass, yet but one day face to face.

When that which is Perfect Comes, that is the Kingdom of God. i dont know of anything on this earth that is perfect, Its God, he is Perfect

revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

[Sam]

As far as using musical instruments in the church, as far as I know there is no New Testament injunction to "...praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbrel and dance: praise Him wit the stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals; praise Him upon the high sounding cymbals..." like there is in the Old Testament.

There is, however, an exhortation to be (constantly and ongoingly) filled with the Spirit and one of the results of that is that we are to be "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19). So, if we follow the Scriptures we are to worship God in psalms but not do it with the musical instruments that the psalms encourage us to use? It's OK to sing out "...praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbrel and dance: praise Him with the stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals; praise Him upon the high sounding cymbals..." but we shouldn't use any of those instruments we are singing about?

[Dillxn]

Originally Posted by Sam

The only time it is recorded that people understood what was spoken in tongues was on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when there are about 15 languages mentioned for the 120 who were speaking with tongues. When speaking with tongues is mentioned in Acts 10 and Acts 19 and inferred in Acts 8 there is nothing said about someone understanding what was said. In the Corinthian assembly the Apostle Paul says that when someone speaks with tongues nobody understands what it said (1 Corinthians 12:2) and that the speaker is not really speaking to men (verse 2 also) and that is why the gift of interpretation is necessary.

Do you believe baptism is required to be saved? Because Baptists often cite the fact that people were instructed to merely believe and they'd be saved (baptism not mentioned). However we find in Mark 16, among other places, that baptism is required. Something must only be mentioned once in the Bible to be true.

So by the same logic, if it was stated once that speaking in tongues was of human languages, but other times not specified what language it was, then we must assume it was always of human languages. Since we do not have any scripture stating otherwise. And using the scriptures you posted to infer that is a stretch at best.

Originally Posted by Sam

"When that which is perfect is come" is taken by some to mean the completed canon of the Scriptures. Others see it as the perfection (rapture) of the church when faith will give way to sight and hope will turn to experience (1 Cor 13:10) when we will no longer see an imperfect image in the mirror of the Word (1 Corinthians 13:12). This is some times compared to the need for the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers until the church reaches perfection in Ephesians 4:11-15.

I agree with what you're saying and I just happen to interpret it as the former, for the reasons I listed in my article. However, I don't believe it can be the latter because I don't believe in the "rapture" that was developed by the "Left Behind" books.

Originally Posted by acerrak

it sounds like you have become a church of christ member.

I am!

Originally Posted by acerrak

though i am not going to adress everything, i am going to address the music.
we see in the old testament that music was used to glorify God, we see this in many scriptures.

That's the problem, all of your references are of old Jewish law. Which of course is not what we follow today as Christians. See my response to this in my article.

Originally Posted by acerrak

Though it should never be a heaven or hell issue.

Hmm well I don't think either of us can make that call, to be honest. I think we can only strive to do God's will as best as we can, based on His word.

Originally Posted by acerrak

the thing Here is your interpretation of the bible correct? which bible is more correct than others, Jesus stated to the Pharassee's that you search these scriptures thinking you will find eternal life, but the scriptures testify of Me.

the Bible is a testimony of Gods Grace, and Paul aslo stated we look through a darkened glass, yet but one day face to face.

When that which is Perfect Comes, that is the Kingdom of God. i dont know of anything on this earth that is perfect, Its God, he is Perfect

revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

I'd contend to say that His word is perfect.

Originally Posted by Sam

As far as using musical instruments in the church, as far as I know there is no New Testament injunction to "...praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbrel and dance: praise Him wit the stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals; praise Him upon the high sounding cymbals..." like there is in the Old Testament.

There is, however, an exhortation to be (constantly and ongoingly) filled with the Spirit and one of the results of that is that we are to be "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19). So, if we follow the Scriptures we are to worship God in psalms but not do it with the musical instruments that the psalms encourage us to use? It's OK to sing out "...praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbrel and dance: praise Him with the stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals; praise Him upon the high sounding cymbals..." but we shouldn't use any of those instruments we are singing about?

Oh haha no I didn't realize that I was being unclear here. No I fully believe the Jews were told to use instruments. No question there. I am just saying that the new law that Christ brought does not include worshiping with instruments and since we follow that law and not the old law, we should not use instruments.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Dillxn

That's the problem, all of your references are of old Jewish law. Which of course is not what we follow today as Christians. See my response to this in my article.

also you just over looked my parable on the Lost son, care to comment on that for me please.

Tbh the first 5 books of the bible or as they Jews reffered to it, the torah (humash)or pentateuch.

these are jewish Law, those hold the commandments of God and statues for the people.

Both proverbs and psalms was books that were later added to (our old testament canon) though these people who were under the Law were encouraged to praise God.

David who is noted to be a man after Gods own heart worshiped God, so these 2 books psalms and proverbs or chronicles and even major and minor prophets etc were considered seperate and are history books and music books, and prophecies, these were never reffered to as jewish law. So you need to look at that again.

some time you would see Jesus state the law and the Prophets.
The law is the law of Moses and is your Genesis, leviticus, numbers deuteronomey and exodus. they went together with the ten commandments Given.

so you cant consider psalms a jewish law

So by the same logic, if it was stated once that speaking in tongues was of human languages, but other times not specified what language it was, then we must assume it was always of human languages. Since we do not have any scripture stating otherwise. And using the scriptures you posted to infer that is a stretch at best.

No we dont assume, that is mans error to assume. we could say it was always human language, and no doubt i say much was, but Paul did make a comment about tounges or languages of Men, and angels,


i also want to make a point here

That's the problem, all of your references are of old Jewish law. Which of course is not what we follow today as Christians. See my response to this in my article.

i find this some what disturbing.

The Lord said
Jeremiah 31:33 (New International Version)

33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

also stated in hebrews 8;10. Just what laws do you think God is writing on our hearts? I bet many of those laws come from the Old testament.

Jesus stated in His own words he didnt come to do away with the Law, infact He was a jew He upheld the Law, or he wouldnt be sinless.

Originally Posted by acerrak

I am!

My boss is to, and we have had many of the same discussions and bible studies, He is still a church of Christ member, and i am still a pentacostal, and we still talk about God and open about many things

[Jack Shephard]

Is there a Cliff Notes version? That is too long to read while at work.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Dillxn

...
Oh haha no I didn't realize that I was being unclear here. No I fully believe the Jews were told to use instruments. No question there. I am just saying that the new law that Christ brought does not include worshiping with instruments and since we follow that law and not the old law, we should not use instruments.

We should sing about using instruments but not actually use instruments?
OK, don't actually use instruments while you are singing about worshiping God with instruments?