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.