A debate with a Pentecostal

[A88buckshot]

To make a long story short my girlfriend (who is Catholic) was rudely questioned one day at work by a Protestant customer about her faith, and told her that if more Catholics read the Bible they would see the truth. After my girlfriend told me this later I got all excited because I love debating. She gave my girlfriend the card to her church. I called to set up a Bible study with someone. The pastor or reverend (what ever they call them) set me up with the youth minister. We met about a week ago and we are scheduling another appointment soon. He is Pentecostal and I learned a lot from our meeting. I learned their views on dancing and drinking, which seem a little extreme for me, like no dancing at weddings. They believe that dancing can lead to sin, not that it’s evil, but it can lead to sin. Any way, I didn’t really get a chance to do any apologizing because he kept going on about what Pentecostals believe, which is fine, because I want to know other people’s beliefs. However, when he got to the whole baptism thing i had to interrupt, obviously. I stated the Catholic belief, about how in Mathew Jesus was giving the formula and the apostles were just saying Jesus’ name to show how they would be entering Jesus.

After i said this he took me to the versus in Mathew where Jesus said, Mat. 28:19 “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”.

Then he gave me their interpretation of this, which is something I have never heard before. He said that when Jesus said “in the name” (singular) he was implying the name Jesus, because “father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghosts” are not names but titles. For example, Jesus’ title (one of them at least) is son, but his name is Jesus, like when the angel told Mary what to name the Messiah. Though the minister didn’t say this at our meeting I am already aware of their view of the Trinity, they believe that Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which to me seems logical for them to believe with this whole name and titles argument. The way I see it, I have to concede the fact that these are titles and Jesus is a name, it logically makes sense to me, so i can’t argue it. He says names were very important then (which of course i believe, Peter=Rock) and that is why Jesus was named Jesus and why in Mat 28:19 Jesus says “in the Name” when He specifically says titles in the rest of the verse. I really didn’t know what to say, and I still don’t, could any one help me argue this? Keep in mind I am already aware of the Didache argument and the whole interpretation of scripture argument, but i don’t think these are good enough to defend the Catholic belief to him. He is really nice and has a degree in Pentecostal theology, so I’m sure that he will have an explanation for these. A logical argument or a scripture argument is what I am looking for. I’ll try the history and church fathers next time I see him but anything else would be great.

Thank you, Anthony

 

[Newbie2]

Anthony, I think you need to step back and decide why you’d be discussing such matters with a pentecostal minister.

What’s your goal? If it’s to learn more for the sake of learning, fine. If it’s to present valid Catholic arguements to counter Pentecostal arguments, better consider if you’re wasting your time. They won’t accept the arguments, and will present alternative interpretations of whatever you present to the contrary.

In my experience, it’s near impossible to “out prove” bible-only protestants in the matter of Scripture. They simply reject Catholic reason and Catholic scriptural proof.

 

[A88buckshot]

Anthony, I think you need to step back and decide why you’d be discussing such matters with a pentecostal minister.

What’s your goal? If it’s to learn more for the sake of learning, fine. If it’s to present valid Catholic arguements to counter Pentecostal arguments, better consider if you’re wasting your time. They won’t accept the arguments, and will present alternative interpretations of whatever you present to the contrary.

In my experience, it’s near impossible to “out prove” bible-only protestants in the matter of Scripture. They simply reject Catholic reason and Catholic scriptural proof.

Thank you for your reply, but I’m sorry I can’t accept the way that you look at this. The reason why I am doing this is because my girlfriend and Church were criticized for no reason. This upset me, but at the same time made me happy, because I have a chance to defend the one true Church. St. Paul specifically says that we should know and defend the faith, which is the essence of apologetics. I am not doing this in confidence of converting him, if he converts that would be an awesome miracle. I am doing this because I believe that I need to, as a true Christian. The likely hood of winning a religious argument has nothing to do with trying. If the Apostles never tried, would the world be the way it is? I on the other hand do believe it is possible to “out prove” imperfect beliefs with perfect ones.

 

[Philthy]

They believe that dancing can lead to sin, not that it’s evil, but it can lead to sin.

Anything can lead to sin - like talking. Do they not talk?

I stated the Catholic belief, about how in Mathew Jesus was giving the formula and the apostles were just saying Jesus’ name to show how they would be entering Jesus.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The first, most important topic of discussion would be “Why baptize?” Then you can get into the details of exactly how someone actually baptizes.

After i said this he took me to the versus in Mathew where Jesus said, Mat. 28:19 “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”.

Again, this is a secondary consideration. The “Great Commission” as it is often called, is how you make disciples, not merely how you teach. What translation are you using BTW, because your quote here leaves out some important stuff: My NAB reads"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all I have commanded you." It is an important distinction because Baptism is linked with how you make a disciple, how one becomes a Christian.

Then he gave me their interpretation of this, which is something I have never heard before. He said that when Jesus said “in the name” (singular) he was implying the name Jesus, because “father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghosts” are not names but titles A logical argument or a scripture argument is what I am looking for. I’ll try the history and church fathers next time I see him but anything else would be great…

How is this “argument” of his anything but pure fantasy? Jesus said exactly what He meant to say - Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is most certainly not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit. That is pure heresy. Jesus prays to the Father, he does not pray to himself. Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit after he is gone, and he does. If Jesus meant to say “Baptize in my name” he would simply have said so - he never did. The argument is ridiculously weak.

 

[Philthy]

Thank you for your reply, but I’m sorry I can’t accept the way that you look at this. The reason why I am doing this is because my girlfriend and Church were criticized for no reason. … I am doing this because I believe that I need to, as a true Christian… I …believe it is possible to “out prove” imperfect beliefs with perfect ones.

All good points. You have ignored an important one however: are you prepared to defend the faith? It is possible that if you are not prepared that you will do more harm than good. How much preparation have you invested in studying Baptism or other apologetics issues? Usually the most solid starting point is “How do you know what the canon of Scripture is?” How does he know that “Acts of the Apostles”, which doesnt even claim to be an authentic Apostolic book, is actually Scripture?? Why is Acts to be considered Scripture any more than the Didache?
How and when, exactly, did the New Testament get compliled?
I would run right past this issue and delve into the proper way to baptize - it will go nowhere.

 

[narrowpath]

If Jesus is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then who was he praying to when praying to God? There seems to be a fallacy in this arguement!

 

[SimonArizona]

I went to a pentecostal Church where they danced in the Church!

 

[A88buckshot]

I went to a pentecostal Church where they danced in the Church!

They believe that only dancing in worship is ok. In Acts 2 after the Apostles had the Holy Spirit poured on them, they were acting and moving all weird, and that’s why people were asking the apostles if they were drunk, and Peter (i think it was Peter) said that they were not drunk and that they were acting like that because of the Holy Spirit. So the Pentecostals basically worship and base most of their religion on Acts 2. I don’t even think that Acts 2 was on a Sunday (day of the Lord), but yeah that’s what he told me.

 

[A88buckshot]

Anything can lead to sin - like talking. Do they not talk?

Well yeah, I’m sure that he wouldn’t argue that, but we(Catholics) basically believe the same thing, don’t we? If you are a married man would you lock yourself in a room with alcohol and a couple of naked models? I assume not, any rationally smart person wouldn’t put then self in that position. I am not saying that being locked in a room with nothing but alcohol and naked women is equal to dancing, the point I am trying to make is that staying away from things that lead to sin is fine. But for some reason I don’t understand, they think that any kind of dancing outside of worship can lead to sin.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The first, most important topic of discussion would be “Why baptize?” Then you can get into the details of exactly how someone actually baptizes.

I was talking about the Catholic belief of why the Apostles said “in the name of Jesus”, which is the people are baptized INTO Jesus and in His Church.

Again, this is a secondary consideration. The “Great Commission” as it is often called, is how you make disciples, not merely how you teach. What translation are you using BTW, because your quote here leaves out some important stuff: My NAB reads"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all I have commanded you." It is an important distinction because Baptism is linked with how you make a disciple, how one becomes a Christian.

Pentecostals also believe that baptizing is linked to becoming a disciple I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. I used the best tranlation, i cut and pasted it off NewAdvent.com, which uses the Douay/Rheims version.

How is this “argument” of his anything but pure fantasy? Jesus said exactly what He meant to say - Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is most certainly not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit. That is pure heresy. Jesus prays to the Father, he does not pray to himself. Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit after he is gone, and he does. If Jesus meant to say “Baptize in my name” he would simply have said so - he never did. The argument is ridiculously weak.

I pretty much agree, like i said, I didn’t have a chance to say much he had to go home to his kids.

 

[A88buckshot]

All good points. You have ignored an important one however: are you prepared to defend the faith? It is possible that if you are not prepared that you will do more harm than good. How much preparation have you invested in studying Baptism or other apologetics issues? Usually the most solid starting point is “How do you know what the canon of Scripture is?” How does he know that “Acts of the Apostles”, which doesnt even claim to be an authentic Apostolic book, is actually Scripture?? Why is Acts to be considered Scripture any more than the Didache?
How and when, exactly, did the New Testament get compliled?
I would run right past this issue and delve into the proper way to baptize - it will go nowhere.

Not to sound rude, but i didn’t realize that when someone says they are in a debate with someone they have to show credentials on Catholic Answers’ forums. I am prepared though, just because i have a couple of questions in a particular part of theology doesn’t mean i am not qualified to protect what i believe. I am aware of the arguments using the Bibles canonization, don’t worry (about the Church being defended, or about me, i guess a seemingly ignorant person with no Catholic apologetic knowledge) I’m not causing any harm. Sorry if that sounded rude, I am not trying to start a fight, or get off topic, but i wanted to make a point.

 

[Nickkname]

Read the Church Fathers before getting into a debate, because you will find every answer against the Protestants in the writings of the Church Fathers. They actually wrote their letters and books and semons against heresies, false teachings, and to explain Christianity: in other words, they were apologizing and preaching. Here’s a link to all the writings of the Church Fathers: newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

 

[Church_Militant]

Good luck with it.

One thing that needs addressing is Sola Scriptura.

Keep in mind that that is THE fundamental erroneous cornerstone for virtually all n-C belief and if that fails then all the rest tumbles accordingly. John Martignoni’s FREE MP3 Bible study on this is handy and can be burned onto a CD and shared with him if you like. His notes are here.
Sola Scriptura - The Bible Alone?
Does the Bible support "The Bible Alone"?

 

[fewnotmany]

Then (the pentecostal youth minister) gave me their interpretation . . . He said that when Jesus said “in the name” (singular) he was implying the name Jesus

Let’s examine the word ‘name’, as it was used in the original greek text:

Matt 24:5
"For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.

Name: From the greek word: Onoma (on’-om-ah)

Strongs #3685: authority, character

The word name conveys the same idea as when a police officer yells, ‘Stop in the name of the law!’ A law abiding citizen does not stop because of the literal name – law. He stops because of the authority of the law supercedes his freedom to continue on his way.

Now let’s look at . . .

Mt 1:21
“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Same greek word, onoma, as in Matt 24:5

The name Jesus literally translates into “Jehovah is salvation” .

Therefore, you can show the youth minister that the word ‘name’ as it is used in the Bible is a homonym. **Homonyms are words that are spelled and pronounced the same but have different meanings. **

 

[Philthy]

A88buckshot:

Not to sound rude, but i didn’t realize that when someone says they are in a debate with someone they have to show credentials on Catholic Answers’ forums.

First let me say that I didnt request that you show any credentials, did I? I merely suggested, as did another poster, that you should reflect on the appropriateness of entering into an exchange between yourself and your Pentecostal acquaintence. Sometimes it is difficult to communicate accurately on the forums. I think we both sensed the possibility that you might be engaging him a) for the wrong reasons and b) without adequate preparation based on some of the posts.

I am prepared though, just because i have a couple of questions in a particular part of theology doesn’t mean i am not qualified to protect what i believe.

I’m not judging you as unqualified! I can only respond to what you have posted. I find it odd that you were offended by the advice that you be prepared both spiritually and intellectually. In my humble opinion I find it surprising that someone spiritually prepared wouldn’t be grateful for the suggestions that you have been given. It sounds like you are confident, which is great. I guess I would have expected a response to those suggestions more along the lines of , “Thanks for the concern, but I have studied the issues surrounding Baptism and I have prayed about whether I am engaging this individual for the right reasons. I believe God is calling me to do this. I just havent encountered this particular issue with respect to Baptism so thats why I started this thread.”

I am aware of the arguments using the Bibles canonization, don’t worry (about the Church being defended, or about me, i guess a seemingly ignorant person with no Catholic apologetic knowledge) I’m not causing any harm. Sorry if that sounded rude, I am not trying to start a fight, or get off topic, but i wanted to make a point.

No apologies needed - keep praying and keep us posted on your progress! I’d be willing to help if I can. It sounds like he needs to go backwards rather than forwards. Does he believe in the Trinity? If he doesnt he wont accept your arguments for baptizing in the name of the F, S and HS because he’ll continue to impose his own understanding of Jesus as F, S and HS into the discussion. In addition to all the places where Jesus actually prays to the Father etc, etc, perhaps the Nicene Creed - accepted by virtually all of Christianity - would be a good starting point… God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, One in being with the Father…

 

[Contarini]

You are dealing with “Oneness Pentecostals,” who deny the Trinity. They are a minority, though a large minority, of Pentecostals worldwide (they seem to be less well represented among white Pentecostals in the U.S. than among Pentecostals of other ethnicities and in other parts of the world).

They also place a greater emphasis on water baptism than other Pentecostals, because they regard baptism in the name of Jesus as the proper means by which the baptism with the Holy Spirit is received (see Acts 19:5-6). I know a guy who fell in with them, and by his account they kept dunking him because they said that eventually he would speak with tongues. He never did and was happy when they stopped before they drowned him! (This was of course a somewhat tongue-in-cheek account, and I don’t mean that they kidnapped him–he obviously gave some kind of consent for this procedure, but I got the impression that he found it all rather confusing and frightening!)

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Christ is a title—I’m not aware of Pentecostals distinguishing names and titles when it comes to Christ. My wife was a Pentecostal for years; I’ll ask her.

Ask the Pentecostals to justify the ban on dancing and drinking. Their insistence on the Biblical basis for things stops short of the fact that the Bible condemns neither. Indeed, Christ changing water into wine at Cana and insisting that wine be drunk in his memory directly disputes their tradition.

The fact is that Pentecostalism sprang from the Prohibitionist movement of the late 19th century. It is this tradition which informs their selective reading of Scripture and not vice versa.

 

[wisdomseeker]

To make a long story short my girlfriend (who is Catholic) was rudely questioned one day at work by a Protestant customer about her faith, and told her that if more Catholics read the Bible they would see the truth. After my girlfriend told me this later I got all excited because I love debating. She gave my girlfriend the card to her church. I called to set up a Bible study with someone. The pastor or reverend (what ever they call them) set me up with the youth minister. We met about a week ago and we are scheduling another appointment soon. He is Pentecostal and I learned a lot from our meeting. I learned their views on dancing and drinking, which seem a little extreme for me, like no dancing at weddings. They believe that dancing can lead to sin, not that it’s evil, but it can lead to sin. Any way, I didn’t really get a chance to do any apologizing because he kept going on about what Pentecostals believe, which is fine, because I want to know other people’s beliefs. However, when he got to the whole baptism thing i had to interrupt, obviously. I stated the Catholic belief, about how in Mathew Jesus was giving the formula and the apostles were just saying Jesus’ name to show how they would be entering Jesus.

After i said this he took me to the versus in Mathew where Jesus said, Mat. 28:19 “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”.

Then he gave me their interpretation of this, which is something I have never heard before. He said that when Jesus said “in the name” (singular) he was implying the name Jesus, because “father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghosts” are not names but titles. For example, Jesus’ title (one of them at least) is son, but his name is Jesus, like when the angel told Mary what to name the Messiah. Though the minister didn’t say this at our meeting I am already aware of their view of the Trinity, they believe that Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which to me seems logical for them to believe with this whole name and titles argument. The way I see it, I have to concede the fact that these are titles and Jesus is a name, it logically makes sense to me, so i can’t argue it. He says names were very important then (which of course i believe, Peter=Rock) and that is why Jesus was named Jesus and why in Mat 28:19 Jesus says “in the Name” when He specifically says titles in the rest of the verse. I really didn’t know what to say, and I still don’t, could any one help me argue this? Keep in mind I am already aware of the Didache argument and the whole interpretation of scripture argument, but i don’t think these are good enough to defend the Catholic belief to him. He is really nice and has a degree in Pentecostal theology, so I’m sure that he will have an explanation for these. A logical argument or a scripture argument is what I am looking for. I’ll try the history and church fathers next time I see him but anything else would be great.

Thank you, Anthony

this is very difficult to do… protestant have the conviction that they can truly interpret the Bible for themselves and they been thought Catholics does not know the Bible.

this seems to me one more of those debates about i am right you are wrong. it will lead nowhere.

i have plenty of those in my family. believe me. until they understand the concept of Church. you can forget about them believing in you.

protestant do not believe in Catholics. they have been very well trained not to believe in anything Catholic. my advice, do not try to convince them.

listen to him like you are doing. if you hear odd things then ask him to prove his belief. how did he get to that belief.

i would never try to use arguments to convince him.

Bible alone. watch out for this.

i suggest that you first develop an strategy on how to argue with this person. remember to listen more than talk.

protestants take a lot of pride in that they all can interpret the Bible for themselves. so be careful on this. pride is a very difficult thing to give up. also remember that their mission is to convert Catholics and not to be convert by Catholics.

let us know how is going. God Bless you.

 

[fewnotmany]

protestant have the conviction that they can truly interpret the Bible for themselves

wisdomseeker: this statement is what I call ‘flipping the idiot coin’. HEADS: protestants are heathens because they think they can interpret the Bible for themselves. TAILS: catholics are mindless robots taking orders from Rome. Its two sides of the same coin.

wisdomseeker:

this seems to me one more of those debates about i am right you are wrong. it will lead nowhere.

What exactly is the debate that the OP is proposing? Is it Protestants vs. Catholics? If so, it takes two idoits flipping the same coin to play – and they both lose. All that is requiered to play is two participants full of pride and ignorance.

wisdomseeker:

i suggest that you first develop an strategy on how to argue with this person. remember to listen more than talk.

Good advise. I suggested a game plan earlier within this thread with respects to the intent of the OP; that is, Name = JESUS:

Let’s examine the word ‘name’, as it was used in the original greek text:

Matt 24:5
"For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.

Name: From the greek word: Onoma (on’-om-ah)

Strongs #3685: authority, character

The word name conveys the same idea as when a police officer yells, ‘Stop in the name of the law!’ A law abiding citizen does not stop because of the literal name – LAW. He stops because of the authority of the law supercedes his freedom to continue on his way.

Now let’s look at . . .

Mt 1:21
“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Same greek word, onoma, as in Matt 24:5

The name Jesus literally translates into “Jehovah is salvation” .

Therefore, you can show the youth minister that the word ‘name’ as it is used in the Bible is a homonym. Homonyms are words that are spelled and pronounced the same but have different meanings.

By doing so you will accomplish two things. You will enlighten him of his misunderstanding. If it be God’s will that his eyes would be open to one of the many false teaching of the church he belongs to – count him as a brother in Christ.

In addition, you will overcome the stereotype that ignorant protestants have that catholics don’t know anything about the Bible.

 

[strngrnrth]

You need to be aware that you are dealing with a UPC, “Oneness”, “Jesus Only”, or “Apostolic Tabernacle” Pentecostal. They’re the ones who baptize in Jesus’ Name only. They aren’t typical Pentecostals. The majority of Pentecostals are TBN, Trinitarian Protestants, usually Foursquare, Assembly of God, or a similar denomination. Non-Pentecostals usually confuse the two but they are completely different. You need to understand the difference for two reasons:

1. If you cite or quote any Pentecostal source to this man the odds are strongly against the source’s being acceptable to him. This is true especially if the source was on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network). He will likely not even see such a speaker as a real Christian.
2. Oneness Pentecostals are very used to opposition, being outside the Christian mainstream, and have many defenses. You need to pray and prepare before any meeting with him. One good way to get through is to find out whom he admires and takes as an authority on Bible interpretation. Take down his own words as to why he admires the person he mentions. Then do some digging to discover what inconsistencies may exist in that image. Then ask if there is anything he wants to know about the way you interpret the Bible. Be ready with books in hand to defend commonly challenged interpretations.
   Start by bringing Catholic Doctrine in Scripture, have it in your actual hand or next to you, and look things up physically while he watches. Have him read with you. Have your Bible in hand as well.
   I was a Trinitarian Pentecostal before I converted, and I got all but thrown out trying to get a pastor to look at some things in Catholic Doctrine in Scripture with me.
   Always be respectful and a good listener, but remember that he may be feeling a great duty to convert you at all costs, and ask him for sources on everything he says. If he says, “We take that to mean ____”, ask, “Based on what?” Keep going until you get the source. Verify the source, then go from there. If he says his own reasoning or intuition are his source, then say most people who love and serve Jesus Christ have different impressions based on their reasoning and intuition, and ask why that might be.

 

[runandsew]

Jesus gave us the formula of Baptism - “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Peter was not giving the formula for baptism but his claim of authority. - “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”

Just like a police officer would yell at a criminal “Stop in the name of the law”
He would not be using this as the formula to stop the criminal, but by what authority he is commanding the criminal to stop.

The trinity was involved in Jesus’ baptism, so it should also be involved in ours.
Matthew 3:13-17
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. After Jesus (The Son) was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (The Holy Spirit) (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens (The Father), saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”