Pentalcostals and non-denominationals

[sambos671]

Lets take Pentalcostalism to the extreme. They claimed to be “born again” and “spirit filled” and have a second baptism by the Holy Spirit". They know that this is true by the evidence of the speaking of tounges supposidly like the apostles did on the day of Pentecost. Since the same Holy Spirit that baptised them with fire in the second baptism as that of Peter and the disciples, then they should have a common understanding of scripture. Yet we have the Assemblies of God, Church of God (both Cleveland and Anderson), we have Church of God of Prophesy, and innumberable Charasmatic churchs such as the Vineyard and Mega Churches galore. Not to mention the snake handlers which come out of that group. There are those that have orderly services that during praise and worship 3 prophetic messages are spoken in tounges during each service. We have services where people are running up and down aisles and having seziures and people are being “slain” in the Spirit. Preachers will even refer to Wesleys goup when people would swoon. These groups also differ greatly in their exegete of Scripture from each other. So how can the same spirit lead them? I’ve spent many years studying these groups and they really give you the impression that God is schizophrenic. I’ve heard excellent sermons from some preachers, and I’ve seen people claim that they had a “word” that they would marry a certian person only to find that it would never happen. God then changed his mind and had them marry someone else. Not to mention smaller churches in the apalachian mountains where I’ve heard sermons saying that education was evil and will lead you away from God. I even heard one woman shouting “in the spirit” and hyperventalating because she was in a spiritual “battle” with unseen spirits. Strangely, she wasn’t being lead away to the collisium or the stake.
There has to be a stronger certainty that personal conviction that the Holy Spirit is Leading you into all truth! I know God isn’t crazy. Sola Scriptura falls short. Maybe there is something to tradition?

 

[JohnnyReb]

What category do they fall into?

Protestants?

I am a Catholic and the whole family is… execpt my sister who married a pentalcostal…Well on day we were talking I remember calling my brother-in-law a protestant, and he was offended,he replied,“I am a Christian”

How do you answer that?

The honest ones will admit they are Protestant. I am coming to the church out of the Pentecostal tradition. Some will deny or at least not acknowledge that they are Protestant, because they want to distance themselves from cessationism and OSAS. Still, they are Protestant.

 

[Syele]

Firstly I agree they are Protestants, that said I think you should use charity and respect their wishes to not be called that.

I am a fat white woman. That is 100% true. My doctor nags me to lose weight cause it’ll make me healthier. That doesn’t mean I’d find it particularly nice to be called “That fat white woman over there” all the time. Am I fat? yes. Am I white? yes. is fat in itself a mean nasty word? or white? or woman? No. is it a lie? No. Does that make it a good idea to call me that all the time? How about if I asked you not to?

I don’t have a complex about my fatness. I don’t think it defines me, though it could describe how I look. if a particular person always identified me as fat white woman instead of the name I asked to be called, I’d eventually take it to mean that they were either offended by my weight and nagging me to lose some, that they had a problem with my skin color , that they had a problem with my gender or all three.

It is no different than Protestant. if someone asks you not to call them something, then be polite. It’s not like he demanded you call him Catholic. He asked to be called Christian. You are not lying if you say he is a Christian and also not being rude.

 

[DDClark]

Firstly I agree they are Protestants, that said I think you should use charity and respect their wishes to not be called that.

I am a fat white woman. That is 100% true. My doctor nags me to lose weight cause it’ll make me healthier. That doesn’t mean I’d find it particularly nice to be called “That fat white woman over there” all the time. Am I fat? yes. Am I white? yes. is fat in itself a mean nasty word? or white? or woman? No. is it a lie? No. Does that make it a good idea to call me that all the time? How about if I asked you not to?

I don’t have a complex about my fatness. I don’t think it defines me, though it could describe how I look. if a particular person always identified me as fat white woman instead of the name I asked to be called, I’d eventually take it to mean that they were either offended by my weight and nagging me to lose some, that they had a problem with my skin color , that they had a problem with my gender or all three.

It is no different than Protestant. if someone asks you not to call them something, then be polite. It’s not like he demanded you call him Catholic. He asked to be called Christian. You are not lying if you say he is a Christian and also not being rude.

I really needed to smile today, Syele, and your post made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you

I am a Christian. I am also not Catholic, so if that makes me protestant, so be it. To me it’s not a dirty word, but I prefer Christian.

I say I am Christian because I was raised Southern Baptist, but no longer believe in “once saved, always saved” or scripture alone.

As an adult, I’ve been a member of a non-denominational church, and feel very much at home in most Methodist churches.

I am currently attending a conservative Anglican church, but I’m not a member.

No matter where I’ve been, though, I’m still a Christian

 

[Syele]

I really needed to smile today, Syele, and your post made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you

I am a Christian. I am also not Catholic, so if that makes me protestant, so be it. To me it’s not a dirty word, but I prefer Christian.

I say I am Christian because I was raised Southern Baptist, but no longer believe in “once saved, always saved” or scripture alone.

As an adult, I’ve been a member of a non-denominational church, and feel very much at home in most Methodist churches.

I am currently attending a conservative Anglican church, but I’m not a member.

No matter where I’ve been, though, I’m still a Christian

glad to provide a good laugh now and then.

 

[Fidelis]

Firstly I agree they are Protestants, that said I think you should use charity and respect their wishes to not be called that.

I am a fat white woman. That is 100% true. My doctor nags me to lose weight cause it’ll make me healthier. That doesn’t mean I’d find it particularly nice to be called “That fat white woman over there” all the time. Am I fat? yes. Am I white? yes. is fat in itself a mean nasty word? or white? or woman? No. is it a lie? No. Does that make it a good idea to call me that all the time? How about if I asked you not to?..

…It is no different than Protestant. if someone asks you not to call them something, then be polite. It’s not like he demanded you call him Catholic. He asked to be called Christian. You are not lying if you say he is a Christian and also not being rude.

Not a bad analogy, but here’s where it limps.

In casual conversation if there is no reason to call attention to the fact that you are a fat, white woman then, yes, it would be rude in the extreme.

If, however, if we are talking about your health, or your ancestral history or where the nearest restroom is at, then it would make a great deal of sense to bring up the fact that you are, respectively, fat, white or a woman (for the record, I’m a fat, short, bald Mexican-American male ).

Same in some (probably most) religious conversations, especially those between Catholics and Protestants. In these cases even if we take it for granted that we are all Christians, not only is it useful but it is absolutely *imperative *to make the distinction as to whether one is a Christian of either Catholic or Protestant persuasion. Otherwise, no real conversation could take place and serious misunderstandings could even arise.

Otherwise, I do agree that we shouldn’t just go around willy-nilly saying “Hey Protestant” or “Hey Catholic.” That indeed would be churlish.

 

[Syele]

Not a bad analogy, but here’s where it limps.

In casual conversation if there is no reason to call attention to the fact that you are a fat, white woman then, yes, it would be rude in the extreme.

If, however, if we are talking about your health, or your ancestral history or where the nearest restroom is at, then it would make a great deal of sense to bring up the fact that you are, respectively, fat, white or a woman (for the record, I’m a fat, short, bald Mexican-American male ).

Same in some (probably most) religious conversations, especially those between Catholics and Protestants. In these cases even if we take it for granted that we are all Christians, not only is it useful but it is absolutely *imperative *to make the distinction as to whether one is a Christian of either Catholic or Protestant persuasion. Otherwise, no real conversation could take place and serious misunderstandings could even arise.

Otherwise, I do agree that we shouldn’t just go around willy-nilly saying “Hey Protestant” or “Hey Catholic.” That indeed would be churlish.

Yes, but it didn’t sound like that OP was about a detailed religious conversation, just a recollection of calling a guy that. We don’t know the length, subject or tone of the conversation just from the OP.

 

[ibkc]

Same in some (probably most) religious conversations, especially those between Catholics and Protestants. In these cases even if we take it for granted that we are all Christians, not only is it useful but it is absolutely *imperative *to make the distinction as to whether one is a Christian of either Catholic or Protestant persuasion. Otherwise, no real conversation could take place and serious misunderstandings could even arise.

I agree.

The thing is, a lot of these evangelical/non-denom types have taken to just calling themselves “Christian,” which has the effect of setting any other sort of Christian who isn’t like them on the outside. I don’t think it is innocent: I think these people are trying to re-define what the term “Christian” means, to make it mean what they want it to mean. The fact is, we are all Christians.

 

[DDClark]

I agree.

The thing is, a lot of these evangelical/non-denom types have taken to just calling themselves “Christian,” which has the effect of setting any other sort of Christian who isn’t like them on the outside. I don’t think it is innocent: I think these people are trying to re-define what the term “Christian” means, to make it mean what they want it to mean. The fact is, we are all Christians.

Do you really think so - the part about wanting to redefine the word? Do you mean on the boards here, or in face-to-face conversations?

If the topic of Christianity comes up in a conversation I’m having in the “real world”, it usually leads to a deeper discussion - one that includes specific beliefs, thus - no confusion.

You are exactly right when you say we are all Christians - Catholic and Protestant alike.

 

[BeProf]

The church as a invible group of believers
A memorialist Lord Supper and Believer Baptism.

All those beliefs come from Luther or Calvin so yes they are Protestants.

Neither Luther nor Calvin believed in the latter (although they didn’t agree with each other on the subject) and Luther didn’t believe in the former. Ulrich Zwingli was the one who first promulgated memorialism.

 

[ibkc]

Do you really think so - the part about wanting to redefine the word? Do you mean on the boards here, or in face-to-face conversations?

I have encountered this attitude both on internet message boards (not on this one, though - it’s usually places like CARM or even non-religiously-oriented forums) and in real life. Encounters with people who very pointedly insisted on being called nothing but “Christian” go back into the mid-90’s when I was in charge of the religion section of a large book store. I cannot tell you how many times I had to deal with a customer who wouldn’t tell me the kind of Christianity they wanted books about, but who would complain if I showed them something that they didn’t like (like something Catholic.)

 

[DDClark]

I have encountered this attitude both on internet message boards (not on this one, though - it’s usually places like CARM or even non-religiously-oriented forums) and in real life. Encounters with people who very pointedly insisted on being called nothing but “Christian” go back into the mid-90’s when I was in charge of the religion section of a large book store. I cannot tell you how many times I had to deal with a customer who wouldn’t tell me the kind of Christianity they wanted books about, but who would complain if I showed them something that they didn’t like (like something Catholic.)

That’s too bad. I love bookstores (and the library). I’m pretty self-sufficient, but if I need help I’m probably too specific . I suppose what I’m trying to say, is that because I’m a fairly forthright person, it’s hard for me to understand things like this.

There is this little Catholic bookstore in my area, and I’ve developed a nice relationship with one of the women that works there. She knows my protestant “history” (I’m pretty sure I shared that with her up front), and we’ve had some excellent conversations - religious and non-religious. She’s given me her number, and has welcomed me to call her if I would like to go to mass sometime. I like that she cared enough to offer her support.

For some people, though, any discussion of religion is very personal. Maybe that explains the lack of sharing and then defensiveness when you couldn’'t read their minds?

 

[inthecloud]

The thing is, a lot of these evangelical/non-denom types have taken to just calling themselves “Christian,” which has the effect of setting any other sort of Christian who isn’t like them on the outside. I don’t think it is innocent: I think these people are trying to re-define what the term “Christian” means, to make it mean what they want it to mean. The fact is, we are all Christians.

That is done on purpose, Frank Schaeffer has written on that. They do what to exclude Apostolic and mainstream protestants from the term Christian.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Some Pentecostals, notably “Oneness Pentecostals”, will be further offended at any attempt to explain why they are Protestant. These people deny the Trinity and claim that their practices are the “true” early church practices, and since they don’t believe or do what Protestants do, to them that means they’re not Protestant but “true” Christians.

They almost aren’t Christians.