PenteBaptist

What would distinguish your beliefs from those of "full" Pentecostals?

Is it that you wouldn't see tongues as a sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit?

 

There are many branches of pents, some of which are real Christian congregations, while many are not.

My bro-in-law's mother-in-law belongs to one of those false churches. It's full of man-made rules, which, of course, are false, such as 'no pants or makeup on women, no long hair, etc. on men'.

I posted about once attending a "holiness" service & believed I'd walked into a funny farm.

Thus, when I tour other churches besides my own to see how they worship or pretend to worship, there are certain ones I won't bother with. Given the uncertainty of different pentecostal congregations, I simply avoid them all. (Others include any which display "King James Only" or similar on their shingles, churches of God, assemblies of God, or any known cult. I generally stick to Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and nondenominational ones.

 

In pentacostal circles "full" is a technical term indicating belief in a certain set of doctrines, particularly those of the Foursquare denomination.

The Assemblies of God, the world's largest pentecostal denomination, has developed extensive [false] doctrines to define their beliefs, including every Christian speaks in tongues when "baptized in the Holy Spirit". Add to this premillennial rapture, women pastors, ad nasium.

Pentabaptist churches are independent and have whatever doctrines are chosen their pastors.

On another issue: Pentebaptist churches are led by church-stealers. These are covert pentecostals who get pastoral positions at Baptist churches and then work on hijacking the church by slowly guiding the congregation into pentacostalism.

 

My bro-in-law's mom-in-law's branch is chock-fulla MAN-MADE garbage. Their "no pants on women" rule is downright silly. Since WHEN did pants become strictly male attire? That's like saying kilts are feminine.

"One isn't saved if one doesn't speak in unknown languages." Please note that, at the "First pentecost", NNE "spoke in tongues"! Peter was preaching in his everyday language, almost-certainly Aramaic or Hebrew. His audience, who were from at least 16 other nations, all heard him IN HIS/HER OWN EVERYDAY LANGUAGE, be that language Greek, Latin, or Slobbovian, or som other. And the HOLY SPIRIT made this happen on His own, not at anyone's request or command. This was the beginning of the spread of Christianity from the Jews to the rest of the world. (The apostles were all Jews, with the possible exception of Luke.)

No long hair on males? Funny that JESUS is usually portrayed as having long hair ! (However, most Jewish men living in Judea under Roman rule had short, Roman-style hair, & all men who could grow beards had'em.)

No makeup or bright clothes? Where did GOD ever say not to try to look one's best ? The KJVO myth? Phony as a Ford Corvette, totally MAN-MADE.

No coffee, tea, etc? Did JESUS ever condemn drinking or eating something as a kicker? No; He spoke against becoming intoxicated.

I feel sorry for that poor lady. She's saddled herself with that host of false doctrines, & believes Rod Parsley actually speax in unknown languages!

 

Up until the 60s and the feminist revolution, pants were pretty much strictly male attire. Kilts are neither modern nor American attire. The Bible teaches men to dress like men and women to dress like women. At my church, almost everyone wears MAN-MADE garbage, a lot of it made in China. And, almost everyone follows MAN-MADE garbage trends. I bet the same with your church. So, what again is wrong with a church expecting women to not wear pants to church?

To any unbiased reader of the NT, it's obvious the Jews in first century Jerusalem didn't speak Aramaic or Hebrew. And, a much more reasonable conclusion from Acts 2 is that the disciples themselves were speaking various languages.

Paul says women should have long hair, and implies men should have short hair. Regardless, in our secular culture, and far more so in our Christian culture, short hair is masculine and long hair is feminine. And, I don't think it's Christian to embrace unisex, let alone cross-sex, styles.

A Chevy Corvette is MAN-MADE. Paul teaches women not to look tacky or ostentatious (as I interpret it), an error easily caused by abuse of dress and makeup. And, makeup is MAN-MADE. I think your MAN-MADE reasoning is comply MAN-MADE.

I'm not against a church having a rule against drinking. I'm against a church lying (or incompetently representing) that the Bible condemns drinking, when the Bible does just the opposite.

I am moderately against the standards of Oneness Pentecostals, not because their rules are sinful, they're not, but because they're a bit excessive within their scope. I'm fine with a lady wearing a feminine pantsuit to church (but a skirt is better), wearing some tasteful makeup, and sipping on a glass of wine. And, I'm fine with a guy growing a beard and drinking some beer.

 

What's the difference between "Pente-Baptists" and the long-established ""Bapticostals?"

btw, nowhere does the Bible teach that men should wear pants and women should wear dresses!

 

They try make Scripture fit THEIR notions, insteada vice-versa.

Since when did pants become exclusively male attire? And how do womens' pants pertain to a man ?

regular makeup is not dressing up like Jezebel. It's designed to make the woman's face look its best according to this society.

Many men, including the old Israelis, had long hair for protection against the sun, same as many men wore (& still wear, in some lands) veils or stoles, calling them burnooses, for the same reason-weather protection. And again, JESUS is usually portrayed with long hair. (However, He likely had short, Roman-style hair, as did most other Jewish men of that time/place. Remember, Isaiah said there was nothing distinctive in His appearance.

QUOTE="robycop3, post: 2543653, member: 5296"] No coffee, tea, etc? [/QUOTE] (Soda)
I Cor 3:16,17 --- does soda do harm to us? [/QUOTE]

Again, no non-alcoholic drinks of today are likely as harmful as the wine men drank in that time/place.

I doubt it, as many of them center their religion around such silliness. They try to fit the society of the past into OUR society, which is what it is according to GOD'S will.

I have NO respect for religious doctrines I don't believe. And, BTW, I shave my head, so no one can accuse me of having long hair except on my chest.

None that I'm aware of, except our sanctuary has all modern utilities.

 

It's completely hypocritical not to respect the beliefs of others with the reasoning that those beliefs are "man-made", because most of everyone's beliefs are "man-made." There's nothing inherently wrong with man-made beliefs. But, I think there's something inherently wrong in choosing rebellious man-made beliefs over traditional Christian beliefs, as many people do who abuse the word "legalism" as weapon against other Christians.

When Paul speaks of causing a brother to stumble, it's fair to consider that not all beliefs are the same. The context of Paul's statement is the legitimate legalism of Judaism, which was the background of many converts in Judaism. And, even still, when Paul practices that legalism for the sake of converts, he did it only in their presence and he didn't teach that they were right. But, there are beliefs that have no legitimacy and so deserve no adherence to for the sake of others.

 

Which Apostle appointed the Elder/Bishop/Shepherd that guides your congregation?
If he was appointed by some OTHER means, then could you show where that is the Biblical prescribed way rather than the result of a "man-made doctrine".

Who covers their head and when?
(verses available upon request)
Do you follow man-made or Biblical doctrine?

Wine or un-fermented grape juice at communion? (which is man-made vs Biblical doctrine?)

 

I won't compromise MY beliefs to accommodate those of SOMEONE ELSE. For instance, I worked the last "Good Friday". Someone of another Christian faith said it was wrong. I said, "Why ? A little research will show you Jesus died on a Wednesday eve & on Friday, His body was still in the tomb. He was resurrected Saturday eve before sunset. Besides, I made over $400 that day for 8 hrs. work, as I was paid at 2,5 my regular rate foe working a holiday that's in our contract. (That evening, our church had Communion & foot-washing, )

But if someone else wants to observe it, I don't criticize them. But that's as far as my respect goes. But others which are clearly-false such as regenerational baptism, or that one isn't saved of one doesn't "speak in tongues", I won't hesitate to denounce.