The Instigator
TUF
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rosalie
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

In the holy bible, Pentacostalism Is the only true way to be saved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 823 times Debate No: 89940
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

TUF

Con

I will be arguing against Rosalie in negation of the resolution: "Resolved: In the Holy Bible, Pentecostalism is the only true way to be saved."

This is a debate we've talked about for a couple weeks, and hopefully can result in an enlightening discussion as well as a productive debate. This debate won't necessarily be based around God's existent..

I will do my best to stay away from a theism debate here specifically, and more argue against structured religions.

Rosalie should provide a brief framework in Round 1 describing Pentecostalism in a nutshell, and it's defining differences between other Christian religions. She should also provide an impact for what it means "to be saved", as the will play a visceral role in deciding how this debate will be run. This should be a fun and intellectual experience for both debaters, and I wish Rosalie the best of luck in her Opening Round.

Structure:

R1. Con starts debate, Pro starts arguments
R2. Con Refutes arguments and makes his own arguments (optional), Pro rebuttals
R3. Rebuttals
R4. Pro Makes concluding rebuttals, no new arguments. Con Passes.
Rosalie

Pro

Thank you TUF for instigating this debate, I look forward to it!

Also, a change has been made in the structure of this debate. In Round 4, Con will rebut, and I shall pass.

According to Round 1, I shall give the definitions for this debate.

Resolved "In the holy bible, Pentecostalism Is the only true way to be saved"

I will be arguing that in the Holy Bible, weather KJV (King James Version) or NKJV (New Kings James Version), the theory of Pentecostalism is the right way to be saved.

First, what does it mean to be saved (also known as salvation)

[1] Salvation- The theological definition of "salvation" is "spiritual rescue from sin and death."

In simpler terms, being saved means, being on good terms with Jesus, to get into heaven.

Next, I will give a brief definition of Pentecostalism.

[2] Pentecostalism- “Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Protestant Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit”

Then finally, it’s important to define “Holy Spirit” because this is what the Pentecostal faith is based off of.

Let’s note that the Holy Spirit was descended on the apostles on the day of Pentecost, in the Book of Acts, chapter 2.

[3] Holy Spirit- “The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 15:26).”

Now that we have our terms defined, I will go on, about how Pentecostalism, is different compared to other religions.

1 major difference that sets Pentecostals aside from other religions is, that one must be filled with “The Holy Spirit”. This is speaking in tongues. On the day of Pentecost, Peter, an apostle, told the people at the day of Pentecost, how they must be saved.

Acts 2:1….

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues."


Peter, the apostle then addresses the crowd, in Acts 2:38, he directly tells us, what we all must do, to be saved.

Acts 2:38

“36“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Now, you must be thinking “Okay, this doesn’t mention that you will actually get into heaven” Wrong. In John 3:5, Jesus himself, says you must be filled with the holy spirit, to get into heaven.

John 3:5

“Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”



As we can see from these scriptures, there are 3 simple steps to be saved.


1. Repent of your sins.


2. Be baptized (being born again)


3. And you shall receive the gif of the Holy Spirit.


Many other religions claim that you are emitted into heaven off of “Good works” such as helping the homeless, volunteering, etc…but none-of this is mentioned in the bible.



This is simply why Pentecostalism is the correct way to be saved. I will leave it here for now, and I look forward to my opponent’s case.



Sources: [1]http://www.bibletoday.com...

[2] http://www.bing.com...

[3] https://carm.org...


Debate Round No. 1
TUF

Con

Just a quick setup fix, all the structure is correct with just the Pro and Con being reversed. My apologies on my mistake, it was copy/pasted from another debate in which I was Pro rather than Con.

Framework

Framework for this debate will be setting up specific burdens. Con"s burden (mine) needs to be debunking Pentecostalism as the only Religion in which a person can be saved, as interpreted by the Bible (Pro didn"t specify which version should be used in this debate). Pro"s Burden is such that the Pentecostalism Core belief system must have the most logical support from the Bible, and further prove that only by engaging in Pentecostalism, may one be saved.

The Problem with interpretation

How many times in life have you received a text message, and initially been offended only to later realize you took the statement out of context, or read it in a way that could have been interpreted other than how it was intended? I am going to make an example here of how written text can be mis-interpreted by the reader. Bob is in a relationship with Cathy, and compliments her.

Bob: You are so beautiful!

Cathy: You are a good @ss kisser.

Bob: Aww, thanks, you"re a pretty good kisser too.

In this situation, Cathy probably blushed and laughed. She was telling Bob he was a kiss @ss, while Bob interpreted her message to be complimenting him back on his kissing skills, using an expletive to emphasize his ability to kiss. Much the same way someone might interpret something like "That was a good @ss movie!" This is just a fun little example on how things can be misunderstood in our daily lives, but it serves to paint a much broader picture.

When it comes to religion, we base an entire belief set on Theism to a certain set of principles that we interpret usually from written text. More relevant to the resolution, Christianity bases its beliefs from text interpreted from the Bible. There are currently many different Christian religions. An exact number may be impossible to give, as many sources vary on what counts as a denomination VS an organization. However, some sources have named anywhere from 21,000 to 33,000 different denominations. (1) While some of these numbers may be wrong (as my source mentions), the fact seems to be apparent that the number is large. All those religions have many of the baseline beliefs in common, but vary in both practice, and belief in how to get accepted into the heaven. How can so many different groups of people read the same book but such take away such different things out it? Granted it"s a big book, with lots of stories. But just like any good book on philosophy, maybe the Bible was meant to be interpreted differently? You can take religious groups like Pentecosts who believe there is a very specific requirement to be saved (speaking in tongues apparently being one of them), to Catholics who believe all that is required is acceptance of a God and his word (the Bible) as being true.

But can any of us truly know what was meant to be interpreted unless we were the writers ourselves? Christians have an answer to this, and that answer is just as baffling to me.

Basing beliefs on Faith and prayer

The is the most common answer you receive when questioning a Christian on why they believe their specific interpretation to be the true interpretation. In Christianity, prayer is an important aspect for many believers. It"s where you ask God for answers or Miracles, and he grants them. While some people may claim these answers come in God literally talking to them, others choose to interpret their answers by real life occurrences being vaguely related to a message that was chosen to be interpreted. Some will simply say they got a "feeling", and that feeling told them that the answer was true. This line of reasoning is fallacious. Obviously we cannot physically weigh the feeling someone claims they have, to in anyway prove that it is physically different than the feeling of someone coming to their own enlightened conclusion to something.

What comes into question though is how hundreds or thousands of different groups of people with many varying beliefs, all came to the conclusion that their religion was the correct one based on this "feeling". How many of these Christians have been exposed to these other Christian religions, studied them, or even tried to pray on principles taught in these different religions? I am sure many have experimented religiously and have switched beliefs, but that doesn"t account for the thousands of people who were only exposed to one religion (most of the time from childhood) and were taught this was the correct way. This means that many people are being taught one thing for the bulk of them maturing into adulthood. They are born into a bias that may influence their "feelings" from these prayers.

This point seeks to establish a couple things.

1. To claim that there is only one singular religion in which you can be saved is inaccurate, unless you can claim having studied in all religions.

And

2. True Knowledge cannot come from faith based principles. I cannot read a book describing the conspiracies of 9/11 in detail and claim that based on the evidence that these conspiracies are inherently true. Believing something to be true on one"s own desire for that thing to be true, doesn"t make it true.

I will now jump into refuting my opponents Case.

Speaking in tongues

The interpretation of biblical points and there link to my opponent"s actual impact here, seems rather vague. She mentions that Peter tells the "people" on the day of the Pentecost how they must be saved, then she quotes a couple verses in the Bible that essentially says "tongues of fire seem to touch each person filling them with the holy spirit and could speak in tongues". No further reference to speaking in tongues is made by my opponent. This is what I would imagine she is saying is the "gift" of the Holy Spirit, but in her conclusion of what it takes to be saved under a Pentecostalism belief, you must be granted the ability to speak in tongues in order "to be saved".

My first issue with this, is that it doesn"t sound like something the Bible is propagating as a mandatory way to be saved, in the slightest.

The apostle Paul classified speaking in tongues as just one of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:6-11, Romans 12:6-8). Paul was thankful for his own gift of speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18-19). (2)

But even Paul himself doesn"t seem to think of this as a mandatory gift needed to be saved.

Paul told his churches that it was better practiced in private than in church, unless someone could interpret the ecstatic speech (1 Corinthians 14:23, 27-28). The gift of speaking in tongues was less important than the gifts of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:2-5) and love (1 Corinthians 13:1). Nevertheless, speaking in tongues should not be forbidden (1 Corinthians 14:39). (2)

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

Why would speaking in tongues be forbidden if it was a gift from the holy spirit? The fact that "forbidden" is used is a little weird. And where along the lines was the idea propagated by conventionalist Pentecostalism that this gift was mandatory? After reading a bit more into this, this may be an issue with traditionalist Pentecostalism, vs modern day Pentecostalism.

Some Pentecostal churches, including Assemblies of God, teach that speaking in tongues is evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it is not essential for salvation and eternal life. Some other Pentecostal denominations teach that speaking in tongues is experienced by everyone who has truly been saved. (2)

My opponent holds the belief of the latter, however also maintains the burden of proving why specifically she thinks the Bible propagates this as a fundamental requirement to be saved.

Many traditional Christians, however, believe that the gift of speaking in tongues was no longer given after the apostolic age in the first century (1 Corinthians 13:8), or consider the gift to be of minor importance. (2)

If my opponent cannot provide a specific piece quote in the Bible to prove that speaking in tongues is a necessity for being saved, all this does is devalue her impact in the debate. The simple fact that other Pentecostalist denominations vary so much on this, even further puts this logic into question and feeds my point about the fallacy of interpretation.

Pro"s entire backing for this point is the quote from John 3:5 that states no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they"ve been born of the water and the spirit. Baptism is taken commonly by most Christian religions as a requirement, however my opponent seems to be quite literally taking the meaning of "being born of the spirit" to be meaning "having the gifts of the spirit". Does having the spirit somehow necessitate having the ability to speak in tongues? This is where I and other individuals may differ. Only Jesus himself could know exactly what was meant with that quote, but it does beg the question: Why Does what Paul say contradict directly what Jesus is saying? Paul mentioned speaking in tongues was a gift of the Holy Spirit, but also said Prophecy was more important to follow. Also why doesn"t Jesus just say this himself, rather than assume the people he is talking to picked up on Paul saying that speaking in tongues was a gift of the Holy Spirit?
Sources:

1."""""""https://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com...
2.""""""http://www.christianbiblereference.org...
Rosalie

Pro

Thank you Con. This round is for rebuttals.

Rebutal #1 The Problem with interpretation

The example that my opponent used is completely irrelevant to this topic. For 1. My opponent is using a contemporary example in modern day, compared to the Bible, back in BC, and AC. So, his example is completely irrelevant.

Because the Bible was written so long ago, a lot of readers don’t understand what certain words, or terms mean, not because they take they take a passage a certain way, but merely because the wording is hard to understand. This is why we have “Bible Interpretation” books that make passages a lot easier to understand for the modern day reader.

[1] The Bible was not written by 21st Century, English speaking Americans. In order to accurately understand the Bible, we must take into consideration the original setting in which it was written. For those of us living in the United States, we must realize that we are standing more than 2,000 years removed and half a world away from where the Word of God was first written down

The Bible was originally written in old Hebrew, so this is merely why some people may “misinterpret” terms. If you could go to any Christian store, you could find a book that clearly defines passages, and terms.

“When it comes to religion, we base an entire belief set on Theism to a certain set of principles that we interpret usually from written text. More relevant to the resolution, Christianity bases its beliefs from text interpreted from the Bible.”

It is true that a Christian bases their beliefs on Theism, because they obviously believe in a God. Then he goes on to say, that every Christian interprets the passages from the Bible, in the way they see it. This is false, if this was to be true, then we wouldn’t have all of these different denominations, such as Jehovah Witness, Latter Day Saint, and Pentecostalism, because if they all interpreted the passages differently, there wouldn’t be a set denomination, we wouldn’t have any “religions”.

"How can so many different groups of people read the same book but such take away such different things out it? Granted it"s a big book, with lots of stories. But just like any good book on philosophy, maybe the Bible was meant to be interpreted differently?"

My opponent then begins to claim that every denomination interprets the Bible differently. This may be true in some aspects, but only because some Christian religions chose to ignore passages of the Bible, even though they acknowledge the scripture.

For instance, many Christians say, that all you have to do to be saved, it to believe with your heart, and you’ll go to heaven, but, exactly where in the Bible does it merely suggest this? Many other Christians know about speaking in tongues, but yet say that it’s not a necessity to get into heaven, yet, where in the Bible does it say this? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that :

1. Only some people can speak in tongues.

2. Speaking in tongues is not for everyone.

These are 2 common lies told by Christians, these are *their* made up beliefs, because they simply chose to ignore the facts in the Bible. For in Acts 2:39 it says that:


“The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Meaning, everyone can receive the Holy Ghost. It’s not limited.

But can any of us truly know what was meant to be interpreted unless we were the writers ourselves? Christians have an answer to this, and that answer is just as baffling to me”

So, my opponent here seems to c hose Christianity over other religions? He here, is simply implying that Christians know the answers to everything, excluding Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism doesn’t fall under the Christian branch denomination. I kindly ask that he do more research on Pentecostalism.

Rebutal #2 Basing beliefs on Faith and prayer

The is the most common answer you receive when questioning a Christian on why they believe their specific interpretation to be the true interpretation.

False. Many other people will say that they interpret something based on a experience they have had, or depending on their culture, they could misinterpret something a certain way.

Pastor Rick Warren once stated:

[2]

Never interpret Scripture based on your own experiences. The point of Bible study is not to shape Scripture to agree with your subjective opinions or your experiences. Feelings lie.”

This goes to show, that many people misinterpret passages based on personal experiences.

In Christianity, prayer is an important aspect for many believers. It"s where you ask God for answers or Miracles, and he grants them. While some people may claim these answers come in God literally talking to them, others choose to interpret their answers by real life occurrences being vaguely related to a message that was chosen to be interpreted. Some will simply say they got a "feeling", and that feeling told them that the answer was true.

Once again, though Christians may “pray”, they aren’t doing it the right way. In the New Testament, Jesus talks about the proper way to pray.

[3] "The New Testament records that Jesus taught his disciples how to pray and that he encouraged them to address God as Father."

Though they may be praying, they are not praying in tongues, because Christians don’t believe in speaking in tongues. Yet, in the book of Corinthians, praying to God, requires one to speak in tongues.

For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries" (1 Cor. 14:2, NKJV”)

God also promises that once you are filled with his Holy Spirit, the Bible will be made clear to you, and you will fully understand and interpret the Bible.

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak" (John 16:13).”

Defending my case:

The interpretation of biblical points and there link to my opponent"s actual impact here, seems rather vague. She mentions that Peter tells the "people" on the day of the Pentecost how they must be saved, then she quotes a couple verses in the Bible that essentially says "tongues of fire seem to touch each person filling them with the holy spirit and could speak in tongues". No further reference to speaking in tongues is made by my opponent. This is what I would imagine she is saying is the "gift" of the Holy Spirit, but in her conclusion of what it takes to be saved under a Pentecostalism belief, you must be granted the ability to speak in tongues in order "to be saved".

This is kind of ironic, because my opponent misinterpreted my argument. As mentioned in the Bible, the Holy ghost is peaking in tongues, so I’m not exactly sure what you issue is here. Also, as stated in my rebuttals, it talks about prayer in the Bible, and praying in tongues, because God is the only one who can understand you, while you’re speaking or praying in tongues.

What these scriptures are talking about, is the gift of the Holy Ghost. We do this in my church. In 1st Chorinthians, it talks about the Gift of Prophecy, where one person speaks out in tongues, and the other person is able to interpret due to god.

[4] The gift of prophecy edifies, exhorts, and comforts (I Corinthians 14:3); helps us build up or strengthen; and should lead us to the Word of God. It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come (John 16:8-11).

Prophecy is divinely inspired and anointed utterance; a supernatural proclamation in a known language. It is the manifestation of the Spirit of God - not of intellect (I Corinthians 12:7), and it may be possessed and operated by all who have the infilling of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 14:31)

Intellect, faith, and will are operative in this gift, but its exercise is not intellectually based. It is calling forth words from the Spirit of God. The gift of prophecy operates when there is high worship (I Samuel 10:5-6), when others prophets are present (I Samuel 10:9-10), and when hands are laid on you by ministers (Acts 19:1-6).

My first issue with this is that it doesn’t sound like something the Bible is propagating as a mandatory way to be saved, in the slightest.

False. I have already discussed Acts 2:38 and John 3:5, which says it is mandatory to speak in tongues to go to heaven.

*** I would also ask my opponent to copy and paste the scriptures, not just give the verse, so it is easier for me to read, and the voters, that way we don’t have to go grab a Bible to look up the scriptures you provide.
Because I am running out of charachter, I will stop here.

Sources:

[1] https://answersfromthebook.org...

[2] http://rickwarren.org...

[3] https://www.christcenteredmall.com...

Debate Round No. 2
TUF

Con

The Problem with interpretation

My opponent dismisses my example as irrelevant, without fully understanding it's impact. Obviously modern day writing is extremely different then the much older text in the bible. The entire point is about how we as humans see things the way we want to see them, in written context. But my opponent things the "lack of understanding" is based purely on the fact that it was translated from Hebrew, which is clearly not the case. Though the Hebrew translations have tended to complicate English understanding of certain verses. Since my opponent wasn't so fond of my previous example, here is a bible related example.

Exodus 14:15 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on.

Many Christians have latched onto this verse as encouragement that as they face trials in their lives they need only to wait in their current situation and the LORD will deliver them. Oddly enough, other Bible translations like the New King James and the ESV translate the verse as "The LORD will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace," and, "The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent," respectively. These translations indicate the verse has nothing to do with holding your ground. The Hebrew word translated here does not have an English equivalent, but means all of the things stated in those 3 translations"to be still, peaceful, and silent. (1)

However if you look at the very next verse (Exodus 14:15) it says "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on."

People understand the previous verse to mean to just wait through the hard times and they will fix themselves, whereas God literally is telling the people to get moving in their faith, and walk through the parted Red Sea.

My opponent was so kind as to summarize my argument for me perfectly here:

Then he goes on to say, that every Christian interprets the passages from the Bible, in the way they see it. This is false, if this was to be true, then we wouldn"t have all of these different denominations, such as Jehovah Witness, Latter Day Saint, and Pentecostalism, because if they all interpreted the passages differently, there wouldn"t be a set denomination, we wouldn"t have any "religions".

This is exactly my point. The fact that so many different Christian religions exist (funny how she classifies Pentecostalism as a Christian religion here by the way), is exactly proof of how there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. I don't understand my opponents logic here at all. She is saying there wouldn't be religions if people didn't interpret the Bible differently... That's exactly why there is different religions!

My opponent herself says that many Christians "Chose to ignore passages of the Bible, even though they acknowledge the scripture". This is kind of a narrow way to look at the world and people with conflicting beliefs, is it not? How do you know they are actively choosing to close their ears to something, as opposed to them just seeing it differently then you did?

My opponent goes further to talk about speaking in tongues, and quotes Acts 2:39, which again is talking about how all of the Lord's people can receive the promise (which is interpreted from the previous verse to mean "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"). Please keep in mind that the Pentecostal translation is taken from one verse where "the people" were granted the ability oh the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, where NOWHERE in the entire bible it says this gift is required. And Peter himself even says it's not required to get into heaven, and then she vaguely makes a correlation to Jesus saying this is required, though he (Jesus) fails to mention that speaking in tongues is a requirement himself. This is exactly the problem with trying to interpret the scriptures.

In here last line on this rebuttal she mentions that Pentecostalism is not a Christian religion. Now we have discussed this issue privately, but arguing that a religion that follows the teachings of Christ isn't a Christian religion, is like trying to argue that an Orange isn't really the color Orange.
The religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
The only defining difference between Pentecostalism and most other Christian religions seems to be the verse about speaking in tongues. In lamens terms, just because an Orange went rotten, doesn't make it any less of an orange. ;-)

Basing Beliefs on Faith and Prayer

So my opponent seems to agree with me that basing answers to prayer on extraordinary events in ones own life is fallacious. We can drop this line of argument, and delve into a new on brought on by my opponent. My opponent equates a real prayer to be answered when it is spoken in "tongues" to God. So assuming you commence in a "real prayer" by speaking in tongues, how then does God answer your prayers? Does he answer them by physically speaking to an individual? My opponent should elaborate on this in the next round. Because if his answer is in anyway spiritual guidance by a strong feeling, we can dis-regard her entire rebuttal.

My Opponents "case"

Speaking in Tongues

Right off the bat, my opponent represents the Holy Spirit as "speaking in tongues". This is quite literally the worst possible way to define the Holy Spirit, and probably the most inaccurate I have ever seen. An exact Biblical by my opponent is not given to devolve the entirety of the Holy Spirit to be "speaking in tongues" though. In fact, what the Holy Spirit is, seems to vary throughout different religions. But after researching "What the Holy Spirit is" I didn't see any sources that directly define it as the ability to speak in tongues. This leads me to believe that my opponents entire understanding of the Holy Spirit is based on the verse in Acts 2:1, which again NEVER says that speaking in tongues makes up the entirety of the holy spirit, just that it was a "gift" of the Holy Spirit, which is repeated later in my opponents own argument when she quotes Jesus in John 3:5.

In the verse she quotes (Corinthians 12:7) it says: Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (3)

This verse literally states that speaking in tongues is merely one "gift" of the holy spirit.

All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.(3)

Again, let's not forget 1 Corinthians 14:2-5 where Peter literally said that the Gift of speaking in tongues was less important then Prophecy. (See Round 1)

False. I have already discussed Acts 2:38 and John 3:5, which says it is mandatory to speak in tongues to go to heaven.

My opponent is now completely dropping my argument. Not once in her defense of my entire attack on her case, does she solely define the Holy Spirit as being "The Holy Spirit" from an actual Biblical verse. Not once does she deem to clarify why Jesus himself doesn't mention that speaking in tongues is a mandatory for access to the Kingdom of heaven. Nowhere in John 3:5 does Jesus admit that Paul's phrasing in Acts 2:1 are contingent principles of the Holy Spirit, even in Acts 2:38. In fact both Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 should be mutually exclusive from Acts 2:1 unless my opponent can tell us where specifically and what wording gives Pentecostals the idea that Jesus himself stated speaking in tongues was a requirement.

Summary

My opponents impacts are all over the place in this debate. For one, she essentially agrees with me that copious religions based on the same book = a mis-understanding from one of these parties. However we have been given no absolute reason to believe that Pentecostals are the ones that have it right. By my opponent admitting that these religions mis-interpret the Bible, she is essentially affirming my point about how easy it is to mis-interpreting written text. With all this in mind, my opponent leaves you little to nothing to believe that Pentecostalism is the one and only true way to be saved from the Bible. She doesn't explain how other Christian religions are excluded from the Kingdom of God because of their failure to come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues is anything more than a singular gift from the Holy Spirit.

So what reasons has my opponent given you to think that Pentecostalism is the only true way to be saved? Even if you buy her rather ludicrous arguments that the Bible is propagating the gift of tongues, other Christian religions also acknowledge the gift of tongues as being a gift of the Holy Spirit. If one of them has the Gift, but doesn't believe that the Bible is telling us that it is the mandatory way to get into heaven, would they still be "saved"? I thank my opponent for this insightful look into the mind of a Christian, and I wish her luck in her final round in this debate.

Sources

1. http://truthbygrace.org...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Rosalie

Pro

It should have been stated in the beginning of the debate, that in order for Con to win, he must show us that in the Bible, it says you don’t have to be filled with the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues) to get into heaves, thus far, he has not done so.

.

Rebuttal #1 Exodus 14:15 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. “People understand the previous verse to mean to just wait through the hard times and they will fix themselves, whereas God literally is telling the people to get moving in their faith, and walk through the parted Red “

  • Not sure exactly what this has to do with speaking in tongues, and Pentecostalism in general. If anything, my opponent has helped my side, arguing that people are able to understand the Bible, word for word. He is merely saying people are able to comprehend the Bible.

    #2“My opponent herself says that many Christians "Chose to ignore passages of the Bible, even though they acknowledge the scripture". This is kind of a narrow way to look at the world and people with conflicting beliefs, is it not?”

    -Many people want to say that speaking in tongues is of the devil, and that we don’t need it to get into Heaven. A lot of Christian’s salvation message is “give your heart to Jesus” and you’re saved, yet this isn’t true. Nor does it say anywhere in the bible that this is the true way to get into heaven.

    #3“ opponent goes further to talk about speaking in tongues, and quotes Acts 2:39, which again is talking about how all of the Lord's people can receive the promise (which is interpreted from the previous verse to mean "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"). Please keep in mind that the Pentecostal translation is taken from one verse where "the people" were granted the ability oh the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, where NOWHERE in the entire bible it says this gift is required.”

    -This is completely false. My opponent is lying. I merely argued the scripture John 3:5, which again quotes”

    John 3:3-7, “Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'"

    -My opponent stated “NOWHERE in the entire bible has it said this gift is required.” He is false. I argued it in the previous round, and here it is again.

#4In here last line on this rebuttal she mentions that Pentecostalism is not a Christian religion. Now we have discussed this issue privately, but arguing that a religion that follows the teachings of Christ isn't a Christian religion”

-False. Pentecostalism falls under “Oneness Pentecostalism”. My opponent has failed to provide evidence that Pentecostalism falls under the Christian category.


1] Oneness Pentecostalism is a category of denominations and believers within Pentecostalism which adhere to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness


My opponent has many times, made faulty accusations, without proof, and intentionally taking scriptures out of context.


#5 Basing Beliefs on Faith and Praye
God answer your prayers? Does he answer the next round. Because if his answer is in anyway spiritual guidance by a strong feeling, we can dis-regard her entire rebuttal.

Im not entirely sure what this has to do with the debate. I hate repeating myself..but I will do it again, so you may understand it better.

How to Pray: For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries" (1 Cor. 14:2, NKJV”)”

When he answers your prayers:

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak" (John 16:13).”

In Mathew 7:7, it states how God has promised to answer your prayers.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”


#6 "In the verse she quotes (Corinthians 12:7) it says: Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (3)"

"This verse literally states that speaking in tongues is merely one "gift" of the holy spirit."

*SIGH* No, its not a gift. If it was a gift, then why did Jesus tell us that the gift is promised to you and all of your children?

This next quote is in response to my opponents scripture above.

[2] “The expression means the Holy Spirit as a gift, and the reference is to that indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, and without which we are not of Christ.”

As we can see, once you are filled with the Holy Spirit, everyone has certain fruits of the spirit.

My opponent is merely arguing that NOT everyone can be filled with the spirit, which I have proved on multiple occasions to be false.

My opponent states that I never clearly defined what speaking in tongues is, so hopefully this will clear it up for him.

[3] “Speaking in tongues was a dramatic miracle that helped the Christian church begin (Acts speak in tongues, and in his letter to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul gave instructions about speaking in tongues.”

I have argued this multiple times, and it was easy to comprehend in the scriptures that the Holy Spirit is in fact, speaking in tongues.

In conclusion-

I have argued many, many times and provided scriptures, that the only way for one to be saved, it to repent of your sins, be baptized, and then you shall receive the gif of the Holy Ghost. I also provided the scripture John 3:5 which bluntly states

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

He also has repeated himself many times, which I had to rebut, the same arguments.

My opponent has lied many times saying that I didn’t do this, or that, which was false, which makes me thinks that he didn’t actually read my whole arguments.

My opponent has failed to show us where Jesus has told us that we “don’t have to speak in tongues to go to heaven” but I did, Cleary with the following Scriptures:

Acts 2: 38-39 and John 3:5. Therefore, vote Con!


Sources:

[1] http://www.bing.com...

[2] https://www.christiancourier.com...

[3] https://www.gci.org...


Debate Round No. 3
TUF

Con

TUF forfeited this round.
Rosalie

Pro

As talked about with my opponent, I will be passing this round. Change of structure.

Vote Pro! :)
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
What? Lol.

And yes, read Acts 2:38
Posted by DebaterGood 1 year ago
DebaterGood
What?? A debate against one self? Does the Bible say that is one of the ways to be saved?
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
Shut up.

Its called character limit.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
So many dropped arguments, I lost count! Lol ;-)
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
For some reason...the format came out all shitty. Sorry.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
"Pentecostalism doesn"t fall under the Christian branch denomination. I kindly ask that he do more research on Pentecostalism."

Umm what? ! Am completely confused where you got this. A Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ. You literally use christ as a source in John 3:5 when quoting the requirements to get into the kingdom of God.... lol the Wikipedia literally puts pentacostalism as a Christian religion.

"Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement[1] within Protestant[2] Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit."

There's a difference between denomination and religion you silly goose.
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
kk, cool!
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
If it's impossible for you to fit both in the character limit, you can just defend yours.
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
Question,

Do you just want me to rebut your case? or can I also defend my arguments in Round 2?
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
for some reason the formatting kept glitching... :/
No votes have been placed for this debate.