RSS Feed
Twitter
02:03
christianarticles123!@gmail.com
It is not any slightly possible that at one time all Christian denominations will come together as one, not even for a micro second. Like when has it ever been?
The emergence of these denominations is not as a result of personal wishes and beliefs; it is as a result of difference in doctrine based on differing views of interpretation of scripture. It is a spiritual matter with supernatural forces which are pretty beyond human control.
Rather consider how Satan sought to tempt Jesus using the very scripture. Did Satan misquote scripture? No, he did not. But he attempted to interpret it differently.
So, scripture remains the same, but how it is interpreted is the source of all these differences. For many of us do quote scripture simply to serve our own personal beliefs. Every Christian doctrine (true or false) claims its source in scripture. The basis of a denomination is its doctrine, whether false or true.
Jesus pretty warned His disciples about the yeast of the Pharisees and the Seducees (Matthew 16:5-12), (Mark 8:14-21). Jesus used the term yeast to mean a teaching or doctrine. Yeast is used in bread making. It helps to magnify bread.
So, it was that Jesus was telling them to be careful no matter how little a teaching begins or appears, in it is the potential to make a great irreversible damage. This is the basis of doctrine. It is not that someone has taught something that does not seem similar to the truth, but that he makes a slight adjustment and he forms a basis for his teaching.
NB The devil has no scripture of his own. He rather plays around interpretation of God's own word.
In this, the case of doctrine predates recent history. At no one time ever in history has there ever been consensus on one particular issue except in the case of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). People can easily agree to do bad than they would to do good. But scripture tells us that it is good when we disagree, or rather that there are factions amongst us, for in this, the truth is revealed (1Corinthians 11:19).
When Adam seemed to agree with his wife Eve, it only ended them (and all of us who are their offspring) in disaster.
Based on this, I believe it would be prudent to identify those doctrinal areas where there is controversy:The emergence of these denominations is not as a result of personal wishes and beliefs; it is as a result of difference in doctrine based on differing views of interpretation of scripture. It is a spiritual matter with supernatural forces which are pretty beyond human control.
Rather consider how Satan sought to tempt Jesus using the very scripture. Did Satan misquote scripture? No, he did not. But he attempted to interpret it differently.
So, scripture remains the same, but how it is interpreted is the source of all these differences. For many of us do quote scripture simply to serve our own personal beliefs. Every Christian doctrine (true or false) claims its source in scripture. The basis of a denomination is its doctrine, whether false or true.
Jesus pretty warned His disciples about the yeast of the Pharisees and the Seducees (Matthew 16:5-12), (Mark 8:14-21). Jesus used the term yeast to mean a teaching or doctrine. Yeast is used in bread making. It helps to magnify bread.
So, it was that Jesus was telling them to be careful no matter how little a teaching begins or appears, in it is the potential to make a great irreversible damage. This is the basis of doctrine. It is not that someone has taught something that does not seem similar to the truth, but that he makes a slight adjustment and he forms a basis for his teaching.
NB The devil has no scripture of his own. He rather plays around interpretation of God's own word.
In this, the case of doctrine predates recent history. At no one time ever in history has there ever been consensus on one particular issue except in the case of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). People can easily agree to do bad than they would to do good. But scripture tells us that it is good when we disagree, or rather that there are factions amongst us, for in this, the truth is revealed (1Corinthians 11:19).
When Adam seemed to agree with his wife Eve, it only ended them (and all of us who are their offspring) in disaster.
- Prayer
- Baptism
- How to be saved and when does one get saved?
- Denominational heads
- Fasting
- Speaking in tongues
- Life after death
Prayer
The Roman Catholics practice these major things in the Roman Catholic prayer;
If ever all these are traceable in Biblical scripture is another matter altogether.
- Prayer through "saints" such as; Mary and other “saints” like Peter, Kizito (in Uganda) and many others. They also pray using written scripts.
- It is done more as a ritual.
- You can also pray using recitation of the rosary.
If ever all these are traceable in Biblical scripture is another matter altogether.
The Pentecostals on the other hand:
- Do not pray through "saints"
- Do not use recitation of the rosary
- Do not have written scripts of prayer. Prayer comes from the heart as guided by the Holy Spirit
- Pray through and in the name of Jesus. Jesus instructed us to pray in no other name than that of His (John 14:13-14), (John 15:16), (John 16:24), (John 20:30-31).
Guidelines on the Pentecostal prayer:
But you can also realize that even amongst the Pentecostals, there are still itching issues upon which not all do agree. All these are based on how scripture is perceived and interpreted.
Anglicans
- Can pray any time as and when one is led to.
- It is done to keep fellowship with God rather than as a ritual.
But you can also realize that even amongst the Pentecostals, there are still itching issues upon which not all do agree. All these are based on how scripture is perceived and interpreted.
Anglicans
- These have written scripts of prayers also.
- Do not pray through saints.
Baptism
Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox
Pentecostals and Seventh day Adventists
- Believe that babies can equally be baptized and they do just that.
- Believe that sprinkling water in the forehead is also baptism.
Pentecostals and Seventh day Adventists
- Do not believe in baptism of babies, they only follow the Biblical trend; Jesus was baptized when He was an adult. There is no scripture to back up baptism of babies.
- Baptize by immersion, or dipping in water. They do not regard sprinkling as a form of baptism.Jesus was immersed in water for baptism.
How to be saved and when does one get saved?
Catholics and Protestants
Do believe that one is Born Again when they are sprinkled with water while they are babies. Then when they have grown up, they are led into a confirmation prayer.
Do believe that one is Born Again when they are sprinkled with water while they are babies. Then when they have grown up, they are led into a confirmation prayer.
Pentecostals
Babies can’t confess to be saved. Babies do not understand anything and can’t decide anything for themselves.
Only when a person does understand what they are doing can they commit to salvation. Upon this, many children of Pentecostals aren’t Born Again.
You can only lead someone somewhere; you can’t make decisions for them. God is a personal experience and God deals with us personally, not as denominations.
To this, scripture affirms that; "...whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:16). This pretty implies that for one to be saved, they must be able to make a personal decision. For it is a personal matter. Further to this, scripture goes on to direct us when and how we are saved. It says that; "For it is with the heart that one believes and it is with the mouth that one confesses unto salvation" (Romans 10:10).
Babies can’t confess to be saved. Babies do not understand anything and can’t decide anything for themselves.
Only when a person does understand what they are doing can they commit to salvation. Upon this, many children of Pentecostals aren’t Born Again.
You can only lead someone somewhere; you can’t make decisions for them. God is a personal experience and God deals with us personally, not as denominations.
To this, scripture affirms that; "...whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:16). This pretty implies that for one to be saved, they must be able to make a personal decision. For it is a personal matter. Further to this, scripture goes on to direct us when and how we are saved. It says that; "For it is with the heart that one believes and it is with the mouth that one confesses unto salvation" (Romans 10:10).
Denominational heads
Roman Catholics and Anglicans
Pentecostals
Fasting
Fasting is to abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance.
According to this definition, there are two forms of fasting. These are:
Roman Catholics and Anglicans
Pentecostals
So, in this, none of the forms of fasting alone does completely define what exactly fasting is. You can practice either of the two depending on how the Spirit directs you. Thus then, one should not limit themselves to one form of fasting and declare the other to be not applicable.
Yet we ought to note that Jesus (our perfect example) fasted forty days and forty nights. This may be too much for a mere human, but even what we can we can't because we do not wish to give away much of our comfort. Upon this, abstinence from food in a fast is a greater sacrifice.
What to fast for.
Fasting is not a ritual. Rather it is not a matter to fast. Fasting is a way to nourish the spirit man so to overcome the power of the sinful flesh. In this, God finds a way into a person's life.
In fasting, we are spiritually strengthened. And we pretty know that God is Spirit. Rather God's address is in the Spirit. So, if you want to see God, you can only find Him in the spirit. Fasting is one of the ways we get in the Spirit.
When we get in the Spirit, we are empowered. And when we are empowered, then we can stand strong and confront the devil with confidence and thereby defeat him (Matthew 17:21), (Mark 9:29).
Speaking in tongues
There is a terrible controversy about what exactly tongues are. What are they? Everyone has a different version. Some have versions that simply help them understand it the way they wish it is.
One thing Jesus said is that; speaking in tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirit. Yet Jesus does not tell us whether speaking in tongues is speaking English, Greek, Hebrew, or whatever language. What is critically to be noted here is that it is not a tongue that is learnt from school or from a friend. It comes as sign of the Holy Spirit.
Where tongues necessarily intended for the foreign lands?
Scripture does not tell us tongues were intended for foreign lands. Tongues were spoken anywhere as a sign from God, not as a way to communicate or evangelize to people of foreign lands. When Paul prayed for the the twelve men so to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is not indicated that the tongues they spoke were intended for other people. They spoke tongues as a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7).
When Peter went to Caesarea to meet with Cornelius, scripture says that while he was talking, the Holy Spirit descended on all who heard the message and they were filled, and they began to speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46).
What tongues were these? Was there a problem of communication between them (Peter and the listeners)? If so, how did they come to listen and later alone receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon which they spoke in tongues?
Rather that they received the Holy Spirit after having listened. This pretty suggests that there was no issue of communication. It is a pity that some people do suggest that tongues are spoken solely for purposes of communication between people alone.
What was the purpose of them speaking in tongues when they had heard the message? Was it for communication purposes between themselves, or or as a sign of the Holy Spirit? What is the sign of the Holy Spirit like?
If tongues are spoken for communication purposes only, was there a communication issue in the Corinthian church? Did Paul write to them to discourage them from speaking in tongues or rather he wrote to them about how to practice speaking in tongues?
If I speak in Spanish in an English church, intending to communicate to the congregants, what would it be? But if I speak the same to God, does God need an interpreter?
The apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, and all people from all lands heard them speak in their native languages (Acts 2:1-13).
What is also critical to note is that still some people made fan of them that it was because the apostles had drunk too much wine.
What scripture doesn't tells us is if the apostles understood what was in the message as they spoke. So, speaking in a tongue is not intended that the messenger understands as some people do demand, but that a tongue is spoken by the power of the Holy Spirit.
For some people seek to use human understanding to explain what tongue should be spoken, when it should be spoken, and how it should be spoken, yet it comes only by the power of the Holy Spirit. And if that is the case, then who of the two has control over the other, is it you who has control over the Holy Spirit, or rather the Holy Spirit has control over you?
We do the things of God only by the power of the Holy Spirit, except for artificialism. Thus to say we can't pray as we ought to, but the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with wordless groans so He presents our case before God the Father (Romans 8:26-27).
Spiritual things are not for the human brain to understand. Scripture tells us to be drunk with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). That means when the Holy Spirit descends, then we cede control. Just like a drunken person has no control over his actions.
So, if one wants to use his brain to understand a thing that does not come by human understanding, he is rather mistaken. For speaking in tongues does not come using human understanding, it comes by the power of the Holy Spirit. To seek to use human understanding in the things of God is a weakness rather than a strength.
Are tongues born or formed?
History dictates that tongues are not born but formed. We came to speak in different tongues only after the attempted tower of Babel. Before that, how did people communicate? What language did Adam and Eve speak amongst themselves and with God? So, at one time, a tongue wasn't there, how did it come into being? By 1560, there was no written language called Spanish, how did this come? Spanish was formed from Latin, not so? Swahili was formed from Bantu tribal languages and Arabic.
Questions for thought
Were all the world languages represented on the day of Pentecost? Were Swahili, Spanish, Ganda, etc spoken then? So, if I spoke Ganda then, I would be simply bubbling. But when I speak it today, I pretty make sense. For Ganda has now developed into a clearly understandable language.Yet were was Ganda before it was being spoken? It wasn't just spoken, but it was somewhere.
So, Upon this, what you could name as simply bubbling, may not be so to another person speaking in an unknown tongue.
In an effort to further make it clearer to the Corinthians and those of us today, the apostle Paul admonishes that there are all sorts of words, but none of them does not mean a thing (1Corinthians 14:10). In this, it sounds pretty much that once one utters a word, then there is meaning in that word. The meaning of the word then should be the issue but not the word spoken.
Are tongues exclusively spoken for the non-believers?
Well, scripture tells us that tongues are spoken as sign for the non-believers. They are a sign that a person has been sanctified.
Jesus declares that unless they see signs and wonders, they will never believe (John 4:48). So, upon this, we must quote scripture within context.
But we also know that the fact they are called tongues and not languages, there might be something more to learn here. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians to correct them on how to practice tongues, what tongues were the Corinthians speaking? What were they for?
In whatever form, how did the Corinthians practice speaking in tongues? Was it about the tongues they spoke or how they practiced them? If they spoke in unknown tongues, how and where from did they learn how to speak them? Because Paul doesn't appear to discourage them from speaking in tongues, but rather they should be more organized how they do it. The Corinthians had only taken it for a bragging matter rather than as a sign from God (1Corinthians 14).
Scripture doesn't tell us they spoke in tongues with the intention to preach to people of other languages, for this was the same church, albeit it was so on the day of Pentecost.
Paul admonished that if one spoke in tongues with the intention to communicate to the church, then there must be an interpreter, but if it is an individual prayer to God, then it is okay. That person speaks mysteries with God (1Corinthians 14:2).
Rather according to 1Corinthians 14:2, there are two forms of tongues:
What pretty appears to be of Paul's concern here are the tongues with a message to the church. Rather, Paul is not concerned about the tongue spoken, but the intention of speaking the tongue. If a tongue has a message to the church, then it should be interpreted. For the church needs edification and not listening to other people speak in unknown tongues (1Corinthians 14:9). We are not all at the same level in the spirit.
When Paul says: "I thank God because I speak more tongues than you all" (1Corinthians 14:18), what tongues were these? Did he mean languages or else? If he meant languages, how many languages did Paul speak? How did he learn them? Scripture doesn't tell us Paul spoke in tongues to communicate to people of other lands.
Well, it is pretty true that in a lay man's language, a tongue is a language, but in the Bible context, I do not think that scripture records tongues to mean languages. Scripture talks of the language of the angels (1Corinthians 13:1), well what is this language of the angels? Is it Spanish, my native language Ganda, or else? What language do the angels speak?
Life after death
This is another very controversial topic upon which there are terribly immense disagreements.
Roman Catholics, Protestants and the Pentecostals
These three denominations seem to agree that when a person dies, it is not true that he is gone into oblivion. They do believe that when a person dies, it is simply change of form, but your identification as so and so remains. You lose the human conscious but not the spiritual conscious. Yet there are still grave differences in this regard amongst these three.
Roman Catholics
Roman Catholics do believe that when the unrighteous die, they must go to Purgatory. They go on to teach that while in Purgatory, there is a possibility to be forgiven and then can make it to heaven through the prayers of the living. Rather prayers can convince God to redirect such a person to heaven.
But the question is: is purgatory Biblical? Did Jesus teach anywhere about purgatory? The teaching of purgatory is rather repugnant to the Biblical teaching about life in death. For when a person dies, their destiny is rather sealed. The gospel is only beneficial to the living.
Anglican
Anglicans believe not in purgatory, at least in confession. But if purgatory were to be in bits, you could wonder what part of the teaching of purgatory they don't believe in. For they pray for the dead and they do believe that even the dead pray with the living.
If you do not believe in the purgatory teaching, why do you pray for the dead? What can you change when a person has died? Have you considered what the basis of purgatory is? So, in whatever sense, purgatory is about thinking that a thing can change about a person's destiny when they are already dead.
The Pentecostals
The Pentecostals do not believe in purgatory. Scripture says: it is appointed unto all men once to die and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27).
Pentecostals also believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has given us all who submit to Him the opportunity to live again. Rather we can no longer be held in hades if we die in the risen Christ. For Jesus' death and the resurrection changed the course of all things (Revelation 1:18). That the so called death is rather simply a change of form from the literal world to the spiritual world (Matthew 10:28). Meaning while the body decomposes away, the soul lives on.
Jesus went to hades and won the keys of death from Satan. Upon this, Satan can no longer use death as a threat to us who are in Christ. For when Jesus rose from the dead, tombs were opened and many faithfuls who had fallen asleep were seen on the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52). What would hold them there if Jesus had paid the price in full? We face death because of sin. But Jesus paid for this already. Why then remain spiritually dead when I am in the risen Christ.
So, that Christ is risen, death is powerless and it can no longer hold us captive if we are in Christ. For Christ is risen with total victory over death. And when we die, we never again go into oblivion (Luke 23:43), (John 11:25-26). It would have only remained so if the consequential sin is yet to be met with a paid penalty. And upon this, there is no another penalty to be paid for this. If so, why remain dead when death is defeated?
Seventh day Adventists
These do believe that when a person dies, he goes into oblivion or sleep till when Christ returns (Psalms 115:17, 146:4), (Ecclesiastes 9:5). According to their dcotrine, when a person dies, he is gone away both literally and spiritually. They believe that life in a person is God's breath, once that breath goes away, it disappears into air. But we know that even air is matter, not so? So, just like breath goes into oblivion, so that person is no more either literally or spiritually.
To the Adventists, God's breath in Adam was simply breath. It is just air which is no where. And so it just disappears and there is nothing left of a person until the return of Jesus.
NB But I beg to be corrected because when I meet different Adventists, they tell otherwise on a range of issues.
So, to the Adventists, if scripture says the dead are asleep (just like one sleeps literally), so it is in the spirit. That is that if a person sleeps literally, so is he asleep spiritually. That that person is in neither of the two worlds. But scripture tells about the souls which cried to God to punish those who killed them (Revelation 6:9-10). How is this? Did these souls cry when they are in oblivion?
The protestant tenets.
The five central Protestant tenets are very interesting to me. For they are well stated and very clear with very attractive language.
The Pentecostal statement of faith
The Pentecostals tend to leave most of the matters of faith to an individual, albeit there is a standard. In this, the basic and central matter is that Christ is the central head of and the central reason the church is. Baptism is imperative and being filled with the Holy Spirit is the identification mark. The rest comes as and when a person grows in faith. No one should dictate to the other matters of God. For God is a personal experience.
- Roman Catholics have a denominational head in the Pope. The Queen is the head of the Anglican church.
- Have denominational universal headquarters in Rome. The Anglican headquarters are in England
Pentecostals
- Do not have neither do they believe in universal denominational heads.
- They believe that the headquarters of the Church is in Heaven.
- The head of the Church is Jesus CHRIST. The Pentecostal movement is directly answerable to Jesus Christ who is the direct head of the church.
- Jesus Christ guides the church through the Holy Spirit.
Fasting
Fasting is to abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance.
According to this definition, there are two forms of fasting. These are:
- Abstain from all foods
- Abstain from some kinds of foods
Roman Catholics and Anglicans
- They encourage the fasting to abstain from not all foods but some foods of a person's choice during a sanctioned period of time (Daniel 1:8, 10:3).
- There is a sanctioned period of time to fast
Pentecostals
- They put more emphasis on abstaining from all foods as a complete form of fasting.
- No specific sanctioned period of time to fast
So, in this, none of the forms of fasting alone does completely define what exactly fasting is. You can practice either of the two depending on how the Spirit directs you. Thus then, one should not limit themselves to one form of fasting and declare the other to be not applicable.
Yet we ought to note that Jesus (our perfect example) fasted forty days and forty nights. This may be too much for a mere human, but even what we can we can't because we do not wish to give away much of our comfort. Upon this, abstinence from food in a fast is a greater sacrifice.
What to fast for.
Fasting is not a ritual. Rather it is not a matter to fast. Fasting is a way to nourish the spirit man so to overcome the power of the sinful flesh. In this, God finds a way into a person's life.
In fasting, we are spiritually strengthened. And we pretty know that God is Spirit. Rather God's address is in the Spirit. So, if you want to see God, you can only find Him in the spirit. Fasting is one of the ways we get in the Spirit.
When we get in the Spirit, we are empowered. And when we are empowered, then we can stand strong and confront the devil with confidence and thereby defeat him (Matthew 17:21), (Mark 9:29).
Speaking in tongues
There is a terrible controversy about what exactly tongues are. What are they? Everyone has a different version. Some have versions that simply help them understand it the way they wish it is.
One thing Jesus said is that; speaking in tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirit. Yet Jesus does not tell us whether speaking in tongues is speaking English, Greek, Hebrew, or whatever language. What is critically to be noted here is that it is not a tongue that is learnt from school or from a friend. It comes as sign of the Holy Spirit.
Where tongues necessarily intended for the foreign lands?
Scripture does not tell us tongues were intended for foreign lands. Tongues were spoken anywhere as a sign from God, not as a way to communicate or evangelize to people of foreign lands. When Paul prayed for the the twelve men so to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is not indicated that the tongues they spoke were intended for other people. They spoke tongues as a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7).
When Peter went to Caesarea to meet with Cornelius, scripture says that while he was talking, the Holy Spirit descended on all who heard the message and they were filled, and they began to speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46).
What tongues were these? Was there a problem of communication between them (Peter and the listeners)? If so, how did they come to listen and later alone receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon which they spoke in tongues?
Rather that they received the Holy Spirit after having listened. This pretty suggests that there was no issue of communication. It is a pity that some people do suggest that tongues are spoken solely for purposes of communication between people alone.
What was the purpose of them speaking in tongues when they had heard the message? Was it for communication purposes between themselves, or or as a sign of the Holy Spirit? What is the sign of the Holy Spirit like?
If tongues are spoken for communication purposes only, was there a communication issue in the Corinthian church? Did Paul write to them to discourage them from speaking in tongues or rather he wrote to them about how to practice speaking in tongues?
If I speak in Spanish in an English church, intending to communicate to the congregants, what would it be? But if I speak the same to God, does God need an interpreter?
The apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, and all people from all lands heard them speak in their native languages (Acts 2:1-13).
What is also critical to note is that still some people made fan of them that it was because the apostles had drunk too much wine.
What scripture doesn't tells us is if the apostles understood what was in the message as they spoke. So, speaking in a tongue is not intended that the messenger understands as some people do demand, but that a tongue is spoken by the power of the Holy Spirit.
For some people seek to use human understanding to explain what tongue should be spoken, when it should be spoken, and how it should be spoken, yet it comes only by the power of the Holy Spirit. And if that is the case, then who of the two has control over the other, is it you who has control over the Holy Spirit, or rather the Holy Spirit has control over you?
We do the things of God only by the power of the Holy Spirit, except for artificialism. Thus to say we can't pray as we ought to, but the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with wordless groans so He presents our case before God the Father (Romans 8:26-27).
Spiritual things are not for the human brain to understand. Scripture tells us to be drunk with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). That means when the Holy Spirit descends, then we cede control. Just like a drunken person has no control over his actions.
So, if one wants to use his brain to understand a thing that does not come by human understanding, he is rather mistaken. For speaking in tongues does not come using human understanding, it comes by the power of the Holy Spirit. To seek to use human understanding in the things of God is a weakness rather than a strength.
Are tongues born or formed?
History dictates that tongues are not born but formed. We came to speak in different tongues only after the attempted tower of Babel. Before that, how did people communicate? What language did Adam and Eve speak amongst themselves and with God? So, at one time, a tongue wasn't there, how did it come into being? By 1560, there was no written language called Spanish, how did this come? Spanish was formed from Latin, not so? Swahili was formed from Bantu tribal languages and Arabic.
Questions for thought
Were all the world languages represented on the day of Pentecost? Were Swahili, Spanish, Ganda, etc spoken then? So, if I spoke Ganda then, I would be simply bubbling. But when I speak it today, I pretty make sense. For Ganda has now developed into a clearly understandable language.Yet were was Ganda before it was being spoken? It wasn't just spoken, but it was somewhere.
So, Upon this, what you could name as simply bubbling, may not be so to another person speaking in an unknown tongue.
In an effort to further make it clearer to the Corinthians and those of us today, the apostle Paul admonishes that there are all sorts of words, but none of them does not mean a thing (1Corinthians 14:10). In this, it sounds pretty much that once one utters a word, then there is meaning in that word. The meaning of the word then should be the issue but not the word spoken.
Are tongues exclusively spoken for the non-believers?
Well, scripture tells us that tongues are spoken as sign for the non-believers. They are a sign that a person has been sanctified.
Jesus declares that unless they see signs and wonders, they will never believe (John 4:48). So, upon this, we must quote scripture within context.
But we also know that the fact they are called tongues and not languages, there might be something more to learn here. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians to correct them on how to practice tongues, what tongues were the Corinthians speaking? What were they for?
In whatever form, how did the Corinthians practice speaking in tongues? Was it about the tongues they spoke or how they practiced them? If they spoke in unknown tongues, how and where from did they learn how to speak them? Because Paul doesn't appear to discourage them from speaking in tongues, but rather they should be more organized how they do it. The Corinthians had only taken it for a bragging matter rather than as a sign from God (1Corinthians 14).
Scripture doesn't tell us they spoke in tongues with the intention to preach to people of other languages, for this was the same church, albeit it was so on the day of Pentecost.
Paul admonished that if one spoke in tongues with the intention to communicate to the church, then there must be an interpreter, but if it is an individual prayer to God, then it is okay. That person speaks mysteries with God (1Corinthians 14:2).
Rather according to 1Corinthians 14:2, there are two forms of tongues:
- Tongues intended for a message to the church
- Tongues in an individual personal prayer.
What pretty appears to be of Paul's concern here are the tongues with a message to the church. Rather, Paul is not concerned about the tongue spoken, but the intention of speaking the tongue. If a tongue has a message to the church, then it should be interpreted. For the church needs edification and not listening to other people speak in unknown tongues (1Corinthians 14:9). We are not all at the same level in the spirit.
When Paul says: "I thank God because I speak more tongues than you all" (1Corinthians 14:18), what tongues were these? Did he mean languages or else? If he meant languages, how many languages did Paul speak? How did he learn them? Scripture doesn't tell us Paul spoke in tongues to communicate to people of other lands.
Well, it is pretty true that in a lay man's language, a tongue is a language, but in the Bible context, I do not think that scripture records tongues to mean languages. Scripture talks of the language of the angels (1Corinthians 13:1), well what is this language of the angels? Is it Spanish, my native language Ganda, or else? What language do the angels speak?
Life after death
This is another very controversial topic upon which there are terribly immense disagreements.
Roman Catholics, Protestants and the Pentecostals
These three denominations seem to agree that when a person dies, it is not true that he is gone into oblivion. They do believe that when a person dies, it is simply change of form, but your identification as so and so remains. You lose the human conscious but not the spiritual conscious. Yet there are still grave differences in this regard amongst these three.
Roman Catholics
Roman Catholics do believe that when the unrighteous die, they must go to Purgatory. They go on to teach that while in Purgatory, there is a possibility to be forgiven and then can make it to heaven through the prayers of the living. Rather prayers can convince God to redirect such a person to heaven.
But the question is: is purgatory Biblical? Did Jesus teach anywhere about purgatory? The teaching of purgatory is rather repugnant to the Biblical teaching about life in death. For when a person dies, their destiny is rather sealed. The gospel is only beneficial to the living.
Anglican
Anglicans believe not in purgatory, at least in confession. But if purgatory were to be in bits, you could wonder what part of the teaching of purgatory they don't believe in. For they pray for the dead and they do believe that even the dead pray with the living.
If you do not believe in the purgatory teaching, why do you pray for the dead? What can you change when a person has died? Have you considered what the basis of purgatory is? So, in whatever sense, purgatory is about thinking that a thing can change about a person's destiny when they are already dead.
The Pentecostals
The Pentecostals do not believe in purgatory. Scripture says: it is appointed unto all men once to die and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27).
Pentecostals also believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has given us all who submit to Him the opportunity to live again. Rather we can no longer be held in hades if we die in the risen Christ. For Jesus' death and the resurrection changed the course of all things (Revelation 1:18). That the so called death is rather simply a change of form from the literal world to the spiritual world (Matthew 10:28). Meaning while the body decomposes away, the soul lives on.
Jesus went to hades and won the keys of death from Satan. Upon this, Satan can no longer use death as a threat to us who are in Christ. For when Jesus rose from the dead, tombs were opened and many faithfuls who had fallen asleep were seen on the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52). What would hold them there if Jesus had paid the price in full? We face death because of sin. But Jesus paid for this already. Why then remain spiritually dead when I am in the risen Christ.
So, that Christ is risen, death is powerless and it can no longer hold us captive if we are in Christ. For Christ is risen with total victory over death. And when we die, we never again go into oblivion (Luke 23:43), (John 11:25-26). It would have only remained so if the consequential sin is yet to be met with a paid penalty. And upon this, there is no another penalty to be paid for this. If so, why remain dead when death is defeated?
Seventh day Adventists
These do believe that when a person dies, he goes into oblivion or sleep till when Christ returns (Psalms 115:17, 146:4), (Ecclesiastes 9:5). According to their dcotrine, when a person dies, he is gone away both literally and spiritually. They believe that life in a person is God's breath, once that breath goes away, it disappears into air. But we know that even air is matter, not so? So, just like breath goes into oblivion, so that person is no more either literally or spiritually.
To the Adventists, God's breath in Adam was simply breath. It is just air which is no where. And so it just disappears and there is nothing left of a person until the return of Jesus.
NB But I beg to be corrected because when I meet different Adventists, they tell otherwise on a range of issues.
So, to the Adventists, if scripture says the dead are asleep (just like one sleeps literally), so it is in the spirit. That is that if a person sleeps literally, so is he asleep spiritually. That that person is in neither of the two worlds. But scripture tells about the souls which cried to God to punish those who killed them (Revelation 6:9-10). How is this? Did these souls cry when they are in oblivion?
The protestant tenets.
The five central Protestant tenets are very interesting to me. For they are well stated and very clear with very attractive language.
- Sola Scriptura – “The Bible alone.” Scripture alone speaks authoritatively, and it speaks to all believers, independently of church leaders and councils, human interpreters and so-called spokesmen for God.
- Sola Gratia – “Grace alone.” It is only by the unmerited favor of God that Christ went to the cross and paid the price for man’s salvation. Man is by nature depraved—he has no virtue that commends him to God. Therefore God’s grace to him is truly undeserved and amazing, and God’s grace alone has the power to draw people to himself.
- Sola Fide – “Faith alone.” Only total righteousness is acceptable to God, and that is found in Christ, not us. Man can only accept Christ’s work by placing his trust in him. Man is justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ, not by any works of his own.
- Sola Christus – “Christ alone.” Salvation is accomplished by Christjohn calvin alone, and mediated by Christ alone—not by angels, saints, relics, sacraments, priests, teachers, churches, or anyone or anything else. Christ alone was the perfect Savior, and he alone is the perfect prophet, priest and king.
- Soli Deo Gloria – “To God alone be glory.” God should be thanked, praised and given full credit for his sovereign grace and spiritual and physical provision. Theology should be God-centered, not man-centered. God should be put in his place and humans in theirs. Our efforts should not elevate and celebrate men but God. We should bring him glory in our work, in our homes and at play. He, not we, should be the center of all things.
The Pentecostal statement of faith
The Pentecostals tend to leave most of the matters of faith to an individual, albeit there is a standard. In this, the basic and central matter is that Christ is the central head of and the central reason the church is. Baptism is imperative and being filled with the Holy Spirit is the identification mark. The rest comes as and when a person grows in faith. No one should dictate to the other matters of God. For God is a personal experience.
Conclusively
On that note therefore, there is no time when all the Christian denominations will come together as one. This is because the differences are doctrinal which touch critical areas rather than simple personal beliefs and wishes.
For even when you think two different denominations seem to agree on one thing, they will gravely disagree on the other. The Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists seem to agree on a few areas such as baptism, but when it comes to speaking in tongues, the practice of the law, and the state of the dead, they disagree terribly. Even when one denomination has pretty much scripture to uphold a particular doctrine, the other denomination will adamantly disagree.
There are many other little denominations which claim to be a part of the Christian faith, but if you examine the doctrines that govern them, you can only realize how these doctrines are repugnant to the true word of God. In this piece, we have only considered the major denominations. But this is not to say that amongst the major ones, we have no denominations governed by repugnant doctrines. There can only be one truth, what is that truth? The truth is the word of God as guided by the Spirit of God.
So, upon this, it is about what God has instructed us to do rather than what we choose to believe and wish to do. The true word of God always has to emerge. Nevertheless, much as it is that scripture is paramount, the Spirit gives life (John 5:39), (2Corinthians 3:6). And that Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
It is strongly true that one of these denominations is right and the rest are being orchestrated by another spirit that is not of God. Simply cultism.
On that note therefore, there is no time when all the Christian denominations will come together as one. This is because the differences are doctrinal which touch critical areas rather than simple personal beliefs and wishes.
For even when you think two different denominations seem to agree on one thing, they will gravely disagree on the other. The Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists seem to agree on a few areas such as baptism, but when it comes to speaking in tongues, the practice of the law, and the state of the dead, they disagree terribly. Even when one denomination has pretty much scripture to uphold a particular doctrine, the other denomination will adamantly disagree.
There are many other little denominations which claim to be a part of the Christian faith, but if you examine the doctrines that govern them, you can only realize how these doctrines are repugnant to the true word of God. In this piece, we have only considered the major denominations. But this is not to say that amongst the major ones, we have no denominations governed by repugnant doctrines. There can only be one truth, what is that truth? The truth is the word of God as guided by the Spirit of God.
So, upon this, it is about what God has instructed us to do rather than what we choose to believe and wish to do. The true word of God always has to emerge. Nevertheless, much as it is that scripture is paramount, the Spirit gives life (John 5:39), (2Corinthians 3:6). And that Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
It is strongly true that one of these denominations is right and the rest are being orchestrated by another spirit that is not of God. Simply cultism.
0 comments :
Post a Comment