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

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...