Pentecostalism's sketchy origins
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Sounds like a fantastic week to keep in prayer in the Divine prayer language, i get the sense He will pour out even more wisdom and blessing.
Blessings to you sis!
Blessings to you sis!
Yes, I totally agree! I'm hoping to make it to church after many months with my mother being ill. Blessing to you and to your family!! <3
It's not. That's a common misunderstanding. The things that led up to Azusa started long before that. The Assemblies of God considers 1901 the inauguration date. I can't attach an image for some reason so I'll have to post a link.
https://www.themessedupchurch.com/b...e-prophets-con-artists-criminals-and-heretics
Scroll a little less than halfway down and you'll see an image that says "Setting the Stage: The Years Before the Assemblies of God." It's a picture of a plaque that hangs in the Assemblies of God museum in Springfield, Missouri. The first paragraph reads:
By their own standard, the AoG considers 1901 their official start date. The earlier "isolated reports" refer to Frank Sandford's Shiloh community in Main and John A. Dowie's Zion, Illinois community. Both these guys were as shady as they come and Parham was affiliated with them. There were other groups that claimed to have the Spirit baptism going back even further—very well-known groups.
https://www.themessedupchurch.com/b...e-prophets-con-artists-criminals-and-heretics
Scroll a little less than halfway down and you'll see an image that says "Setting the Stage: The Years Before the Assemblies of God." It's a picture of a plaque that hangs in the Assemblies of God museum in Springfield, Missouri. The first paragraph reads:
"At the turn of the 20th century, a spirit of revival sprang up in many parts of this country. Although there were isolated reports earlier of people experiencing Spirit baptism, the Topeka, Kansas, revival of 1901, (Charles Fox Parham) is considered the start of the Pentecostal movement. This revival spirit moved through Kansas, into Missouri and Texas and finally into Los Angeles (Azusa)." (underline added)
By their own standard, the AoG considers 1901 their official start date. The earlier "isolated reports" refer to Frank Sandford's Shiloh community in Main and John A. Dowie's Zion, Illinois community. Both these guys were as shady as they come and Parham was affiliated with them. There were other groups that claimed to have the Spirit baptism going back even further—very well-known groups.
-
1
- Show all
In my experience Charismatics in general have had their theology altered by their experiences. Their experiences become more important than sound reading of scripture. They torture scripture to make it say what they want it to say rather than what it actually says.
The funny thing is, pagans and any number of other groups have the same experiences Charismatics have, but the Charismatics can't see or understand this. They say: Those others are being influenced by Satan but we have the Holy Spirit.
The funny thing is, pagans and any number of other groups have the same experiences Charismatics have, but the Charismatics can't see or understand this. They say: Those others are being influenced by Satan but we have the Holy Spirit.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Not sure I understand all your comments, as some of them are not grammatically correct. But every person has their own experiences, and if a person is not hurt by gross sin in their church, they tend to respect the people and the leadership therein. Just because someone is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, doesn't mean they aren't Christlike in their behavior. And the obverse is also true. You can find good and bad apples in every denomination.
Further, in observing people outside one's circle of influence, people tend to be more critical, because they don't have the same kindred spirit - that is, they don't feel the same sentiment toward them. Therefore, it's only natural that people of other denominations appear less Christlike than the people in your own church, simply because you don't know them, and end up less tolerant of their behavior. A further problem is stereotyping, in which you come across bad behavior in one person, and then assume they all (in that denomination) are like that, which people in general tend to do.
My point is that you cannot judge denominations according to how people appear to you. "By their fruit you shall know them" is talking about whether a certain person is a true believer or not (or if they are a mature believer). It's not talking about whether or not a denomination of Christians are able to correctly interpret scripture. Interpretation is measured by how close they are to what scripture actually teaches. And if a denomination was started by someone or certain persons who don't know how to interpret scripture, then the foundation is thin ice.
So to rebut what you said here, I've seen as many Pentecostals (Apostolics included) and Charismatics (in general) practicing bad behavior as much as any other denomination. And you cannot measure the rightness of a movement by connecting it to what is deemed as holiness, because legalistic groups appear to be holy, but the legalism makes it pretention. I personally measure a denomination by the scripture, which is what was done in the Reformed Movement 500 years ago (and continues today).
I spent my first 25 years of Christian life among Pentecostals and Charismatics, and I saw the best and the worst of it. I learned a lot and grew spiritually, but eventually grew out of it due to getting weary of the Biblical ignorance and spiritual imbalance. My hope is the same for everyone in that movement.
Further, in observing people outside one's circle of influence, people tend to be more critical, because they don't have the same kindred spirit - that is, they don't feel the same sentiment toward them. Therefore, it's only natural that people of other denominations appear less Christlike than the people in your own church, simply because you don't know them, and end up less tolerant of their behavior. A further problem is stereotyping, in which you come across bad behavior in one person, and then assume they all (in that denomination) are like that, which people in general tend to do.
My point is that you cannot judge denominations according to how people appear to you. "By their fruit you shall know them" is talking about whether a certain person is a true believer or not (or if they are a mature believer). It's not talking about whether or not a denomination of Christians are able to correctly interpret scripture. Interpretation is measured by how close they are to what scripture actually teaches. And if a denomination was started by someone or certain persons who don't know how to interpret scripture, then the foundation is thin ice.
So to rebut what you said here, I've seen as many Pentecostals (Apostolics included) and Charismatics (in general) practicing bad behavior as much as any other denomination. And you cannot measure the rightness of a movement by connecting it to what is deemed as holiness, because legalistic groups appear to be holy, but the legalism makes it pretention. I personally measure a denomination by the scripture, which is what was done in the Reformed Movement 500 years ago (and continues today).
I spent my first 25 years of Christian life among Pentecostals and Charismatics, and I saw the best and the worst of it. I learned a lot and grew spiritually, but eventually grew out of it due to getting weary of the Biblical ignorance and spiritual imbalance. My hope is the same for everyone in that movement.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Paul rejoiced that the gospel was being preached, not that they were doing it in pretense. God has used (and still does) many wrong things for His own purpose, but it doesn't make those wrong things right. Worst case, God used Satan to test Job, in which God eventually edified Job through the adversity. But Satan still gets judged for his wrongdoing, because it's still wrong.
Note your statement highlighted. The vast majority of commentators deem it means silent. Note John Gill's comment at https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-28.html
Even when he says to "speak in a low voice," he concedes at the end that they should be silent.
And this begs the question, if tongues is a speaking gift designed to edify the church, then it should not be used at all in a church setting, even to "edify oneself," if it can't be interpreted or translated. The nature of Paul's rebuke is that people in church are trying to edify themselves rather than others (even if their edification is really an inflated ego - 1 Cor. 8:1).
My point is that trying to distinguish between "silent" and "quiet" is straining at a gnat, usually to justify current practice. I regularly fellowship in a group where one person speaks his prayer loudly while another is praying, which I find distracting and annoying. But I do realize that some people are extreme extroverts who need to be loud and boisterous to feel they are noticed by others, because it's how they get their self-esteem.
Even when he says to "speak in a low voice," he concedes at the end that they should be silent.
And this begs the question, if tongues is a speaking gift designed to edify the church, then it should not be used at all in a church setting, even to "edify oneself," if it can't be interpreted or translated. The nature of Paul's rebuke is that people in church are trying to edify themselves rather than others (even if their edification is really an inflated ego - 1 Cor. 8:1).
My point is that trying to distinguish between "silent" and "quiet" is straining at a gnat, usually to justify current practice. I regularly fellowship in a group where one person speaks his prayer loudly while another is praying, which I find distracting and annoying. But I do realize that some people are extreme extroverts who need to be loud and boisterous to feel they are noticed by others, because it's how they get their self-esteem.
-
1
- Show all
K
You know what I am really tired of? People giving their opinions to tear down the saints and act spiritually superior. Funny, I thought that was the devils job. I've actually been in all denominations, fellowshipped among them all and found this, that though we may have difference of opinion and belief, our main goal was/is to spread the Gospel. It's not to make one a Baptist, Naz., Wes., Catholic or worse of all the demonic Pentecostals. As a family that traveled in all those denominations and many, many more, we preach Christ crucified. We preached the Blood, and that it saves and heals and breaks the chains of bondage. And all of those churches, some who didn't even understand the full Gospel gave us an open door to preach and sing. And, I'm just a thinkin' here, if people spent a little less time tearin' down the saints and doin' the devils work, maybe, just maybe, we could see more of our friends and loved ones in heaven. Because maybe some of us are just not as spiritual or are "ignorant" in some fashion, but a Sunday school child can understand the simple message of the Gospel.
It's Not What's Over the Door
Some think today if heaven you would see, you must belong to their one church, or be lost eternally.
But according to God's Word what He's still looking for, is what He finds within your heart, and not what's over the door.
It's not what's over the door, of the church that you attend, that makes you a child of God
or a heavenly citizen.
As the eyes of the Lord look this world or', there's just one thing He's looking for. Can't you it's what's in your
heart and not what's over the door.
Does Jesus live in your heart and have you been born again? Has the blood of Calvary's Lamb washed
away all your sin? Are you fully trusting in the crucified risen Lord? Can't you see it's what's in your heart and not what's over the door?
An old song sung by the Cathedrals, makes a perfect point. I dedicate this song to CC, the OP and others who do the devils work tearing down their brothers and sisters in the Lord instead of doing what the Lord commended we should do, GO and TELL EVERYONE!!
I would reply to the OP, but replying here would have the same effect.
IMO the one thing that distinguishes the P/C (Pentecostal/Charismatic) movement is tongues. I realize the debate rages on, and very little is accomplished by it. I read MacArthur's Strange Fire and Brown's Authentic Fire, in which the debate centers around cessationism vs continuationism. Both sides have valid points to make. But overall that debate goes nowhere, because it beats around the bush, and is full of misunderstandings on both sides (as I have seen in various forums as well as those books).
IMO the crux of the matter is, what is tongues, and is what they practice today the same thing described in the NT, or did the nature of tongues change from Acts 2 to 1 Cor. 14? IMO those two questions are a "no," whereas those who practice it claim "yes" to one or the other. But if modern tongues is not the same as practiced in the NT, then there is something wrong with the P/C picture we have today.
I have a list of "then"s to this one "if": IF tongues today is not what happened in the NT times, THEN:
1. It's not of God
2. It's not a gift or manifestation of the Holy Spirit
3. It's a human ability, so it's of the flesh (not a miraculous gift of God)
4. People who practice it are deceived
5. It's the same thing as practiced in other religions since B.C.
6. The practice of it in church, and so-called interpretations are pretention, since they are from peoples' imaginations
7. By their actions they are claiming "thus saith the Lord," so they are taking the Lord's name in vain
8. If their practice is examined, questioned, and denied as authentic, and they get upset or accuse of blasphemy, then it shows that what they have is a sacred cow (idolatry).
9. It's not language, so it's meaningless babble
10. The only meaning in it is to get people to believe in it
11. It doesn't edify anyone
12. If someone feels they are edified by speaking it, that edification is not spiritual, it's fleshly, limited to the realm of feelings
There may be other conclusions that could be added to this list. But it seems to me that if the tongues debate was resolved, then there might be little difference between P/C'ism and other branches of Christianity. Certainly that's not the only issue, and there will always be differences of opinion on other matters. However, I do think this debate is important, because it provides the opportunity for people to realize how little they really understand the scriptures, so it can prompt people for deeper study. This is why I participate in these debates.
I spent my first 25 years of Christian life among the P/Cs. I once believed in the modern tongues movement. But after hearing God tell me that what I was practicing wasn't of Him, and after many years of research, study, reading, and debating, I'm a firm believer that modern tongues is merely a human ability that anyone can do if they try hard enough. And even Pentecostal dogma implies it, since they claim that everyone who receives the Spirit speaks (or should speak) in tongues. In fact, speaking in tongues is the litmus test from their POV, which they call "initial evidence."
So then, let's go the other way (from their POV): IF modern tongues IS the same as what happened in NT times, THEN: we who oppose it are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and will go to hell because our sin can't be forgiven. And if you believe this, I reviewed some property in the Mohave Desert for sale that has a lake and is ripe for building a resort with a thousand other investors. And 3 prophets told me that this will be my year of prosperity. Would you like to buy into it?
I've no doubt that if any P/Cs read this post they won't agree, nor will they ask any questions as to where I get my information or how I come to my conclusions. Instead, they will only click the "disagree" icon, or make more assertions that can't be supported by careful examination of scripture. It's because they have a vested interest in suppressing the truth about it (that is, the information I base my conclusions on). I say this as a general statement, not saying that someone won't change their mind about it.
The bottom line is, what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14 can easily fit into the miraculous framework of real human languages in Acts 2. On the other hand, what is done today cannot fit into the framework of Acts 2. And it is unfortunate that the several stories about people speaking languages they didn't learn cannot be examined or evaluated, so it remains in the realm of urban legend.
IMO the one thing that distinguishes the P/C (Pentecostal/Charismatic) movement is tongues. I realize the debate rages on, and very little is accomplished by it. I read MacArthur's Strange Fire and Brown's Authentic Fire, in which the debate centers around cessationism vs continuationism. Both sides have valid points to make. But overall that debate goes nowhere, because it beats around the bush, and is full of misunderstandings on both sides (as I have seen in various forums as well as those books).
IMO the crux of the matter is, what is tongues, and is what they practice today the same thing described in the NT, or did the nature of tongues change from Acts 2 to 1 Cor. 14? IMO those two questions are a "no," whereas those who practice it claim "yes" to one or the other. But if modern tongues is not the same as practiced in the NT, then there is something wrong with the P/C picture we have today.
I have a list of "then"s to this one "if": IF tongues today is not what happened in the NT times, THEN:
1. It's not of God
2. It's not a gift or manifestation of the Holy Spirit
3. It's a human ability, so it's of the flesh (not a miraculous gift of God)
4. People who practice it are deceived
5. It's the same thing as practiced in other religions since B.C.
6. The practice of it in church, and so-called interpretations are pretention, since they are from peoples' imaginations
7. By their actions they are claiming "thus saith the Lord," so they are taking the Lord's name in vain
8. If their practice is examined, questioned, and denied as authentic, and they get upset or accuse of blasphemy, then it shows that what they have is a sacred cow (idolatry).
9. It's not language, so it's meaningless babble
10. The only meaning in it is to get people to believe in it
11. It doesn't edify anyone
12. If someone feels they are edified by speaking it, that edification is not spiritual, it's fleshly, limited to the realm of feelings
There may be other conclusions that could be added to this list. But it seems to me that if the tongues debate was resolved, then there might be little difference between P/C'ism and other branches of Christianity. Certainly that's not the only issue, and there will always be differences of opinion on other matters. However, I do think this debate is important, because it provides the opportunity for people to realize how little they really understand the scriptures, so it can prompt people for deeper study. This is why I participate in these debates.
I spent my first 25 years of Christian life among the P/Cs. I once believed in the modern tongues movement. But after hearing God tell me that what I was practicing wasn't of Him, and after many years of research, study, reading, and debating, I'm a firm believer that modern tongues is merely a human ability that anyone can do if they try hard enough. And even Pentecostal dogma implies it, since they claim that everyone who receives the Spirit speaks (or should speak) in tongues. In fact, speaking in tongues is the litmus test from their POV, which they call "initial evidence."
So then, let's go the other way (from their POV): IF modern tongues IS the same as what happened in NT times, THEN: we who oppose it are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and will go to hell because our sin can't be forgiven. And if you believe this, I reviewed some property in the Mohave Desert for sale that has a lake and is ripe for building a resort with a thousand other investors. And 3 prophets told me that this will be my year of prosperity. Would you like to buy into it?
I've no doubt that if any P/Cs read this post they won't agree, nor will they ask any questions as to where I get my information or how I come to my conclusions. Instead, they will only click the "disagree" icon, or make more assertions that can't be supported by careful examination of scripture. It's because they have a vested interest in suppressing the truth about it (that is, the information I base my conclusions on). I say this as a general statement, not saying that someone won't change their mind about it.
The bottom line is, what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14 can easily fit into the miraculous framework of real human languages in Acts 2. On the other hand, what is done today cannot fit into the framework of Acts 2. And it is unfortunate that the several stories about people speaking languages they didn't learn cannot be examined or evaluated, so it remains in the realm of urban legend.
Are you then accusing me of doing the devil's work? You are acting as if your belief in this issue cannot be examined or evaluated. You are acting as if the movement you subscribe to is your "door" to God. Is this so? My answer to your question "isn't this the devil's work" is NO. But for you to suggest it, implies that what you have is a sacred cow.
But great strategy to divert the issue and claim that I'm trying to bash you and the movement you subscribe to, and then claim that I'm not supporting the gospel or trying to convert people. It's fairly obvious to me that you are upset by one single statement I made, which, by the way, is a true statement which I observed in my 25 years experience in the movement. And I still observe it in P/Cs whom I remain friends with.
It appears to me that you are nitpicking what I wrote, because you are looking for something to argue about. You see that one statement and blow it out of proportion, and take it personally, as if I am directing it toward you. Well, if you think the shoe is fitting, then why don't you prove me wrong by debating the issue from a Biblical standpoint, if you're willing?
I'll present a challenge to you: if you think that modern glossolalia is the same thing as what was done in Acts 2, then why don't you prove it so? But if you can't prove it, and you excuse yourself by saying you don't have to prove anything, then why are you so upset? My opinion on the matter is just as good as yours, and I can present evidence that makes my opinion better than yours concerning this issue (this is my claim). Care to spar?
But great strategy to divert the issue and claim that I'm trying to bash you and the movement you subscribe to, and then claim that I'm not supporting the gospel or trying to convert people. It's fairly obvious to me that you are upset by one single statement I made, which, by the way, is a true statement which I observed in my 25 years experience in the movement. And I still observe it in P/Cs whom I remain friends with.
It appears to me that you are nitpicking what I wrote, because you are looking for something to argue about. You see that one statement and blow it out of proportion, and take it personally, as if I am directing it toward you. Well, if you think the shoe is fitting, then why don't you prove me wrong by debating the issue from a Biblical standpoint, if you're willing?
I'll present a challenge to you: if you think that modern glossolalia is the same thing as what was done in Acts 2, then why don't you prove it so? But if you can't prove it, and you excuse yourself by saying you don't have to prove anything, then why are you so upset? My opinion on the matter is just as good as yours, and I can present evidence that makes my opinion better than yours concerning this issue (this is my claim). Care to spar?