Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

  • 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.

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
What you're saying makes sense. However, to know if the founders of Pentecostalism had the right interpretation of scripture one has to look at the fruit of their lives and examine their other teachings and practices. If someone is a known con artist and manipulator, why should we think their interpretation of scripture is correct?

Do you know of any of the Reformers who bilked people out of their money? Any who lied to gain a following? Any who forbade the use of doctors for all their followers except for them? Any who engaged in power struggles to be top dog? Any who made one false prophecy after another? These things aren't occasional moral failures; it's a consistent pattern to all the founders of Pentecostalism.

This is what's so frustrating to me. Most Pentecostals don't even know the origins of their own beliefs and when you try to inform them they immediately go into attack mode. One doesn't need a hermeutical presentation of scripture; all that's needed is some knowledge and a little common sense.
You should not be frustrated. They don't feel the need to know these sad stories you want them to know about.

I will agree that most Pentecostals/Charismatics today do not know the history of the modern Pentecostal Movement. But I don't think it matters.

It is not "their history" and they don't relate. Most Pentecostals today have a history of their own testimonies about how they were saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit and they don't really care about these stories from 1900 as it does not matter to them if Parham ended up a sad story.

They didn't know about this history when they read the bible and believed what it said and were baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Knowledge of the modern Pentecostal history was not necessary. That is why they don't care about your sad stories.

They did not base their understanding of scriptures on any man from the 1900s they just read the bible and believed it. Many modern Pentecostals have never engaged in these theological debates having never been exposed to the questions. They just read the bible and believed and after wards they encounter people who tell them about the debates or the history of the modern Pentecostal movement. It does not matter to them because they didn't know about it before they read the bible and don't feel it is possible that they could have been tainted by any of these false teachings you want to highlight. You are probably frustrated because your theory is failing you. You can't find anyone who was tainted by these teachings. You think they are ignoring it but you are simply unwilling to concede that they based their interpretation on the plain reading of the word without human intervention. That is what is making you mad. You can't accept that.

I think you are painting with a broad brush. People like Parham were confronted as soon as they departed from scripture and moral standards and the fact that they were not tolerated demonstrates that the movement was not corrupted by these bad characters as you charge. No one ignored them. They confronted them.

You are doing the same thing that people do when they look at Christian TV networks and say that is what christians believe and teach. They have a distorted tunnel vision that is based on isolated bad examples on TV and form an world view that is inaccurate concerning true Christian teachings and doctrine and lifestyles in the real world.

The Pentecostal Movement was so much larger than the celebrity pastors and personality bad examples you can pluck from their early history. For each example of an early leader there were hundreds of thousands that were doing MORE teaching, church planting and missions work and accomplishing more for spreading the movement than that bad example celebrity pastor you use as an example. It simply is not true that Most of their leaders were bad characters. Not even close.

It seems that your own understanding of the history of the Pentecostal movement is wrong.

I challenge you to read a few more highly rated, books on the subject. These two books are considered excellent, accurate histories and are even respected as true histories by non pentecostal seminary teachers who don't believe in the teachings of Pentecostals but would vouch for these as accurate historical accounts.

This Gospel Shall be Preached (in two volumes) by Gary McGee
The Century of the Holy Spirit by Vinson Synan


There are a few others that I can recommend as well but these are often found in bibliographies of non pentecostal authors of bible college and seminary text books.

Keep reading about the history of the Pentecostal movement from detailed accounts like these and you will soon learn that Parham, did not play as large a role as you thought. You will soon learn who the real leaders were (and there were many) and the contributions they made, as well as the reasons for the growth in missions which continues to this day.

Much more was going on at the root of the movement than what Lake, or Parham did or said. MUCH, MUCH more. It was HUGE. They were little fish in comparison to the rest of the story of the ROOTS of the Pentecostal movement.

As far as which denominations have the most accounts of pastors living ungodly lives we all know it is by far the non pentecostal churches. So if you are going to use that argument you should examine the root of that problem. There are many more accounts of baptism pastors falling into sin or living an ungodly example in any given year than pentecostal pastors.
Maybe there are more Pentecostal Celebrity pastors who get exposed and become scandals but that is because There are more Pentecostal celebrity pastors and mega church pastors. However, this does not mean there are more Pentecostal pastors who fall into scandalous sin.

Pentecostal pastors have far fewer accounts of moral failures than Baptists, or Methodists etc. Far fewer. Everyone knows that.
That statistic cannot be ignored while pointing out celebrity pastors and trying to make a false conclusion based on them.
Reality is found in the number of moral failures among all their pastors and Pentecostals have fewer and always have. That is fact that you are ignoring while trying to paint a false reality based on celebrity pastors.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
I will agree that most Pentecostals/Charismatics today do not know the history of the modern Pentecostal Movement. But I don't think it matters.
If you cared about them it would matter.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
By far the most outstanding difference between a Pentecostal church (like Assemblies of God, or a non denominational)
(Pentecostal meaning any church either denominational or non denominational that teaches the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as it occurred in the book of Acts is available for the believer today)
and non Pentecostal Church (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc) is that the majority of the people in the congregation are living holy, pure lives and not compromising with the world and are fervently consumed with love for Jesus and making Him known. They live, breath, and speak Jesus 24x7. Anyone who visits a Baptist church for 6 months and then attends an Assembly of God church for 6 months will agree with this comparison. Doing this same test with a Methodist or Lutheran and an AG will expose an even more obvious difference in the makeup of "sincere Christians" living the Christlike holy life one would expect from a true disciple verses those who's salvation is questionable.

That is the fruit of Pentecostal doctrine is it not? Will you deny these statistics are true? If you concede that these statistics are true what do you think is the reason that you can find more holy lovers of Christ living the example of Christ and on fire for doing what God has called them to do in advancing the kingdom of God while living a life of no compromise with the world in a Pentecostal assembly than in a non Pentecostal assembly? What is the root cause of this prooveable fact?

If you doubt my statistics on this, you can research and find the scientific research that has been documented to prove that it is true. There is no denying the data. It has been collected and analyzed for many decades by Christian (non pentecostal) survey groups.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
"Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, 'Surely we did not know this,'
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?"—Proverbs 24:11-12​
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
If you cared about them it would matter.

Not at all. Caring about them means I will be very sensitive to focusing on the scriptures and their proper interpretation in their original context. This will be the anchor that will keep them through out all movements of church history, past present and future.
 

Edify

Well-known member
Jan 27, 2021
1,569
661
113
Why should I believe a word you say when apparently you follow false teachers and known liars. Your credibility with me is a big 0.

I don't know you personally. I'm sure you're a wonderful person but as far as your discernment goes I don't trust you.
Really?!? "You're a great guy, but you follow false teachers & known liars". Jut how can you say such things? Compliment & insult in the same sentence?
You're looking to get your foot in the door for something. Trying to make somebody mad so they will do/say something unchristianlike.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
Not at all. Caring about them means I will be very sensitive to focusing on the scriptures and their proper interpretation in their original context. This will be the anchor that will keep them through out all movements of church history, past present and future.
Arguing from scripture is futile. Scripture can be twisted but historical facts cannot; at least so long as you have documented evidence.

If you want to argue from scripture and you think it will make a bit of difference then by all means.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
Really?!? "You're a great guy, but you follow false teachers & known liars". Jut how can you say such things? Compliment & insult in the same sentence?
You're looking to get your foot in the door for something. Trying to make somebody mad so they will do/say something unchristianlike.
Edify, I'm not out to get anyone as you seem to assume.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Arguing from scripture is futile. Scripture can be twisted but historical facts cannot; at least so long as you have documented evidence.

If you want to argue from scripture and you think it will make a bit of difference then by all means.
I think you are loosing this argument. :) If the root of the Pentecostal Movement has at it's root the question about "what does the scripture say is the sign or evidence that someone has experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as they claim to have done so" (which if one reads ANY documented history of the roots of the Pentecostal movement they will discover that this was the root of the movement) Then how is it possible to discuss this Root without examining the scriptures that were discussed and the conclusion that was made, which indeed was what launched the movement? Or was indeed it's ROOTS!!!

This was the Roots. It was a theological question and answer. Trying to get people distracted with individuals that anyone can see was an embarrasement rather than deal with the theological interpretation of scriptures that was the true Root of the movement is no way to disprove the validity of the answers discovered from the scriptures were correct.

Please tell us your denomination so that we can find some moral failures to prove that you are in a cult. Would you accept this reasoning?
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
I think you are loosing this argument.
If you think this is about winning an argument then I'm afraid you seriously misunderstand me. I don't have time for trivialities like trying to win an argument. There are plenty of people here who will be more than happy to debate you.

Have a nice day.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
I think you are loosing this argument. :) If the root of the Pentecostal Movement has at it's root the question about "what does the scripture say is the sign or evidence that someone has experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as they claim to have done so" (which if one reads ANY documented history of the roots of the Pentecostal movement they will discover that this was the root of the movement) Then how is it possible to discuss this Root without examining the scriptures that were discussed and the conclusion that was made, which indeed was what launched the movement? Or was indeed it's ROOTS!!!

This was the Roots. It was a theological question and answer. Trying to get people distracted with individuals that anyone can see was an embarrasement rather than deal with the theological interpretation of scriptures that was the true Root of the movement is no way to disprove the validity of the answers discovered from the scriptures were correct.

Please tell us your denomination so that we can find some moral failures to prove that you are in a cult. Would you accept this reasoning?
the documentation of the movement is found in
Matthew 3:11 John chapter 1, John chapters 14 &15 Luke 3:16 Acts chapter 2, 10, 11, 19.

If one has to look outside the word of God to validate THE WORD OF GOD that is a work of the flesh not of faith. :)
 

JTB

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2021
2,270
737
113
I think what goes on in many Pentecostal/charismatic churches these days is precisely why Paul wrote 1 Cor 14. In it Paul adamantly teaches that tongues and prophesy have a definite time and place constraint that should not be violated. I also believe Paul taught that while he wished we all would speak in tongues, he would rather we NOT do it than do it wrong.

But all that being said, Paul also explicitly said DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

There ARE Biblical guidelines for these things. As usual guidelines are violated by many. But that is not a reason to forbid these things, especially when we are very clearly told DO NOT FORBID IT.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
If you think this is about winning an argument then I'm afraid you seriously misunderstand me. I don't have time for trivialities like trying to win an argument. There are plenty of people here who will be more than happy to debate you.

Have a nice day.
It was a play on words based on your statement "Arguing from scripture is futile" keep up bro :)

You have made strong accusations and expressed frustration at not being agreed with. You have made it a debate by the premise of your argument whether you want to call it that or not. You have asked for rebuttals and are now getting them. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. It most certainly is a debate you have entered and your side of the debate is being found weak and faulty of sound reasoning.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
The Roots of the Pentecostal Movement

The turn of the 20th century witnessed the beginning of what has been called “the Third Force” in Christendom, namely the Pentecostal movement and its most prominent denominational expression, the General Council of the Assemblies of God. Arising during a time of worldwide revival, Pentecostalism stressed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 were intended to characterize the life of the contemporary church.

The most prominent and controversial of these gifts was speaking in tongues. This emphasis marked the organized Pentecostal churches and denominations that grew out of the revival. Never an exclusively American phenomenon, Pentecostal revivals took place in India, China, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. More recently, they have occurred in charismatic segments of older Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout church history, various groups have claimed to experience the manifestations of the Spirit referred to in the New Testament.

The most immediate heritage of modern Pentecostalism can be found in the late 19th-century quest for holiness among some groups of American evangelicals. Tracing its roots to John Wesley, the Methodist-oriented holiness movement emphasized that an experience after salvation brought about an overcoming Christian life by cleansing, or eradicating, the believer’s sinful nature, what adherents called entire sanctification.

A Reformed point of view emphasizing a deeper life experience developed late in the 19th century through the preaching and writing of several prominent American preachers, notably Dwight L. Moody, Reuben A. Torrey, Adoniram J. Gordon, and A. B. Simpson. The same emphasis appeared in sermons at the Keswick Conference grounds in Great Britain. According to this Reformed perspective, at conversion the believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and this begins a lifelong process of sanctification. After conversion, and closely associated with the process of sanctification, a second baptism should be undergone by the believer. This second experience in the Holy Spirit by Christ produces an “enduement of power” for effective Christian witness. These preachers and writers also generally stressed the absolute authority of Scripture, divine healing, and the premillennial return of Christ—doctrines that eventually shaped much of the theology of the Assemblies of God.

These people were also leading advocates of Christian missions; in the Bible institutes they started, they prepared young men and women for overseas ministry. Historians usually associate the origin of modern Pentecostalism with a revival in Topeka, Kansas, that began on January 1, 1901; participants identified speaking in tongues as the evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Representing greater and more international significance, however, was the Azusa Street Revival of 1906–1907 in Los Angeles, California. Leaders of these revivals proclaimed the need of a salvation experience, faith healing, a life of holiness, the baptism in the Holy Spirit for power in Christian witness, the premillennial return of Christ, and the absolute necessity to evangelize the world through missionary endeavors.

McGee, Gary B.. This Gospel Shall Be Preached, Vol. 1: A History and Theology of Assemblies of God Foreign Missions to 1959:
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
I think what goes on in many Pentecostal/charismatic churches these days is precisely why Paul wrote 1 Cor 14. In it Paul adamantly teaches that tongues and prophesy have a definite time and place constraint that should not be violated. I also believe Paul taught that while he wished we all would speak in tongues, he would rather we NOT do it than do it wrong.

But all that being said, Paul also explicitly said DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

There ARE Biblical guidelines for these things. As usual guidelines are violated by many. But that is not a reason to forbid these things, especially when we are very clearly told DO NOT FORBID IT.
This is a classic example of taking something that was meant for a specific time and place and thinking it's for all places and all times.

If you look at all the times tongues is mentioned in the New Testament and compare that with how often things like faith, hope, or love are mentioned it's not even close. After 1 Corinthians tongues is never mentioned again in any of Paul's epistles.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
So Parham seems to end in a sad story. Nevertheless when he asked the bible students in the Topeka Kansas Bible College to examine the scriptures individually and determine what was the sign of believers being baptized in the Holy Spirit then he went away for several weeks or months I forget exactly, and came back and received their reports they had all come to the same conclusion, speaking in tongues.

Parham's failures don't reflect on conclusions that his students made when they searched the scriptures for answers when he was not even in town. So there is that! And they were not inclined to change their minds when Parham ended up in scandal later on.

Seymour was deeply hurt by the racism Parham showed when he came to visit the revivals in Azusa and Seymour is known to have questioned many of the things he thought because of the lack of love and racism in the white leaders of the movement. But as far as I know he did not change his mind on his interpretation that the book of Acts and the NT teaches that these experiences they had should be normative for modern believers today as well.

This lead them to ask for and receive this gift. It really had nothing to do with Parham and he can't take credit for it though he may have wanted to it took on a life of it's own as one of his students preached in California and the Azusa event took place. There wasn't much teaching, it was just people praying for and receiving the same experience as the book of Acts details. At the same time a similar revival was going on in India not related to the Azusa, Parham, Topeka Kansas, or Seymour. They had a unique historical origin but at the same time. The were movements around the world that sprang from Asuza but not all came from Asuza and the details can be read because the history is documented and it tells a much more positive story than what you were suggesting.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
This is a classic example of taking something that was meant for a specific time and place and thinking it's for all places and all times.

If you look at all the times tongues is mentioned in the New Testament and compare that with how often things like faith, hope, or love are mentioned it's not even close. After 1 Corinthians tongues is never mentioned again in any of Paul's epistles.
Pauls message that Love was the greatest gift and should be the motivation behind all operations of the gifts of the Spirit, does not negate the use of the gifts of the Spirit. Paul did not say Love, Faith, and Hope are more important than tongues therefore stop believing that tongues are for you today. That is not an argument he made and it does not even make sense.
Of course Love is more important. Therefore make sure that if you speak in tongues in the church assembly make sure there is someone who will give the interpretation so that all are edified because you love them and you love God and the reason you are operating in the gifts is to edify all. There is nothing in that message that suggests that one should not speak in tongues because Love is better.
 

arthurfleminger

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2021
1,405
780
113
If you think the Pentecostal Church had sketchy origins, what about the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church???????????

The Anglican Church, originally the Church of England, was founded by King Henry VIII a mass murderer!!!!!!!!

The Lutheran Church was founded by Martin Luther, the same man who wrote a manifesto entitled, "OnThe Jews and Their Lies'. This manifesto encouraged the mass murder of the Jews, the burning of their synagogues, and the confiscation of all their property. Hitler and his Nazi barbarians loved to cite Luther as justification for their treatment of Jews.

That's right, Luther advocated the mass extermination of the Jews!!!!!!!!!!!! Anti-semitism: Martin Luther And Adolf Hitler - Free Essay Example - Edubirdie