Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[TDidymas]

If I were to form an 'law of first reference' rule out of Acts 2 I would soon have to abandon it as I read the other accounts that do not match my theory.

I think I need to take all of the scriptures and the context of each concerning speaking in tongues and get an entire picture by the contribution of each mention. I believe there is progressive revelation at play in the subsequent events and mentions. It is obvious that there are differences.

Also if one does formulate some kind of measuring rod with Acts 2 to judge all other instances that occur in scripture one better have the correct measurement of they will be far afield very quickly.

As already mentioned, a careful analysis of Acts 2 suggests that the reason for the amazement was not just that they had run into bilingual people. They were so confounded and Marveled because they could not figure out how it was possible for themselves and another person who spoke a different language, to both hear them speaking in their own languages.

Mind boggling How can this Be?

Now you may not agree with that interpretation but it is what the text says and I am being as faithful to it as possible without having to change the meaning to fit my bias or prejudice.

This is where our paths diverge, as I disagree with your interpretation. What I see is that you put your own spin on what it actually says in order to justify what you're doing. It doesn't say what you claim. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. It clearly says the apostles spoke those languages.

If this is what it means it adds to the supernatural element of this event.

5Now there were Jews staying in Jerusalem, devout people from every nation under heaven. 6When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7They were astounded and amazed, saying,A “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8How is it that each of us can hear them in our own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts), 11Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the magnificent acts of God in our own tongues.” 12They were all astounded and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean? ” 13But some sneered and said, “They’re drunk on new wine.”

If you read it carefully you can really get the sense that Luke is highlighting the impact it had on those who could not make sense of how people who spoke different languages could understand the same speakers in their own language. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? How is the possible? They were astounded and perplexed by this. It is way more than finding out someone can speak your own language that would cause all of these emotions and have this kind of impact.

It is also the fact that others who don't speak your language could understand the same speakers in their own language and you don't understand their language. How can this be?

At this point I lean toward the interpretation based on the plain reading of the text that it is a case where they understood all of the 120 speakers in their own language and others understood in their own language. But I cannot contend for that. Maybe they only heard some of the 120 that were near them and noticed that others of another language also understood them.

At this point I believe that the supernatural element of two or more people who spoke different languages understanding the same speakers in their own language were aware that others who spoke another language also understood the same speakers was the reason for their amazement and perplexity and this is what Luke was presenting. This boggled their minds at the supernatural event they were a part of.

Also that others mocking and accusing them of being drunk does not match what someone would think if they thought you had just learned a language instantly. They did not understand them. They thought they were speaking nonsense, babbling incoherently, like a drunk person. That is the most obvious interpretation that would not need further explanation from Luke.

If you insist that it was each 120 speaking a known foreign language such that one could record them send the recording to linguists and identify the language (which I do not believe is what is going on here) then you will have difficulty reconciling much of what Paul wrote about the use of the gift latter.

If you do use Acts 2 to insist that each of the other events in Acts has them speaking in foreign languages and yet there is no foreigners there to hear them, then what was the purpose. And some modifications to the "law of first reference' formulated from Acts 2 is immediately required. Also there is no mention of the cloven tongues of flame setting upon anyone else after the Acts 2 event in which case further modifications to the the rule of Acts 2 must be made.

When Paul writes so much about the use of the gift and says that his own understanding is unfruitful when he prays in tongues we cannot ignore the fact that these kinds of additional details give us a whole picture that makes it very difficult to insist on an identifiable language that can be recorded and sent to linguists for identification.

I believe that is not how the gift of tongues works. Nor can you record someone praying in tongues or even someone who gives a tongue in a church service to be interpreted and then take that recording and give it to someone who claims to have the gift of interpretation and have them interpret. If they really are used to give interpretations of tongues in their local church they will tell you that they cannot help you with that. That the Holy Spirit will not give them the interpretation under such a challenge circumstance like that. That the Holy Spirit will not cooperate with their challenge. That the Holy Spirit gives them interpretations in the moment of the utterance in the assembly to edify those that are there and not to answer a skeptics recording challenge.

If the apostles actually spoke those languages, it was clearly miraculous. And so with every instance cited in the NT. Such signs as that and others they performed authenticated the gospel they preached. I just don't see that modern tongues measures up to that kind of miraculous event.

Paul was very clear that not everyone who received the Spirit spoke in tongues - 1 Cor. 12:30. Yet P/Cs continue to declare that everyone receiving the Spirit speaks in tongues. I heard it numerous times, and official doctrines of Pentecostals state that tongues is "the initial evidence" of the baptism of the H.S. This is clearly contrary to what Paul wrote.

But modern tongues is of a type of behavior that can be performed by anyone, whether Christian or not. Many people in other religions like Hindus, Muslims, and even Voodoo practitioners do the same. Pagan religions had the practice since some time B.C. They claim they are speaking the language of their gods, and some believe they are possessed by their gods. Some call it superstition or demonic, but I say it's simply a human ability. Anyone can do it, and it's been proven to be so. The claim that it's a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Th.D. to see that there is something wrong with the picture. Your interpretation is clearly slanted, and is not the natural reading of the text.

 

[Gideon300]

Those two certainly don't represent the hard core of the Pentecostal movement in the same way that the Kardasians don't represent ordinary American familes.

I agree. But it was Pentecostals especially who embraced the Toronto Blessing. In Australia, the AOG and CRC, the two main Pentecostal denominations, were almost 100% behind it. A number of charismatics fell for it also. The biggest Baptist church in Australia said no thanks.

I can go into this in depth. A number of us thought at first it was a genuine revival. We were not looking to condemn it from the start. We are not anti the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and we believe that all the gifts of the Spirit are valid for today. However, we believe that the role of the Holy Spirit is to make what is of Christ real in the Christian's experience. The Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus. If the "spirit" is not glorifying Jesus, then it is not the Holy Spirit.

The weakness in much of Pentecostalism is spiritual pride. I was a member of a Baptist church. The pastor initially rejected the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He came back from a conference where he'd had a change of heart. Most of the congregation embraced it also. Those who did not, left. I became a member just after this event. I noticed how contemptuous many were towards those who had not been so touched. "Hang on, were you not there yesterday?", I thought to myself. I was still a baby in Jesus. So I said nothing. I'd not hold back now.

 

[Amanuensis]

This is where our paths diverge, as I disagree with your interpretation. What I see is that you put your own spin on what it actually says in order to justify what you're doing. It doesn't say what you claim. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. It clearly says the apostles spoke those languages.



If the apostles actually spoke those languages, it was clearly miraculous. And so with every instance cited in the NT. Such signs as that and others they performed authenticated the gospel they preached. I just don't see that modern tongues measures up to that kind of miraculous event.

Paul was very clear that not everyone who received the Spirit spoke in tongues - 1 Cor. 12:30. Yet P/Cs continue to declare that everyone receiving the Spirit speaks in tongues. I heard it numerous times, and official doctrines of Pentecostals state that tongues is "the initial evidence" of the baptism of the H.S. This is clearly contrary to what Paul wrote.

But modern tongues is of a type of behavior that can be performed by anyone, whether Christian or not. Many people in other religions like Hindus, Muslims, and even Voodoo practitioners do the same. Pagan religions had the practice since some time B.C. They claim they are speaking the language of their gods, and some believe they are possessed by their gods. Some call it superstition or demonic, but I say it's simply a human ability. Anyone can do it, and it's been proven to be so. The claim that it's a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Th.D. to see that there is something wrong with the picture. Your interpretation is clearly slanted, and is not the natural reading of the text.

I am sure that you already know this but Pentecostals (and many other scholars who have commented on the text) believe that Paul was talking about in the assembly not all speak in tongues.

But all did on the day of Pentecost and each event in Acts so therefore he must be talking about in the assembly which he explains should be done one at a time and with an interpreter and not every one is going to operate in this gift.

Otherwise you would have Luke saying everyone spoke in tongues and Paul saying they didn't. Which is not the case. Both must reconcile and understanding the context of Paul in 1 Cor 14 would be that not everyone is going to utter a tongue in the assembly for the purpose of someone with the gift of interpretation interpreting it.

He said just two or three at the most. But he did not intend for anyone to misapply that and insist that not everyone spoke in tongues in the several Acts accounts recorded by Luke because everyone of them did.

To say that believing that everyone of them did in the Acts account, and then to say that this cannot happen in modern accounts because Paul said "do all speak in tongues" is to force a meaning Paul did not intend and to ignore the fact that all did speak in tongues in the Act accounts. Paul knew that. Therefore Paul had to mean in the context of what he explained about taking turns in the assembly for interpretation.

Would you be so bold as to say "Paul? Yes. They all spoke in tongues in the Acts accounts, didn't you know that?"

Of course you would not say that in answer to Paul's question because common sense tells you that Paul already knew that, and therefore Paul must be talking about the manifestation of one or two or at the most three in the assembly while another gives the interpretation. Not all will operate in that gift.

 

[peldom10]

This is where our paths diverge, as I disagree with your interpretation. What I see is that you put your own spin on what it actually says in order to justify what you're doing. It doesn't say what you claim. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. It clearly says the apostles spoke those languages.



If the apostles actually spoke those languages, it was clearly miraculous. And so with every instance cited in the NT. Such signs as that and others they performed authenticated the gospel they preached. I just don't see that modern tongues measures up to that kind of miraculous event.

Paul was very clear that not everyone who received the Spirit spoke in tongues - 1 Cor. 12:30. Yet P/Cs continue to declare that everyone receiving the Spirit speaks in tongues. I heard it numerous times, and official doctrines of Pentecostals state that tongues is "the initial evidence" of the baptism of the H.S. This is clearly contrary to what Paul wrote.

But modern tongues is of a type of behavior that can be performed by anyone, whether Christian or not. Many people in other religions like Hindus, Muslims, and even Voodoo practitioners do the same. Pagan religions had the practice since some time B.C. They claim they are speaking the language of their gods, and some believe they are possessed by their gods. Some call it superstition or demonic, but I say it's simply a human ability. Anyone can do it, and it's been proven to be so. The claim that it's a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Th.D. to see that there is something wrong with the picture. Your interpretation is clearly slanted, and is not the natural reading of the text.

His are typical of new age religion attempts to change scriptures by commanding acceptance of his theories. Reflective of leftist tactics. "You got to accept this because I said so".

Too funny....if it wasn't so serious to the Christian community.

 

[peldom10]

i interloped with my wife 30 years ago, so there is no else for me to interlope with but my Mrs.

Not surprised.....that you do not understand the difference in interloper and...eloper.
LOL

 

[kaylagrl]

The personal affront is the sarcasm, as if to say I don't know what I'm talking about, which is the double standard I see in your responses.

You don't have any special knowledge. That's the point.

And this is what I see in much of P/C attitude. An experience misinterpreted inclines one to a cultic role, because they get the feeling they have something the ordinary Christian doesn't have. That's egos getting puffed up.

Yeah, and that would be called judging. Which I could turn around on you. You're judging someone's intent and heart, you're not God.

And besides that, P/C doctrine on soteriology has vestiges of Catholic/Orthodox religion in their legalistic bent. I saw it and felt it for 25 years when among them, and I see it a lot in these forums.

Could you explain how they are "legalistic" please.

No, you misunderstand me (again, your prejudice is speaking here). Your false judgment of me simply proves what I said, you think you're above me and can judge my motives, but you are wrong about it. Your attitude reeks of "holier than thou."

No, you're literally judging again. And that happens often when talking about tongues. You're making an assumption that I feel speaking in tongues makes me more spiritual than you. Heard this same thing for years. That's on you, that's something you're projecting. It has nothing to do with how I feel about those who don't speak in tongues. Already said, fellowship with all kinds of saints, and only here at CC do I ever find an issue. It makes me often wonder...

If you really believe that, then why aren't you acknowledging my view? Yet, one of us is wrong about the matter (or we both are). It's not a matter of "2 views," it's a matter of what modern tongues really is.

Lol because you're dogmatically saying you're right. Then turn around and judge me as holier than thou. smh

This is where our paths diverge. My belief is based on what scripture says, but your belief is based on your assessment of your experience. Big difference.

Another judgement call. You're belief is based on your experience also. The Scripture says "when the perfect has come", I say that hasn't happened yet, you say it has. And this is one of the few times in Scripture that there isn't a clear answer either way. You say there is, I say there is. But neither of us can say "here, here is the day, hour, minute tongues will cease." You're assuming, I'm assuming. You can be dogmatic all day and say you're right, but you have no more proof than I do. You have your experience and I have mine. It's simply that you won't acknowledge my experience, and that would be hypocritical.

Correct, you were not clear. But this begs a question.
Is that person still alive? Do you have access to them? Can their tongues be recorded? Since I'm a skeptic on the subject, I need more than an anecdote, since stories can be embellished, as do many in the P/C movement.

They are alive, they live in another country. How is the story embellished. He came to the Lord through tongues. Why do assume every story that doesn't back up your claim is a lie? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I embellish the story. Now Pentecostals are liars. Record their tongues? No, I can't do that, we live a long distance from each other. Nor can I see him agreeing to such a crazy request. But listen, I can get you the name of the church and you can call and see if he'll prove to you he's not demonic. You can quiz him and see if he's a liar. I'll give you that much info privately. But you're a skeptic, so I don't see the point. If you're calling me a liar why would you believe him??

 

[DavidTree]

Not surprised.....that you do not understand the difference in interloper and...eloper.
LOL

Dear Brother, i just want to thank you for the 'interloper' comment last nite - gave me the best joyful laughter of the day and into this morning.

Peace to you Brother - when we learn to love each other we will laugh and rejoice knowing we have Christ and HE has us.

 

[DavidTree]

The personal affront is the sarcasm, as if to say I don't know what I'm talking about, which is the double standard I see in your responses. Did the apostle Paul ever say he knew better than other people? - 1 Tim. 1:7. In 1 Cor. 8:1, Paul mentions knowledge puffing up (the ego) in reference to idols. And this is what I see in much of P/C attitude. An experience misinterpreted inclines one to a cultic role, because they get the feeling they have something the ordinary Christian doesn't have. That's egos getting puffed up.

And besides that, P/C doctrine on soteriology has vestiges of Catholic/Orthodox religion in their legalistic bent. I saw it and felt it for 25 years when among them, and I see it a lot in these forums.



No, you misunderstand me (again, your prejudice is speaking here). Your false judgment of me simply proves what I said, you think you're above me and can judge my motives, but you are wrong about it. Your attitude reeks of "holier than thou."


If you really believe that, then why aren't you acknowledging my view? Yet, one of us is wrong about the matter (or we both are). It's not a matter of "2 views," it's a matter of what modern tongues really is.


You could make it about that, but I'm addressing a different narrative, which is directly related to the OP.


This is where our paths diverge. My belief is based on what scripture says, but your belief is based on your assessment of your experience. Big difference. And besides that, maturity is not measured by the toleration of error.


Correct, you were not clear. But this begs a question. Is that person still alive? Do you have access to them? Can their tongues be recorded? Since I'm a skeptic on the subject, I need more than an anecdote, since stories can be embellished, as do many in the P/C movement.

Dear Brother/Sister?,

Puffed up is not a good thing just as you point out.

With this we agree and i would like to point out that the first person to be "puffed up" was a intellectual speaker who was against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and is recorded in Acts.
As then, so it is today, John McArthur and others are "puffed up" against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and even worse continue in unbelief speaking in willful ignorance on this matter.

What a man sows, that also shall he reap.............."but let that man ask in faith, not doubting for he will receive nothing from the LORD."

 

[Aaron56]

I hear you, bro. I take it you're talking about group rivalry that Paul was rebuking in 1 Cor. There ought to be unity among the churches. But the naming of the type of church it is besides location really is necessary in these days because of the disunity of doctrine. It indirectly lets people know the doctrinal nuances or emphasis of the leadership. That may be a good or a bad thing, depending on what people do with it.

I understand the reasoning behind labels. I would add that the contemporary church is linked to a market mechanism and their names are merely ingredient labels: useful information for shoppers. In this market, people decide for themselves what they want to hear.

 

[hornetguy]

Not surprised.....that you do not understand the difference in interloper and...eloper.
LOL

What I don't understand is why you called him/her an interloper in the first place..... ????

 

[ResidentAlien]

It seems that you are pretty well prejudiced against the Pentecostal movement, flavouring your interpretation of the history.

Pentecostals don't need me to flavor their history, they do a great job of that on their own.

 

[Amanuensis]

His are typical of new age religion attempts to change scriptures by commanding acceptance of his theories. Reflective of leftist tactics. "You got to accept this because I said so".

Too funny....if it wasn't so serious to the Christian community.

No one is demanding acceptance of interpretation. There isn't a shadow of a hint of a demand to accept my interpretation.

I simply explained an interpretation. The one that is the most natural reading of the text, (in my opinion) the one that someone is most likely to notice if left alone without someone "attempting to change it for them" As I see it.

You are free to decide what is the best interpretation and to present your reasons why you think what I said missed the mark from exegeting the text. That is what @TDidymas does.

I have purposed to try not to include any judgments about motives of those who don't interpret it the same way. I mainly focus on the interpretation that they provide and see if it aligns with the rules of interpretation. If it is better than what I have presented I will embrace it in a heart beat.

Words like "new age, and leftists" don't apply to the conversation. No one even knows what you are trying to say. Maybe if you presented your reasons why my interpretation does not match the text and what you believe the intended message Luke meant for Theophilis to understand it would benefit the readers. @TDidymas and I are not arguing, hurling accusations or mad at each other.


Giving a reason why you interpret it a certain way is not a 'demand for others to agree because you said so'.

I would encourage everyone, myself included, to practice focusing on presenting your interpretation of a text and why you believe it is the best one while leaving out any comments as to the personal motives of people who hold to a different interpretation. Those that differ should present their reasons for interpretation without making any accusations about the morality of the person who has a different interpretation.

That way the best interpretations will be explored and people can decide based on the rules of hermeneutics and no one is sinning by insulting one another. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

[DavidTree]

I don't wish to share any Scriptures. What Scriptures would you like to share?

"I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Matthew 3:11

 

[DavidTree]

Pentecostals don't need me to flavor their history, they do a great job of that on their own.

Jesus was the first Pentecostal.

Jesus, as the first Pentecostal, said to His disciples - "follow Me"

Jesus, as the first Penetcostal, said to His disciples -"wait for the Promise of the Father which you have heard from Me.........

So the Disciples heard the Word of God, believed on Him and were all Baptized in the power of the Holy Spirit - me too!!!

 

[ResidentAlien]

Jesus was the first Pentecostal.

Jesus, as the first Pentecostal, said to His disciples - "follow Me"

Jesus, as the first Penetcostal, said to His disciples -"wait for the Promise of the Father which you have heard from Me.........

So the Disciples heard the Word of God, believed on Him and were all Baptized in the power of the Holy Spirit - me too!!!

Right, if you say so.

 

[DavidTree]

Right, if you say so.

The Word says so and HE will not change His mind.

I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

And while they were gathered together, He commanded them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift the Father promised, which you have heard Me discuss. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts ch2


and MORE then once.....................Acts 4ch4

And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

 

[Oblio]

Resident Alien, you are two things...predictable and pathetic...while we're at it, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
Did I mention that you are blind also? If not, I just did! Lol
Attributing work of the Holy Spirit to Satan is not a good thing to do. You need to give yourself a shake, and if you are still able to, repent! You've been warned!

 

[ResidentAlien]

Resident Alien, you are two things...predictable and pathetic...while we're at it, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
Did I mention that you are blind also? If not, I just did! Lol
Attributing work of the Holy Spirit to Satan is not a good thing to do. You need to give yourself a shake, and if you are still able to, repent! You've been warned!

Thank you. I'm predictable because I'm right and I know I'm right. I'm probably not right on a lot of things but on this, yeah, I am. So get in line, tell me how afraid I should be; water off a duck's back.

Actually, I have nothing against Pentecostals or Charismatics. I know many of them and they're the sweetest people I know. But when it comes to the truth about their doctrine and their history they're clueless. And not just clueless but willingly so.

 

[JeffA]

I you start uttering words that no one in the room can understand, it is of no benefit to anyone. Therefore, they should not be uttered.
Nor is the spirit that guides those words "Holy".
There is ZERO support for this activity in scripture.
IMHO

 

[Oblio]

The Holy Spirit is my best friend...I don't like people lying about Him. He has feelings too, you know!
Calling people liberals and new agers. Point out where I'm not telling the truth and I'll take it back!
Okay, perhaps he's not ugly and his mother didn't dress him funny. Sometimes people need a taste of their own medicine before they'll stop their bad behavior.