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.
I agree with the concept that these things were one time events. The flames over their heads, the sound of the rushing mighty wind, and even the mention of the foreign languages. After that no mention of foreign languages or anyone understanding in another language.
Speaking in tongues happens enough to make it an expected norm however you imagine it sounded like.
Laying on hands happens enough to make one think it is a valid method for praying for someone to receive but the fact that Ananias of Damascus did it for Paul who was known only as a New Testament type of prophet (a Christian who operated in the gift of prophesy more than others so they were known as prophets) and he was not one of the 12 apostles or any kind of an apostle tells us that it is an act of faith that believers can do for someone they are praying for to receive the gift.
A power to be a witness. Supernatural Holy Spirit gifts. Because the Holy Spirit for salvation, or regeneration has already come into the persons heart through faith in Jesus and so we are not saying that this believer does not have the Holy Spirit but this laying on of hands and praying for them them to receive power to be a witness with the gifts of the Holy Spirit is an additional empowering that God will grant to those who have faith and ask.
No one Has to lay hands on them, just like no one Has to lay hands on someone to be healed. A person can pray in faith for healing and receive it even if there is no one to lay hands on them, but laying on of hands is an act of faith and we do it believing that something is really going to happen and God answers the prayers of faith and expectation not doubt, unbelief and skepticism.
No one laid hands on the many that were gathered when they prayed to be filled with the Holy Spirit to be preach the word Boldly and that signs and wonders would be manifest as they testified of the resurrection of Jesus, and the whole place was shaken and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.
These many events that happened in different ways and in different orders show that the order is not set in stone formula that one must follow or it is not the real thing. The New Testament Spirit and Truth reality does not follow an Old Testament temple cultic pattern of doing things that must follow the exact procedure to be authorized by the religious leaders. Let's not try and turn it into that.
My objection to the P/C movement, to the brass tacks:
What I find wrong with the Pentecostal/Charismatic (P/C) movement (that is, the modern 'tongues' movement) is evidenced by two things: (1) the obvious difference between modern tongues and Biblical tongues, and (2) the misinterpretation of scripture for the purpose of justifying their practice.
(1) Biblical tongues is described in Acts 2, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture to indicate that the nature of tongues changed from that day to what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14. Paul's description fits well in the Acts 2 narrative, but modern tongues doesn't. The Acts 2 narrative makes it very obvious that what happened then was a miraculous act of God. But in contrast, modern tongues is not proving to be miraculous. Instead, it is shrouded in mystery by those people who have a vested interest in keeping it mysterious, as if that was some proof it was miraculous. To any well-thinking person, this is an obvious difference in behavior between the Acts 2 narrative and the modern narrative.
(2) Just because people cannot explain modern tongues, it is assumed to be the same thing as Acts 2, but it's not. Even many P/Cs acknowledge a difference by trying to work around the problem by reinterpreting scripture the way they want it to read. Some claim that the nature of tongues changed after Acts 2, while others claim that Acts 2 was a hearing miracle rather than a speaking miracle. But the fact that the text clearly shows it was a speaking miracle proves that people do acknowledge the difference, but are unwilling to conform themselves to the Biblical narrative.
Concerning the idea that the Acts 2 narrative was a hearing miracle and not a speaking miracle is ludicrous to anyone who has a clear enough mind to read the original intent of what is actually written. Yet, the M.O. of many in the P/C movement is to disregard the original intent and natural flow of the text, and instead to impose their own subjective idea onto the text to make it read how they want it to read.
Therefore, the reason why the movement continues is because of religious sentiment. Such sentiment may be based on fear, superstition, deception, or even more sinister motives (such as a desire to gain a following, for example). There is nothing wrong with religious sentiment in and of itself, just like there is nothing wrong with eating in and of itself. But when eating becomes gluttony, then it is sinful. When sex becomes an addiction, then it is sinful, the same as drinking alcohol, or any other sin listed in scripture, including gossip, slander, and "things like these." If religious sentiment becomes the thing by which I judge everything and everyone, including how the Bible is to be read, then it is sinful.
So if I use the scripture to judge myself in order to conform my thoughts and behavior to what it says, isn't this the right way to use scripture? And doesn't it require that I read it the same way it was written, by understanding the original intent of it?
But if I use the scripture to justify my religious sentiment, then am I not judging scripture based on my religious sentiment? Yet, this is the M.O. of modern tongue-talkers. Based on their belief (religious feeling) that their tongues has to be the same thing as the Biblical narrative, they impose their idea onto scripture by reading their experience into the scripture, in order to justify their practice.
But just because someone practices something they deem religious, and it makes them feel better, doesn't justify what they are doing. Every religion in the world does the same thing. Every cult does the same thing. And this is what makes the P/C movement cult-like in behavior. They prey on peoples' ignorance (or their own) to gain followers (or whatever other motive may be in play). This is why the P/C movement is so far reaching and rapidly growing among the poor and uneducated.
Such is evidenced by the fact that most tongues activists get very upset when someone speaks ill (in their assessment) of their religious sentiment. It is somewhat like a young child with a vanity ballon. When some sharp object pokes the balloon, it bursts - goes BANG - and then the child crys "wah, wah." But in the case of religous sentiment, it becomes more sinister than merely "my feeling is hurt." There are outbursts of anger, cries of "blasphemy," "you're spiritually dead," and other such things. Those kinds of behavior prove that the religious sentiment has become idolatry, known as a "sacred cow."
It ends up very much like the modern social media culture. When someone's feelings (religious sentiment) is hurt, they complain to the moderator, and if the moderator conforms to the social media culture, they ban the person speaking ill (in their assessment) of another's religious sentiment.
Furthermore, if my religious sentiment is the basis on which I interpret scripture, then isn't my faith more in my religious sentiment than in the text of scripture? Of course it is! Yet, this is the M.O. of people in the modern 'tongues' movement.
This is what is wrong with the picture. This is why I say that someone who stands up and speaks their modern tongues (pseudo-language) in an assembly is, by their action, saying, "listen to what God has to say." And in doing so, they are taking the name of the Lord in vain, because they aren't speaking what God says, because their 'tongues' is not the obviously miraculous tongues of the NT. It's a human phenomenon that people stumbled upon in almost every religion of the world.
Furthermore, anyone who stands in an assembly and speaks an 'interpretation' of that 'tongue' is speaking not what God says, but speaks out of their imagination. Just because they quote scripture or say the same thing as scripture doesn't mean God is speaking. What they said may be true, but their action is a claim "thus saith the Lord" in this whole modern P/C narrative, when the Lord is not speaking in that narrative. In such a way they also take the name of the Lord in vain.
There are many other things wrong with the P/C movement, such as speaking the same kind of hype that people want to hear, just like the false prophets of the OT did. Prophets in the P/C movement are a dime a dozen. They say things people like to hear, but there is no accountability when their 'prophecies' don't come true. But still, the debate rages on.
It seems to me that people who are seeking God by seeking the truth, if coming to understand the things I am talking about here, will say to themselves "could it be that I have been deceived by the tongue-talking phenomenon? Has my faith been misplaced in a phenomenon rather than in the real Christ who sits on His Father's throne in heaven? Rather than in the true meaning of scripture, which is its original intent?"
What I find wrong with the Pentecostal/Charismatic (P/C) movement (that is, the modern 'tongues' movement) is evidenced by two things: (1) the obvious difference between modern tongues and Biblical tongues, and (2) the misinterpretation of scripture for the purpose of justifying their practice.
(1) Biblical tongues is described in Acts 2, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture to indicate that the nature of tongues changed from that day to what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14. Paul's description fits well in the Acts 2 narrative, but modern tongues doesn't. The Acts 2 narrative makes it very obvious that what happened then was a miraculous act of God. But in contrast, modern tongues is not proving to be miraculous. Instead, it is shrouded in mystery by those people who have a vested interest in keeping it mysterious, as if that was some proof it was miraculous. To any well-thinking person, this is an obvious difference in behavior between the Acts 2 narrative and the modern narrative.
(2) Just because people cannot explain modern tongues, it is assumed to be the same thing as Acts 2, but it's not. Even many P/Cs acknowledge a difference by trying to work around the problem by reinterpreting scripture the way they want it to read. Some claim that the nature of tongues changed after Acts 2, while others claim that Acts 2 was a hearing miracle rather than a speaking miracle. But the fact that the text clearly shows it was a speaking miracle proves that people do acknowledge the difference, but are unwilling to conform themselves to the Biblical narrative.
Concerning the idea that the Acts 2 narrative was a hearing miracle and not a speaking miracle is ludicrous to anyone who has a clear enough mind to read the original intent of what is actually written. Yet, the M.O. of many in the P/C movement is to disregard the original intent and natural flow of the text, and instead to impose their own subjective idea onto the text to make it read how they want it to read.
Therefore, the reason why the movement continues is because of religious sentiment. Such sentiment may be based on fear, superstition, deception, or even more sinister motives (such as a desire to gain a following, for example). There is nothing wrong with religious sentiment in and of itself, just like there is nothing wrong with eating in and of itself. But when eating becomes gluttony, then it is sinful. When sex becomes an addiction, then it is sinful, the same as drinking alcohol, or any other sin listed in scripture, including gossip, slander, and "things like these." If religious sentiment becomes the thing by which I judge everything and everyone, including how the Bible is to be read, then it is sinful.
So if I use the scripture to judge myself in order to conform my thoughts and behavior to what it says, isn't this the right way to use scripture? And doesn't it require that I read it the same way it was written, by understanding the original intent of it?
But if I use the scripture to justify my religious sentiment, then am I not judging scripture based on my religious sentiment? Yet, this is the M.O. of modern tongue-talkers. Based on their belief (religious feeling) that their tongues has to be the same thing as the Biblical narrative, they impose their idea onto scripture by reading their experience into the scripture, in order to justify their practice.
But just because someone practices something they deem religious, and it makes them feel better, doesn't justify what they are doing. Every religion in the world does the same thing. Every cult does the same thing. And this is what makes the P/C movement cult-like in behavior. They prey on peoples' ignorance (or their own) to gain followers (or whatever other motive may be in play). This is why the P/C movement is so far reaching and rapidly growing among the poor and uneducated.
Such is evidenced by the fact that most tongues activists get very upset when someone speaks ill (in their assessment) of their religious sentiment. It is somewhat like a young child with a vanity ballon. When some sharp object pokes the balloon, it bursts - goes BANG - and then the child crys "wah, wah." But in the case of religous sentiment, it becomes more sinister than merely "my feeling is hurt." There are outbursts of anger, cries of "blasphemy," "you're spiritually dead," and other such things. Those kinds of behavior prove that the religious sentiment has become idolatry, known as a "sacred cow."
It ends up very much like the modern social media culture. When someone's feelings (religious sentiment) is hurt, they complain to the moderator, and if the moderator conforms to the social media culture, they ban the person speaking ill (in their assessment) of another's religious sentiment.
Furthermore, if my religious sentiment is the basis on which I interpret scripture, then isn't my faith more in my religious sentiment than in the text of scripture? Of course it is! Yet, this is the M.O. of people in the modern 'tongues' movement.
This is what is wrong with the picture. This is why I say that someone who stands up and speaks their modern tongues (pseudo-language) in an assembly is, by their action, saying, "listen to what God has to say." And in doing so, they are taking the name of the Lord in vain, because they aren't speaking what God says, because their 'tongues' is not the obviously miraculous tongues of the NT. It's a human phenomenon that people stumbled upon in almost every religion of the world.
Furthermore, anyone who stands in an assembly and speaks an 'interpretation' of that 'tongue' is speaking not what God says, but speaks out of their imagination. Just because they quote scripture or say the same thing as scripture doesn't mean God is speaking. What they said may be true, but their action is a claim "thus saith the Lord" in this whole modern P/C narrative, when the Lord is not speaking in that narrative. In such a way they also take the name of the Lord in vain.
There are many other things wrong with the P/C movement, such as speaking the same kind of hype that people want to hear, just like the false prophets of the OT did. Prophets in the P/C movement are a dime a dozen. They say things people like to hear, but there is no accountability when their 'prophecies' don't come true. But still, the debate rages on.
It seems to me that people who are seeking God by seeking the truth, if coming to understand the things I am talking about here, will say to themselves "could it be that I have been deceived by the tongue-talking phenomenon? Has my faith been misplaced in a phenomenon rather than in the real Christ who sits on His Father's throne in heaven? Rather than in the true meaning of scripture, which is its original intent?"
The problem with your narrative is that it's based on P/C bias, not on the original intent of scripture. Just because the procedure looks right to scripture, doesn't mean the act is from God.
Please read my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
You're acting like someone who speaks with his fingers in his ears.
I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
No. I take it to read that Paul spoke in tongues and understood what he said at the same time - in prayer or singing. I take your response as yet another bias in your mind based on traditional P/C teaching, the "tongues bypasses the mind" nonsense. Indeed, modern tongues does that, since it conveys no meaning. But Biblical tongues, although not cognitively understood (necessarily), is not bypassing the mind, since God works through it also. Modern tongues bypasses the mind, much like someone "going through the motions," merely doing rituals without understanding. That's different.
But Bruce's commentary doesn't prove anything, nor does it justify the modern tongues movement. Similar appearance does not constitute authenticity, but rather suggests counterfeit. The difference in the gibberish of modern tongues as contrasted to the obvious miraculous nature of Acts 2 has to be well explained and proven by clear evidence.
I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
You're acting like someone who speaks with his fingers in his ears.
I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
There is a systemic deception in the whole movement.
Please read my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here and tell me what you think:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
I see now. You are gender-prejudiced, and so you project your gender-prejudice onto me, which is the M.O. of every bitter person in the world, much like the racial bigots who judge everything by the bigotry they see the world from (much like every time something happens, they cry "racism!"). In the same way you are crying "gender prejudice!"
In reality, your question was so ludicrous, I completely disregarded it as rhetorical sarcasm.
I'm asking about a forgiving spirit, because I have yet to see any from you. A forgiving spirit is one that pre-forgives any perceived offense that may happen. Yet, in your responses, you show a spirit of holding a grudge. And not based on what was actually said, but based on your perceived offense. You have shown some behavioral proof of what I have been saying all along.
But to stay on point, I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
I'm seeking truth from the word of God, not from your counterfeit movement.
I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
God works by showing evidence, not by secrecy as the P/C movement does (which cults do also).
I suggest reading my "brass tacks" objection to the movement here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4832221
Pentecostal Evangelist Daniel Kolenda explains his "Decade of Double Harvest (2020-2030) where CFAN hopes to win 150 MN Souls for the Lord Jesus Christ. I fully support CFAN's vision - at a time when many other Good Christians fall into the "Doom and Gloom" Trap - and believe Kolenda is one of the Best Evangelists for the Lord on the Planet today. Kolenda and Reinhard Bonnke were Great Pentecostal Evangelists, and Billy and Franklin Graham are Great Non-Pentecostal Evangelists. I believe God is more interested in Evangelism than anything else. As Christians go out and try to win souls for Him in our everyday lives, He will show which Theology is the Right One.
Acts chapter 2, 1cor chapter 12- 14 Mark 16: is more like one with HIS finger on the chapter in the bible
K
kaylagrl
Guest
TD you're full of hot air and heifers dust. You love the sound of your own voice. At this point do everyone a favor and
You're a Pharisee, looking down your judgmental nose on everyone else. Really just
You want me to listen to MORE of your hot air?
Instead of apologizing you take more opportunity to talk more about you. I asked where is your Christlike spirit, you didn't take second, a breath, you deflected and you just blamed me. Couldn't humble yourself for a second. Hold on to your beliefs, I could care less. Now I'm gonna have your spirit and not apologize, now we're even.
Your Post #1,527
You said: "(1) Biblical tongues is described in Acts 2, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture to indicate that the nature of tongues changed from that day to what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14."
Nothing could be further from the Truth and your heart is not in a Good Place concerning this.
When any person speaks against Scripture, it is always a BAD thing to do.
The LORD Jesus Christ suffered immensely for our sins and that included the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."
The Spirit of Truth only speaks the Truth and HE Authored the Book of Acts and 1 Corinthians and 1 John = all of which speak of TRUTH.