Tongues: Parham vs. Seymour

[Edify]

They are not the lutheran church. They are Lutherans who find humor in all kinds of stuff, even the lutheran church. They have videos where they make fun of the idiosyncrasies of the lutheran church also.
Humor is good. If we cant laugh at ourselves we are probably miserable.

Such humor is mocking & making fun of people.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Why do so many Pentecostals point to William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival as the beginning of Pentecostalism?

Chances are that neither rank-and-file Pentecostals nor others have even a vague notion of these men.

 

[Dirtman]

Here is the problem that I am finding with Pentecostal doctrine. Some say you must speak in tongues or you arent Christian. This means the bible is translated into all the languages by not Christians, the protestant churchs and reformation began by not christian, the bible canonized by not Christians. That some how tye church was gone after the first century and then re-emerged in the end of the 19th century. And they use material produced by not christians to form their church. This is a blatant false teaching.
And I asked in another thread for someone to give me a preacher on youtube or something similar so I can listen to the preaching and no one could or would give me a good example. All I have is what the world wide web has to offer on the matter and it looks very sketchy.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Am I gonna regret posting a link to you tube videos because someone got offended?

These videos don't offend me, but they're in very poor taste in my opinion; and un-Christian. This isn't the way to lead people to the truth.

 

[Dirtman]

These videos don't offend me, but they're in very poor taste in my opinion; and un-Christian. This isn't the way to lead people to the truth.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[presidente]

Here is the problem that I am finding with Pentecostal doctrine. Some say you must speak in tongues or you arent Christian.

The vast majority of Pentecostal denominations do not teach this. Rather, Pentecostals see baptism with the Holy Spirit as something that can occur subsequent to salvation.


There are non-trinitarian Oneness Pentecostal groups that believe that if you do not speak in tongues, that you are not saved. Some of these groups teach that when you are baptized 'in the the name of Jesus' or something similar must be spoken at the baptism as opposed to 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' for an individual an individual to be saved.

But the vast majority of Pentecostals do not believe that tongues is a requirement for salvation.

 

[Dirtman]

The vast majority of Pentecostal denominations do not teach this. Rather, Pentecostals see baptism with the Holy Spirit as something that can occur subsequent to salvation.


There are non-trinitarian Oneness Pentecostal groups that believe that if you do not speak in tongues, that you are not saved. Some of these groups teach that when you are baptized 'in the the name of Jesus' or something similar must be spoken at the baptism as opposed to 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' for an individual an individual to be saved.

But the vast majority of Pentecostals do not believe that tongues is a requirement for salvation.

Thanks

 

[ResidentAlien]

Rather, Pentecostals see baptism with the Holy Spirit as something that can occur subsequent to salvation.

There's only one problem with the doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit: it's considered a "second work of grace" and a person can't be entirely sanctified until they have this experience. To say there's more than one work of grace isn't really that different from Catholic doctrine that teaches ongoing grace through the sacraments. Christ's death on the cross is the one and only grace we need.

Not all Pentecostals teach the second work of grace, but a lot do. Some even teach a third or fourth "work of grace."

 

[Dirtman]

I believe in the continual giving of grace through the sacraments.
Of coarse it must be because we continually sin.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I believe in the continual giving of grace through the sacraments.
Of coarse it must be because we continually sin.

Sorry to hear that. Did you get that from the New Testament?

 

[Dirtman]

Sorry to hear that. Did you get that from the New Testament?

Yep,

New and old.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Yep,

Care to say chapter and verse?

 

[Dirtman]

Care to say chapter and verse?

Its a lot. Too much and too many to post in a thread in this format.
I use a cellphone for this.

 

[ResidentAlien]

"For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all;" Romans 6:10

We continue to sin but we don't have to keep performing sacraments to get the benefit of His grace. That was taken care of at the cross. All we have to do is confess our sins and He will forgive them.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

 

[presidente]

There's only one problem with the doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit: it's considered a "second work of grace" and a person can't be entirely sanctified until they have this experience.

That sounds more like a non-Pentecostal Wesleyan interpretation of 'baptism of the Holy Spirit.' Pentecostals would generally either believe in a sanctification experience before being baptized with the Holy Spirit or else the concept of baptism with the Holy Spirit is generally not taught as intertwined with entire sanctification.

To say there's more than one work of grace isn't really that different from Catholic doctrine that teaches ongoing grace through the sacraments. Christ's death on the cross is the one and only grace we need.

This argument seems confused, IMO. There is a lot more to grace than having your sins forgiven and being reconciled with God. Paul wrote about speaking in a way that ministers __grace__ to the hearers. Believers have spiritual gifts according to the __grace__ given unto us. The word 'charisma' translated 'spiritual gift' is closely related to 'charis', the word translated 'grace' also.

So the grace of God is at work when someone ministers by the gift of teaching, prophecy, healing, etc. This is an ongoing thing. I am not opposed to the idea that grace might be at work in baptism or the Lord's Supper, but I do not see this specifically emphasized in scripture. Roman Catholic theology subdivides grace into different types of grace, and one type they associate with sacraments.

Not all Pentecostals teach the second work of grace, but a lot do. Some even teach a third or fourth "work of grace."

If every time you hear the word of God taught using a spiritual gift or are ministered to through any spiritual gift, you benefit from grace, there may be many more than four works of grace.

 

[ResidentAlien]

That sounds more like a non-Pentecostal Wesleyan interpretation of 'baptism of the Holy Spirit.' Pentecostals would generally either believe in a sanctification experience before being baptized with the Holy Spirit or else the concept of baptism with the Holy Spirit is generally not taught as intertwined with entire sanctification.

Whether you call it "second work of grace," "third work of grace" or whatever is irrelevant. It's still unscriptural. What you call "entire sanctification" is nothing less than the total obliteration of original sin. This is false doctrine plain and simple. Original sin is never obliterated this side of heaven; we rely on His grace.

The idea of baptism of the Holy Spirit and additional "works of grace" grew out of the Holiness movement, to which both Parham and Seymour belonged.

 

[presidente]

Whether you call it "second work of grace," "third work of grace" or whatever is irrelevant. It's still unscriptural. What you call "entire sanctification" is nothing less than the total obliteration of original sin. This is false doctrine plain and simple. Original sin is never obliterated this side of heaven; we rely on His grace.

'Original sin' is not mentioned in scripture. Did Augustine coin the term?

What teaching do you consider to be false doctrine? The term 'entire sanctification' comes from this verse:

I Thessalonians 5:23
23Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your entire spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have never been to a Pentecostal church where I heard someone preach about being entirely sanctified and never sinning again, though I have heard of such churches. I've even been to churches that had historical roots in the Holiness movement for a few years. I think many of the churches that had roots in the Holiness movement, rather that former Baptists, CMA, etc. used to emphasize 'entire sanctification', but what that meant varied. The idea of a one-time experience of sanctification after becoming a Christian seems to be a forgotten doctrine in some of these Pentecostal groups. I'm not saying some don't hold to it. It's probably a combination of a lack/absence of scripture to support it and influence from other Christians who don't teach that.

The idea of baptism of the Holy Spirit and additional "works of grace" grew out of the Holiness movement, to which both Parham and Seymour belonged.

Okay, but I think you are interpreting 'grace' in a specific sense that refers to salvation from sin, becoming a Christian, being in right relationship with God.... along those lines. Scripture uses the term to refer to other things as well. Grace is clearly an ongoing thing in the believer's life. I've never though that 'second work of grace' meant a step toward being forgiven from sin and being put in right relationship with God, and I've never heard that preached. I don't even know if I've heard 'second work of grace' from the pulpit. I've just read it in books and online probably.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Here's an interesting article on some typical Azusa Street meetings from the Los Angeles Times, 1906. It's very clear from the report that Seymour (described as an "old colored exhorter, blind in one eye) understood the babble going on as "tongues." From what it says, there was hardly any preaching of the gospel.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/10523999/azusa-street-revival/

The Pentecostal writer Frank Bartleman reports that Seymour kept his head inside of a box in prayer during the meetings, taking it out only when he had a word of exhortation. This reminds me of Joseph Smith putting his face into a hat to receive "revelations." It's not surprising that the early Mormons also spoke in "tongues."

"Brother Seymour generally sat behind two empty shoe boxes, one on top of the other. He usually kept his head inside the top one during the meeting, in prayer."—Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street, The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, pg. 58.​

 

[ResidentAlien]

This also is a good video on Azusa Street. According to Daniel there really wasn't much published in the period Newspapers about the revival. If the amazing things that are claimed went on there really happened it would've been all over the papers. What there was, mostly, was people in the neighborhood complaining about the noise and crime that was going on.

 

[presidente]

Here's an interesting article on some typical Azusa Street meetings from the Los Angeles Times, 1906. It's very clear from the report that Seymour (described as an "old colored exhorter, blind in one eye) understood the babble going on as "tongues." From what it says, there was hardly any preaching of the gospel.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/10523999/azusa-street-revival/

It's pretty naive to not see bias and disdain in a reporter's article. It is also good to realize that reporters don't really know that much about the topic they are reporting on. Nowadays, many of them major in journalism. Articles on science and social science research often overstate conclusions, make conclusions not justified by the data, inaccurate report studies. And also there is political spin and bias on much of the network and especially cable network news.

Be that as it may,, this reporter could easily have called Lithuanian, Chinese, or Hottenton 'babble' if he'd heard it also.

The Pentecostal writer Frank Bartleman reports that Seymour kept his head inside of a box in prayer during the meetings, taking it out only when he had a word of exhortation. This reminds me of Joseph Smith putting his face into a hat to receive "revelations." It's not surprising that the early Mormons also spoke in "tongues."

"Brother Seymour generally sat behind two empty shoe boxes, one on top of the other. He usually kept his head inside the top one during the meeting, in prayer."—Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street, The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, pg. 58.​

So what? Their pulpit was a couple of boxes stacked up. They had meetings that would go on and on all night at times. I gather that Seymour knelt behind the pulpit praying, with his head in one of the boxes for much of the time.

You can also compare some of Bartleman's writings about the meetings with I Corinthians 14:26, in which 'every one of you' has a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation or interpretation. In the Bible, regular members of the assembly address the group to edify one another. Speaking in tongues, interpretation, and prophecy are specifically allowed.