Tongues: Parham vs. Seymour

  • 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.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#61
If the amazing things that are claimed went on there really happened it would've been all over the papers.
Your trust in the news media seems really naive. Have you actually watched the news in recent years? Media was rather unprofessional around the turn of the 20th century compared to later standards, say the 1970s or 19980s, even. Of course, it is not very professional these days, much of it. Glitzy and high tech, but professional standards have dropped significantly.

The way they spin politics, do you trust news people with spiritual truth, or anything having to do with religion?

Be that as it may, I asked a couple of Pentecostal scholars, including the founder of the field of Pentecostal history, about this man's book and they hadn't heard of it or the claims therein. One did not know of historical documentation of the claims, and another had never heard of the book. He was rather elderly, the founder of the field of Pentecostal history as an academic discipline.

That doesn't prove some of the testimonies aren't accurate. Not showing up in the newspaper certainly does not.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#62
Newspapermen have their biases. If you called the TV news with a report of someone getting up out of a wheelchair or raising the dead, and you got a modernist, they'd probably dismiss the claim without researching it. If they researched it and corroborated it, would they air it? The head correspondent for Time in Beijing previously (who I think passed away) gave a speech at a university about Jesus in China, and when he went to Hong Kong, he was able to corroborate testimony of healings from multiple parties involved. There was a story about a policeman who imprisoned Christians. I believe he was one of the ones who was healed and became a Christian. As refugees came into Hong Kong, he was able to confirm some of the same testimonies. But did these healings make it into Time magazine? I don't follow Time, but I suspect not.

Delia Knox's healing, getting out of a wheelchair, did make it to at least one local news outlet because I saw the healing online. Not too long after the healing, I was able to find an old human interest news piece about her, the gospel singer in a wheelchair, and clips of her singing in a wheelchair before the healing.

But most healings do not make it onto secular news. It doesn't fit into the worldview of a lot of reporters and they would dismiss them as easily as they would dismiss following up on a UFO sighting. A lot of them also want to look professional, not like the one who brought the UFO story or the healing story to the newspaper.

Amie Semple McPherson was a colorful character. I wouldn't encourage people to imitate her marriage choices, but from what I have read, the newspaper people in San Diego treated what was going on there as real healings. i read an article about it, but haven't dug through the newspaper clipping myself. This was a little later, but you could look into that if you have great trust in the news media.
 

Edify

Well-known member
Jan 27, 2021
1,559
654
113
#63
Not to be mean, but believing the media over the church makes one a fool destitute of knowledge.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#64
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."
i regret that Creeds and Doctrines of so many have completely made many Pentecostals seem foolish and full of error. i am also thankful i was not raised by those Creeds and Doctrines but by the Word of God alone. the majority of Pentecostals i know believe when you accept Christ you are also filled with the Holy Spirit and become regenerated or new like in Titus 3:5 (He saved us through the mikveh of rebirth and renewing of the Ruach ha-Kodesh). yes, there are times i've seen someone speak differently when this has happened. i've touched them and it even felt like electricity was running through them. but this was never an every time someone was saved occurrence. like myself, it wasn't until years later it happened. but i also cannot not see what my eyes have already seen either.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,256
3,595
113
#65
The thing with Pentecostals—and this is very convenient for them—is that there are so many groups and subgroups (all with different teachings and practice) it allows everyone to say "I don't know any Pentecostals who believe that."
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#66
The thing with Pentecostals—and this is very convenient for them—is that there are so many groups and subgroups (all with different teachings and practice) it allows everyone to say "I don't know any Pentecostals who believe that."
Same with Protestants.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#67
The thing with Pentecostals—and this is very convenient for them—is that there are so many groups and subgroups (all with different teachings and practice) it allows everyone to say "I don't know any Pentecostals who believe that."
this is probably a good point being made. but typically, from my own observation, Pentecostal Churches only associate with other like Pentecostal Churches. if one teaches a Doctrine that is iffy, then others will stay far away from it. that's why i've never witnessed WOF, Name it Claim it, Prosperity, churches like we see on television and such in other Churches because we would not associate with ones who are like that.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,256
3,595
113
#68
Any way you slice it, it's not that good for Pentecostalism. On the one hand, if Parham is the founder you have human languages that never panned out when out to the test. On the other, if Seymour is the founder you have incoherent babble that doesn't stand up to scriptural scrutiny or to common sense.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#69
Any way you slice it, it's not that good for Pentecostalism. On the one hand, if Parham is the founder you have human languages that never panned out when out to the test. On the other, if Seymour is the founder you have incoherent babble that doesn't stand up to scriptural scrutiny or to common sense.
There are many accounts of people understanding their own language 'in tongues' when Seymour was at the Azusa Street Revival. Do you have any evidence that he promoted the idea of tongues as babble?
 
P

Polar

Guest
#70
It's a big world. If something is not reported (that's a joke considering what passes for reporting these days) then that something must not be true.

Let's see....most people I know have not been in the news. I guess we don't exist :oops:

Alien Res needs a new hobby.
 
P

Polar

Guest
#71
Any way you slice it, it's not that good for Pentecostalism. On the one hand, if Parham is the founder you have human languages that never panned out when out to the test. On the other, if Seymour is the founder you have incoherent babble that doesn't stand up to scriptural scrutiny or to common sense.
I'm not Pentecostal. The founder of tongues is God via His Spirit.
 

Blade

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2019
1,776
624
113
#73
The thing with Pentecostals—and this is very convenient for them—is that there are so many groups and subgroups (all with different teachings and practice) it allows everyone to say "I don't know any Pentecostals who believe that."
One could say as you know the same for Baptist or Church of God, Foursquare, Faith groups so forth so on :)
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#74
The main issue here is that speaking in tongues is a Biblical gift of the Spirit. We should believe what the Bible teaches. If Parham or Seymour believed in speaking in tongues and you did not like something about them for some reason, we should still believe the Bible.