Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

I know you don't.
But show me in the Holy Word of God where we are Commanded to stop Speaking in Tongues?

And don't use 1 Corinthians 13:8
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

...because we know this reference to Tongues is our human language. if it said Speaking in Tongues, we would know it means the Gift from the Holy Spirit. So we know this Verse simply refers to Languages like English-Espano-Deutch-Francais-all human languages and not about the Gift of Speaking in Tongues.

Again, i am not speaking about tongues. But about the Man made doctrine that speaking in tongues is a sign that someone is baptised/filled with the Holy Spirit.

Again, i am not speaking about tongues. But about the Man made doctrine that speaking in tongues is a sign that someone is baptised/filled with the Holy Spirit.

It is in fact biblical that tongues accompanies the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost. The following scriptures shine light on the truth, the teaching is not man-made: (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-17, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)


Acts 2:4
“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

After the above incident, Peter specified that what bystanders were seeing and hearing WAS the Holy Ghost that Jesus had shed forth as promised: "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Acts 2:33



Acts 10:44-46
“ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues,”

How did they know the Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Ghost? The answer is recorded in verse 46, “For they heard them speak with tongues.”


Acts 19:6
“And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues…”


Acts 8:12-18
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given



Notice Acts 8:12-The Samaritans believed Philip’s message. But they did not receive the Holy Ghost at that time. How did the people know that they had not received the Holy Ghost? See verse 14, Peter and John were sent for in order for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Ghost. Also, ask yourself. What did Simon SEE that convinced him that the Samaritans had received the Holy Ghost? (Verse 18)

Not exactly what i stated, but it is clear on Speaking in Tongues you do adhere to the RCC Doctrine.

A structure is only as solid as its foundation. In this short study into Pentecostalism's origins we'll discover whether it's built on solid rock or sinking sand.

Charles Fox Parham, Pentecostalism's acknowledged founder, spent the summer of 1900 at Frank W. Sanford's Holiness commune in Shiloh, Maine. While there, he learned of the Holiness doctrine of an approaching "latter rain," that is, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which would fall on people as it had in the church's early day. This would be a sign of Christ's imminent return. What scriptural basis is there for the latter rain doctrine? James says: "Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains."—James 5:7 This is the only verse from which a case might be made for a latter rain. So we must understand clearly what this verse actually says. Is James instructing his readers to be patient for the latter rain or for Christ's return. He's clearly encouraging them be patient for the Lord's return using an agricultural metaphor to make his point. There are no other New Testament scriptures from which we can put together a "latter rain" doctrine; it simply isn't taught. In fact, rather than worldwide revival, the scriptures clearly reveal the world will descend into darkness before the Lord's return.

While at Shiloh, Sanford filled Parham's head with tales of foreign missionaries who had spontaneously begun speaking the language of their foreign hosts without ever learning the language. In other words, they could preach to them in their own languages using the gift of tongues. But what evidence is there of this ever really happening? None that I'm aware of. But Parham was fascinated; he was convinced that this was a sure sign of the end-time and Christ's imminent return.

Returning to Topeka, Kansas, Parham established a missionary training center. In December of 1900, he challenged his students to find evidence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit like what happened in Acts 2. He also suggested that the surest evidence of this would be speaking in tongues. At their New Year's eve service, 1901, right on schedule, Agnes Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her head and pray she would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ozman began singing in an unknown language, which someone identified as Chinese.

What's strange about this picture? First of all, there's no evidence from the New Testament that missionaries ever used the gift of tongues to preach the good news. When missionaries did eventually go to foreign countries after the "latter rains" started falling, they failed miserably. Secondly, notice that Parham gave his students a suggestion which they pondered for a month. This wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Parham orchestrated the whole thing.

So, the question I leave you with is this: If the tree is bad, how can the fruit possibly be good?

It is in deed a fact that this was in former times, as you correct statet in Acts, but it was not taught and repeatet in the bible. The events you mentioned were to show that Jesus came not along for the jews, but for everybody.

I'm going to share a real-life story that's going on with me at this very moment which will demonstrate that Pentecostals really haven't changed their stripes that much.

In the town where I live there's a homeless shelter at which I've attended chapel services nearly every night for about a year and a half. The head pastor is Pentecostal and most of the other pastors are charismatics of one stripe or another. Usually different preachers come in every night; I know most of them are charismatics or Word of Faith. But the policy there has always been neutrality; the mission's primary focus has always been evangelistic, getting people saved without any denominationalism involved..

Then about three weeks ago things took a surprising turn. I started noticing little things at first. Then one night the head pastor was giving a lesson and at one point he got very animated and announced he wanted a powerful move of the spirit; he wanted something so powerful that people would be saying, wow, look at what's going on at " " mission.

A few days later he was teaching again when he read a passage of scripture regarding signs and wonders. Then he said, "this is the part I want to stick in your mind." But then he never mentioned it again but left it for people to think on for awhile.

Ever since then, the preachers coming in from outside have been preaching on the falling of the Holy Ghost; they mention tongues a lot and even speak in tongues occasionally. Before this would have been strictly prohibited. One preacher asked by a show of hands who was Pentecostal. A woman preached last night and claimed to be able to impart a "word of knowledge" from God. She was going around laying hands on people and telling this one he was being called to preach, others were "prophesied" over. The whole thing was very creepy to me.

Now, my point in all this is this: it looks to me that if the Holy Ghost won't fall on His own they'll make Him fall. Rather than pray for a spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit, they're planting suggestions in people's heads. The preachers who have been coming in have been giving people cues as to what to do—speak in tongues, prophecy or whatever.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the direction this is going. The whole thing has made me extremely angry, and needless to say, I've already made my exit.

It might also be said the RCC adheres to my doctrine.

I've never heard the RCC doctrine you're talking about until now. It doesn't take the RCC to see the truth about tongues.

It doesn't take the RCC to see the truth about tongues.

The missing links are in the church, and I am not anti church, how could I be?

Paul shows us what the church should be, the Body of Christ.

Folks wax lyrical about the Body of Christ [ah the mystic wonder of it all] but Paul's Body is functional with every member having a ministry gift which when they act as a whole make up the fulness of Christ, the assembly should be as though Christ were there ministering among us, as indeed He is. But because ALL the gifts are not functioning, we cannot experience the fulness of Christ's ministry. We can only experience what the pastor or the white suited guest can dob up.

For example sometimes healing in the gospels required a word of knowledge or an out and out miracle, the solution to problems like when the folks were hungry, or when the disciples faced ruin not catching any fish.

"that through the church the MANIFOLD wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."

When you think of what the church was like in the 13th century you can see what great progress we have made but we are still a long, long way off ...probably the opportunity is/has passed by us in the west and we must look to what God is doing on other continents especially China.

"that through the church the MANIFOLD wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."

great reply, but I was referring to personal experience/prayer I actually meant people I interact with either currently or in the past, but that's ok.

I agree that over zealous 'spirituality' seems to have won out over practicality and I like what you said about all the gifts functioning...I cannot think of any time or place (and I've been around some) where this has happened, but certainly, some gifts operating has been helpful



great quote, summing up a truth that has a timeless application

...But about the Man made doctrine that speaking in tongues is a sign that someone is baptised/filled with the Holy Spirit.

So I agree that speaking in tongues today is error. I am also quite dubious of the origins of the pentacostal movement as well.

But I also find that all churches have error, some have different errors than others and some have more errors than others.. And so even as a church has errors the Holy Spirit can still dwell in that church if that church is proclaiming God's word and the Gospel message of repent and believe in Christ alone.

However, the more errors that a church picks up I think the more the gospel message will get muddled or choked out.

So a church should seek to root out errors, but not at the expense of the Gospel message.

I gather you do not go to a charismatic church. So then perhaps don't worry about it so much unless it is infiltrating your own church. I implore you to look within your own church and seek to shed light on the errors within your own church. I think if you do this you will be met with equal push back and hostility as on this thread. Perhaps you will receive even greater push back and hostility than on this thread.

I think just about all error is introduced top-down, meaning the hierachial structures set up over and within the churches. For example seminaries are at the top and instruct down to the pastors they train who instruct down to the church attendees at the bottom. The is no avenue for bottom-up corrections or knowledge to be gained.

There exists no avenue for members to root out errors from the bottom-up at any church as far as I see.

To me you are trying to root out errors from bottom-up and you will likely get no where and fast. I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I too am at the bottom and no one will give consideration to anything that God has taught me directly.

Unless you are a theologian, or a book publisher or a pastor from a seminary no one will give you any consideration unless they agree with you.

The RCC Doctrine as far as organized Sects was well before any Denomination. Naturally, many Denominations gleaned and continued these RCC Doctrines. One of those includes claiming Speaking in Tongues have ceased.

Have you ever read Acts chapter 2?
Check this out:

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Peter enters the picture:
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

We have filled with Holy Spirit, Speaking in Tongues, and the people not involved are looking at the chaos and NOISE being heard and claim these men are DRUNK.

Then Peter explains, NO, it's only 3rd hour so they're not DRUNK.

What do you think that scene looked like to think those in the Upper Room were DRUNK?
Kind of like you see in some Pentecostal Churches?

All because they were making such a SCENE, they were being JUDGED by that SCENE as being DRUNK.
Kind of like You're judging what you see in Modern day Churches!


Now, I am only talking about Speaking in Tongues, but this was such a Scene to be judged as DRUNK means it was more than just Speaking in Tongues. They were probably having their hands lifted up to God, maybe some were standing, maybe some were jumping up and down, maybe some looked way too happy. Whatever that Scene was, it was judged as being in a BAR with DRUNKS!

Show me the Difference between Acts 2 and Today's Pentecostal Church that believes in Speaking in Tongues?

You're right, every church has errors. What concerns me about Pentecostalism, however, is it's massive growth and influence, both in the US and worldwide. It's leading many people astray and the number is growing. This isn't accidental either. If you study Aimee Semple McPherson or Oral Roberts either one, their goal was interdenominationalism. But this wasn't so they could incorporate aspects from other denominations into theirs, they wanted to influence other denominations with their charismatic doctrines. They've succeeded quite well.

I'm not trying to root out errors. I know errors will be there until the Lord returns. All I'm doing is warning people and giving them the truth. After all, the truth will set you free.

"For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace—as in all the churches of the saints."—1 Corinthians 14:33

I don't really agree with your spin on Acts 2. But whatever happened then, that's not what God in our churches now.

I will suggest you look into the Charismatic Renewal movement which began in the late 60s. Many mainline denominations started accepting tongues and other charismatic "gifts" as legitimate. Things like holy laughter, drunk in the spirit, slain in the spirit, "healing," holy running, etc., etc., etc. Where is any of this nonsense mentioned in the New Testament?

As far as healing goes, I'm talking about the phony baloney big name faith healers. I know God still heals but He doesn't need to make a big production of it. When He heals you, you're healed absolutely. You don't have to "give it time" to work and you don't have to keep going back over and over.

Many Catholic churches went charismatic in the Charismatic Renewal. Mabey the RCC is anti-tongues on paper, but many Catholic churches are now charismatic.