Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

Yep, I did apologise in a follow up post to you, that I was being a bit harsh... I shouldn't have suggested that your response was rude etc. I need to interpret the motivation behind people's writings better than I have done. More work to be done on self!

I've only experienced a small cohort of churchdom compared to the overall, when all is said and done. There's hypocrisies in all churches, and in myself, so it's not about that, that I comment. My reasoning is that God will not support a breakaway group from the Body of Christ, therefore any 'spiritual' manifestations on display in that group can't have been sourced from the Holy Spirit. That's my logical conclusion.

In all the churches I visited I found very little emphasis on character growth, and care, and little remorse for serious misdeeds. I couldn't see how the Holy Spirit would fellowship in such an environment, particularly since they had been in that state for so long and didn't seem to be in the mood for change. I found that to be the case for all the assemblies I visited, whether they were pentecostal/charismatic in outlook or not.

In truth, I can't see much benefit behind the original post, unless people can just state their opinion and move on. Passionate argument can so easily slip into insults and vitriol, and any benefit from the discussion quashed.

Thank you for your response. Shalom. 🙂

The "church" is a body of believers meeting his name. not an organization or building.

There was a time, not so long ago, when using labels like Pentecostal helped people identify churches that they wanted to attend.

For example one would look for a "Pentecostal Church" in their area if they had just recently moved there because they wanted to find a church that they knew were welcoming of the gifts of the Spirit and who encouraged new converts to receive the gift of tongues. Those who did not want to have to physically visit churches to determine if they were of this persuasion could just ask if they were "Pentecostal."

Now one of the things that the first year of the COVID pandemic produced that was very positive is that almost every church started putting at least a few of their services online and many of them kept that up and got better at it over time.

Now it is just a matter of checking out one of their past services to determine if one senses the kind of "spirit" that suggests to them that they are indeed Pentecostal or not.

Now I know this is not always super obvious to the uninitiated but to those who have been around both kinds of churches we can usually tell in short order if the church is the kind we are looking for.

I am theorizing that the label Pentecostal or Charismatic is not as important as it once was. We don't need these labels when we can just sample the service. We can tell by the worship and especially if we can see video of the people worshipping whether it is Pentecostal.

Now that being said the lines are beginning to be blurred in this regard because even the non pentecostals are starting to worship like the charismatics, with hands lifted up and joyful expressions on faces that suggest that they are having an encounter with God.

This is not something you used to see in a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian church worship service. But things have changed as these non charismatic churches have been copying the "contemporary style" worship of the charismatic churches in order to attract the younger crowds they have opened the door for tolerance of expressive worship and as their people seek God with a sincere hunger, forgetting what others think about them and throw their hands up in praise, they end up getting filled with the Holy Spirit and have experiences that may result in things like speaking in tongues and so now we have Spirit Filled Baptists and Spirit Filled Methodists, speaking in tongues and prophesying and guess what? They are no longer nonpentecostal in practice any longer.

Some of these online service videos might reveal a traditional church near you is acting a whole lot like a charismatic church and you can't really tell the difference any longer. Asking if they are Pentecostal and getting the answer "No" may not mean what it used to.

Better just to check them out online and if you like what you see, go visit. Maybe they are more Pentecostal than they realize.

Things are definitely changing, and John MacArthur may not like it but I think his denomination is quite fond of the changes.

While I like most of your post, it grieves me to hear about the tolerance issue. Tolerance is where the devil gets his foot in the door.

Who are you replying to? Hit the Reply button at the bottom of the person's post that you want to reply to so that it will include their post above yours and we can know who you are replying to.

I agree with all you have said. For me is what I see in the word of God and is relevant for today even if I have never seen it. 1cor chapters 12 through 14 are unit chapters and are contextual and applicable for today as a normative. Nothing I have seen in the word of God states they are not for today or needing a man to validate what God said is.

Yours above it.

OK. Maybe you can explain.
What I am theorizing is that there might be a gradual drift going on in the traditional churches to tolerate the Charismatics among their members and that the reason for this might be because their pastors are conceding to the idea that they are continuationists in their own theological views and not the cessationist that their past generation of leaders were.

They often say things like "I believe that there are legitimate cases of speaking in tongues today. And then they go on to talk about the faking of the gift, but conceding that there are legitimate cases removes them from the camp of classic cessationists and this is the trend today among the current generation of Seminary students in mainline denominations.

The dam is breaking. The ice is thawing. Superior hermeneutics from scholars like Gordon Fee, William Menzies, Robert Menzies, Robert Stronstad and many others who write papers that are read and discussed in theological academia are having an impact on the intellectually honest among these mainline denominational professors and authors.

The charismatic movement isn't over. It will continue to grow larger until Jesus comes again. I

am guessing that the majority of large church meetings being held in most towns are charismatic. And this is why the non charismatic churches copy their music and worship style.

But what they did not expect was that copying this worship style and music might open the door to their theology and produce a revival of Charismatic outpouring in their traditionally non charismatic church.

But they are ok with the growth and the character and quality of these people who are claiming the experience and the gifts and they would rather join them than argue against it using bad hermeneutics such as the 1 Cor "that which is perfect" is the writing of Revelation fallacy idea, that tongues have ceased, which they never really believed was the correct interpretation of "that which is perfect" anyway, therefore they are glad to abandon it and not feel they have compromised the word of God.

My own personal experience was this. I was saved in a Baptist church and was brought up in same. Our youth group which I was deputy leader of used to meet on Friday evenings for prayer. One Friday we were all knelt at our seats and were praying as normal. Quite out of the blue I started praying in tongues. I knew about it but that was as far as it went. This went on for several minutes and I had no control over it. I was speaking supernaturally. My heart burned within me and when it had stopped I knew exactly what had happened.
From that day, I would regularly speak in tongues when praying.

And please, don't tell me it was the devil deceiving me.

Was there someone there that could translate into English what you were saying?

I won't say it was the devil deceiving you, but pagans have the exact same experience as what you're describing. Is the devil deceiving them?

The Holy Spirit gives witness as the believer walks out this gift so there will not be error.
The babes in Christ and the unbelievers ( if they truly are in Him) here do not grasp that.
Thank you for sharing, Musta....

Prayer is between the believer and the Lord.
One who is Holy Spirit filled knows this.
blessings

I think the poster is referring to speaking in tongues, not individual prayer

It's easy to tell. Did it glorify Christ? Then it was the Holy Spirit. If it glorifies anything else, it's not.

The poster mentioned receiving this gift as he was praying, hence it was the Divine prayer language.
This is how the adversary attempts to confuse God's people, the prayer and public manifestations differ.

No one translated when the people in the house of Cornelius spoke in tongues. When the disciples in Ephesus spoke in tongues or the 120 spoke in tongue there was no one with the gift of interpretation needed.

To understand what Paul was talking about in the church meetings in Corinth you must understand the context and setting which he was referring to.

Paul did not forbid them to speak in tongues if there was no interpreter even in the church meeting.

He said if there was no interpreter to speak to themselves and to God.

Now in order to speak in tongues to themselves it means in a quiet manner where people know you are not giving a public utterance to be interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation. That means you are speaking quieter, but you are still speaking. Like when someone is praying between themselves and God in a low tone of voice where you would have to lean in to even know what they were saying because it is not for the public but it is still audible.

These saints prayed out loud. They could pray out loud to themselves and to God in their own language or in tongues and not need an interpreter in that case because they are praying to themselves and to God like Paul said.

The first century Jews knew nothing about silent prayers. When Paul said pray to them selves and to God he would have only meant in a quieter voice but still speaking. You can look at a video of them praying at the wailing wall today to understand that Jews still pray audibly even when praying to themselves and God and they did so in the 1st century church.

When the fist century Church prayed together it would be a bunch of people making noises while they prayed and when someone prayed out loud in a tongue as if they were giving a prophetic utterance for someone to interpret that would be a noticeable difference than the many who were praying in tongues to themselves and to God. Just as it would be noticeable if someone gave a prophesy in such a meeting. They would get louder above the general noise of everyone praying out loud to themselves and to God.

And the gift of interpretation was another Spiritual gift and not simply translation from someone who was bilingual.

I realize these things are not obvious to those who have not read all of the scriptures on tongues or who have not taken the time to analyze each text in its original context.

One can research "did the first church pray out loud" or "did Jews pray out loud" or something like that and find the historical documentation that proves that they did and that the first century church did as well.

Always leaving something out: "But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God."—1 Corinthians 14:28

Always making the mistake of contending for the English word rather than the original Greek word.
You are contending for an English word translated from a Greek word.
It doesn't mean no sound. It means quiet. Ask a Greek Scholar.
Silent (no sound, or no speaking) prayer was not known by them. And how can one speak in tongues without speaking? It means quiet.

"and"........