Differences among Pentecostal denominations

[ltwin]

I'm curious to see what answers people give. Among the classical Pentecostal churches, what are the differences between them? By "classical," I mean those denominations that trace their history back to the Pentecostal revival in the early 20th century. These would be denominations such as the Church of God in Christ, Assemblies of God, Church of God, etc. Any differences that you have observed in your own experience or that you are aware of are on the table. Differences can include doctrine, polity, worship styles, etc.

One question I am particularly interested in has to do with churches like the Church of God in Christ, Church of God (Cleveland), and the Pentecostal Holiness Church. Historically, these denominations advocated a Wesleyan theology that included three stages: conversion, entire sanctification, and then baptism in the Holy Spirit. These churches still mention entire sanctification in their belief statements.

I grew up in an independent Pentecostal church that only taught two stages: conversion and Spirit baptism. Sanctification was viewed as a lifelong progressive process. However, my family did attend a Pentecostal Holiness Church for several months once when our home church was going through a dysfunctional time. While I clearly heard references to and saw incidents of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit, I never once heard a sermon or reference to someone "getting sanctified." Would anyone who has been a member of these churches help me understand what exactly is believed about sanctification in these churches today?

Thanks.

 

[FuegoPentecostes]

Well I've pretty much attended all Church of God churches for my life as a Pentecostal, but let me tell you, that means very little. All churches add their own little bit of doctrine to things, from my own experience that is. An easy example is that the Church of God I attend now teaches holiness dress standards even though that is no longer in the doctrine of the official Church of God.

If by sanctification you mean the act of becoming sinless, I have never been to a Pentecostal church that has taught that. My church teaches that of course when Christ comes to give us our new bodies, we will be without sin. But before that (a.k.a any time on Earth) we don't believe anyone can become holy or sinless. In a sense, I guess you could call sanctification a life long process since it will literally take your whole life until it happens.

 

[ltwin]

Well I've pretty much attended all Church of God churches for my life as a Pentecostal, but let me tell you, that means very little. All churches add their own little bit of doctrine to things, from my own experience that is. An easy example is that the Church of God I attend now teaches holiness dress standards even though that is no longer in the doctrine of the official Church of God.

If by sanctification you mean the act of becoming sinless, I have never been to a Pentecostal church that has taught that. My church teaches that of course when Christ comes to give us our new bodies, we will be without sin. But before that (a.k.a any time on Earth) we don't believe anyone can become holy or sinless. In a sense, I guess you could call sanctification a life long process since it will literally take your whole life until it happens.

What I'm referring to is the doctrine stated in the Pentecostal Holiness Church's Articles of Faith. This formulation has traditionally been shared by other Pentecostal Churches:

10. We believe in sanctification. While sanctification is initiated in regeneration and consummated in glorification, we believe it includes a definite, instantaneous work of grace achieved by faith subsequent to regeneration (Acts 26:18; 1 John 1:9). Sanctification delivers from the power and dominion of sin. It is followed by lifelong growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18).

This is a Wesleyan doctrine. Many of the first Pentecostals were theologically Wesleyan. I'm just wondering if any of the Pentecostal denominations that have historically preserved the doctrine of sanctification as a definite work of grace in between salvation and Spirit baptism (which include the PHC, COG, and COGIC) still teach and experience this?

In the one PHC church I attended for a brief amount, I never saw any evidence that this doctrine was still actually believed. The other Pentecostal churches I've been apart of have not been rooted in Wesleyan Pentecostalism, but have been the more "Baptistic" or Finished Work school of Pentecostalism.

 

[FuegoPentecostes]

Well when it comes to official doctrines and what not, I'm not too educated in that stuff. I know I go to a Church of God that does NOT teach entire sanctification, but I also know that some Church of God (Cleveland, TN) churches do teach it. I know there is a denomination that calls itself "The Sanctified Church" or "The Original Church of God" that is HEAVY in it's teaching of sanctification.

So to basically answer your question, most Wesleyan-era denominations are really mixed on the subject. Some still teach it and some don't. Some are changing their definition of what sanctification even is.

Ah, don't you just love religion?

 

[stormdancer0]

Well, there's sanctification, and then there's sanctification. ;-)

We are spiritually sanctified 100% from the time we are born again. At any time after that, assuming we do not deliberately walk away from God, we are holy and acceptable to God, through the sanctifying blood of Christ. When we die, we are holy unto God and permitted into heaven.

However, practical sanctification is a life-long process. God will not point out every area needing sanctification the minute you become saved. We would all be hopelessly overwhelmed. (Can I get an "amen?")

He chooses areas of our lives and helps us learn to make ourselves more like Christ by affecting our own choices. He may let someone smoke for years, while working on other areas of their life, then suddenly go, "Now, about that cigarette thing. . ." out of the blue.

So actually, it's both immediate and on-going.

 

[ltwin]

Well, there's sanctification, and then there's sanctification. ;-)

We are spiritually sanctified 100% from the time we are born again. At any time after that, assuming we do not deliberately walk away from God, we are holy and acceptable to God, through the sanctifying blood of Christ. When we die, we are holy unto God and permitted into heaven.

However, practical sanctification is a life-long process. God will not point out every area needing sanctification the minute you become saved. We would all be hopelessly overwhelmed. (Can I get an "amen?")

He chooses areas of our lives and helps us learn to make ourselves more like Christ by affecting our own choices. He may let someone smoke for years, while working on other areas of their life, then suddenly go, "Now, about that cigarette thing. . ." out of the blue.

So actually, it's both immediate and on-going.

Thanks for the comment. I agree with you. There is initial sanctification when we are born again. And then there is progressive sanctification that occurs as we grow in grace. It is a process.

However, the first Pentecostals and presumably any today who adhere to a Wesleyan theology, believed that there was a crisis experience separate from being born again that sanctified. It is expressed in the doctrinal statement I quoted above. It was supposed to occur after a person was born again but before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit.

It's where we get the phrase: Saved, Sanctified, and Filled with the Holy Ghost. It expresses three distinct experiences. I'm just wondering does anyone still believe that?

Early in the Pentecostal movement's history, there was a big controversy surrounding all this. It was called "the Finished Work Controversy." Those who advocated sanctification as process referred to their doctrine as Finished Work, from the saying, "It's a finished work at Calvary." Most Pentecostals today I would assume are Finished Work Pentecostals.

Google the Finished Work Controversy for more information.

 

[COG2013]

I have been to Pentecostal churches that were not much different from Baptist, and I've been to some where the spiritual manifestation was so heavy that you could feel it in the air. The difference is not the church or denomination, but the people. God does not reside in the church building, so it is the spiritual people who bring Him in with them. If there are no spiritual people, there will be no spiritual manifestation and you have a dead church.

 

[FuegoPentecostes]

The difference is not the church or denomination, but the people. God does not reside in the church building, so it is the spiritual people who bring Him in with them. If there are no spiritual people, there will be no spiritual manifestation and you have a dead church.

I love this

 

[maccci]

 

[D2wing]

I have been to Pentecostal churches that were not much different from Baptist, and I've been to some where the spiritual manifestation was so heavy that you could feel it in the air. The difference is not the church or denomination, but the people. God does not reside in the church building, so it is the spiritual people who bring Him in with them. If there are no spiritual people, there will be no spiritual manifestation and you have a dead church.

Amen II, I am not fond of labels or very much Church doctrine of any kind. Much of it is just junk that gets in the way of the Spirit or replaces the move of the Spirit. Church and fellowship is important and valid. But people get too wrapped up structure, doctrine, money and leadership.
I'd like to start an unchurch.

 

[Jethro99]

Well I've pretty much attended all Church of God churches for my life as a Pentecostal, but let me tell you, that means very little. All churches add their own little bit of doctrine to things, from my own experience that is. An easy example is that the Church of God I attend now teaches holiness dress standards even though that is no longer in the doctrine of the official Church of God.......

The bit above by Fuego has pretty much been my experience as well with CoG Cleveland churches and some AoG as well. They can vary widely from church to church.

How the local church is governed can even vary within CoG churches. In some churches there is a pastor's council (or other such leadership group) that has input into what goes on, finances are disclosed to the members in business meetings or other means, etc. In other CoG churches the pastor and those he appoints have total control over everything and finances are never disclosed to the membership. Still others fall somewhere between these two.

 

[ltwin]

How the local church is governed can even vary within CoG churches. In some churches there is a pastor's council (or other such leadership group) that has input into what goes on, finances are disclosed to the members in business meetings or other means, etc. In other CoG churches the pastor and those he appoints have total control over everything and finances are never disclosed to the membership. Still others fall somewhere between these two.

Interesting. I thought since CoG churches were denominaitonal there would be some consistency in how the local church was governed.

I get what you are saying about members having no input. My independent Pentecostal church is like that, but I thought denominations made sure that didn't happen.

Thanks for that informative post.

 

[Jethro99]

This is just my experience between the CoG & AoG churches I've been to. Sure, the denomination, statement of beliefes, etc does ensure some level consitancy between the local churches. So, no AoG or CoG church is going to be against speaking in tounges for example. But, its not like a McDonalds franchise where a Big Mac is the same regardless of if you get it in Seattle, Atlanta or any McDonalds in between.

 

[dayhiker]

Well, I've not been in a pentecostal church that taught entire sanctification. But I did attend a Nazarene church for 10 years that still has entire sanctification as part of its doctrine. It was interesting, I never heard the lead pastor refer to it. One of the associate pastors did believe he had received it and taught it in a Sunday School class I took. But I felt the scriptures used to teach the doctrine had other meanings. So I'd disagree with the hermeneutics used to support the doctrine. But even he seems to have some backing off as it was taught more of a desire to never sin again than that one would never sin again.

 

[dominion2013]

Heb 10: 10: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all".
Holiness is a blessing. It is given as a promise in His word. We cannot become holy by our works. Our Lord Jesus worked to make us holy. We can inherit holiness by faith in His word. Just as salvation is inherited by faith, holiness is also inherited by faith. Why? Gal 4: 28: "Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise".

We can inherit holiness only by faith because we are children of promise and not children who get holiness by our works. God bless you all.

 

[Alithis]

It's where we get the phrase: Saved, Sanctified, and Filled with the Holy Ghost. It expresses three distinct experiences. I'm just wondering does anyone still believe that

?


i believe it takes place as Stormdancer stated

both immediate and ongoing .

to strip away all the doctrinal theology -i think its simply ..one gets saved by placing their faith in the Lord Jesus
then .. they begin learning more of God and "he" leads them to the baptism of the holy Spirit -this process of being lead to know of it and then to seek it is ..one might say a process of sanctification in itself as they put aside worldly things and give themselves to seeking Godly things ..

there's no box to put it in of course - each testimony differs - and i think its a worry that not so many seek the Holy Spirit with sincerity and hunger ..
its atypical of the modern age -evryone wants what they want and they want it now !

instant gratification and there is a danger that has crossed over to the things of the Spirit - they want spiritual manifestation and they want it now !

no humility ,no patience , no waiting on God etc .. im thinking aloud here - not making a statement

 

[Rev Rafael]

Amen II, I am not fond of labels or very much Church doctrine of any kind. Much of it is just junk that gets in the way of the Spirit or replaces the move of the Spirit. Church and fellowship is important and valid. But people get too wrapped up structure, doctrine, money and leadership.
I'd like to start an unchurch.

.. would be unspiritual?

Jesus didn't think doctrine was junk that got in the way of the Spirit: it was one of the sticking points of the controversy that arose as he taught as he affirmed in John 7:17 and Mark 12:38 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. .... And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,

Luke 4:32 says "they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power." That's because the doctrine of Jesus was divinely delivered unto Him by the Father as John 7:16 also points out "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."

The first Christians on the day of Pentecost and afterwards thought it was pretty important in Acts 2:42 "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Would an "unchurch" or maybe one of these "online" churches find themselves free to do and say as they please apart from apostolic doctrine? What might that say about them and where would they get truth?

Unbelievers certainly understood what the doctrine of the church involved:

Acts 5:28 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

Acts 13:12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.

Acts 17:19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

I'm always amazed at how quick Christians are to diss doctrine while the world seeks to understand what we stand for.

And without doctrine not only are we without any understanding of the Triuine God and the Gospel, but completely at the mercy of the hounds of hell who infiltrate churches with enticing words, false doctrine and a deceptive spirit. How can you "have church and fellowship" without it?

Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

I didn't quote the Westminster Confession, go through the tomes of theological exposition that you can get into or go back to the Church of God Declaration of Faith.

I just quoted the Bible .. because it teaches that doctrine matters.

I'd recommend reconsidering just how important your understanding of what you believe really is. If you stand for nothing, you'll find yourself wide open to falling for anything. Deception excels at that and no one is immune. Not me and not you.

There are too many empty store fronts, online chat rooms and coffee houses where a lot of activity goes on .. but no real understanding that will help those involved endure and be steadfast in the faith because doctrine is seen as a blockade to growth, and people like their spirituality "messy."

Jesus is coming .. and there's a doctrine you'd best be clinging to then.

agape

rafael

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Since Pentecostal churches originally "developed" from the "Wesleyan Holiness" persuasion, in the early days they tended to be VERY "Clothesline holiness" oriented - it was all about "Dress length" and "Hair length", and about 1000 things that you "Shouldn't do", and, of course any sin wiped out your salvation - UNTIL you "Got it under the Blood". Early Pentecostals, like the "Holiness people", tended to spend all their time trying to "Stay saved".

The "Sancified Holy" (or "Sanctified Wholly") second act of grace SUPPOSEDLY "Eradicated the Sinful Nature" so that you no longer had to SIN. Oh - and SIN was Limited to: "The breaking of a known commandment" - which IS the definition of "Transgression" but not of "SIN". There are pockets of folks, some Pentecostal, who will fight to the death over hair length. Most of us have moved on.

OF course it didn't "Eradicate the Sinful nature" at all, but since it was really just another manifestation of the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" which did generally do GOOD things for folks who experienced it - greater "Zeal", a hunger for the Word - etc. it had a positive effect on those who experienced it - whether their "Theology" about it was correct or not.

Baptists, in fact had their OWN version of it called "Perfect Submission", and Spurgeon preached it as "being filled with the Holy Spirit". Oswald Smith called it "The Enduement of POWER". but it's all really the same thing, and in the early 20th century, the experience became known as "the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and "Tongues", and the re-introduction of the "Gifts of The Spirit" was a spontaneous, and well-nigh universal experience.

In 1966, a similar event occurred, starting in California in an Episcopalien Church, and at Notre Dame among the Catholics. It's generally referred to as "the Charismatic outpouring" which was MUCH broader in effect - world wide, in fact - than the "Pentecostal Revival/Azuza St." in 1906 had.

HOWEVER, since the Charismatic outpouring PRIMARILY effected folks from the LIBERAL churches (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc) they weren't "HOLY" the way the mainline Pentecostals wanted 'em to be - they Drank, Smoked, didn't dress like anachronistic freaks, went to movies, and (shudder) they's wimmenfolk wore MAKEUP on they's faces, y'all!!

SO the Pentecostals had NOTHING to do with the Charismatics - everybody KNEW the Catholics were the "False Church", and the Pope was the antichrist!!!! OBVIOUSLY what was going on COULDN'T BE GOD!!!

It was, of course, and so the Charismatics developed separately - BUT when the "outpouring" ended in the late '70s - many of 'em flowed into the "Historic Pentecostal" churches (Like the AOG), and had the effect of "De-Holyizing" 'em - which was a good thing since the "Clothesline Holiness" doctrines were never "Biblical" to begin with.

Nowadays there's not a penny's worth of difference between a mainline Pentecostal and a Charismatic - except that the Charismatics never really "Denominationalized" the way the Pentecostals did in the beginning.

Oh and there's a LUNATIC FRINGE Pentecostal movement with several denominations, the biggest being the United Pentecostal Church International, who's MAIN DISTINCTIVE is denial of the TRINITY!!! You've gotta deny the Trinity, Be baptized in the "NAME OF JESUS ONLY", AND speak in a tongue before they'll allow you to consider yourself Saved. They're generally WAY into "Clothesline Holiness" just like in the "Old days.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I have noticed spiritual differences in denominations. The Assembly of God Church I grew up in, many people had the gift of tongues and interpretation. It seems to be more common in the AOG to have tongues and interpretation. The denomination I attend now is really big on word of knowledge. Every evangelist that comes to our church gives a word. I do not know if this is something the Spirit decided or if it is something about the denominations.

 

[Veritas238]

I'm curious to see what answers people give. Among the classical Pentecostal churches, what are the differences between them? By "classical," I mean those denominations that trace their history back to the Pentecostal revival in the early 20th century. These would be denominations such as the Church of God in Christ, Assemblies of God, Church of God, etc. Any differences that you have observed in your own experience or that you are aware of are on the table. Differences can include doctrine, polity, worship styles, etc.

One question I am particularly interested in has to do with churches like the Church of God in Christ, Church of God (Cleveland), and the Pentecostal Holiness Church. Historically, these denominations advocated a Wesleyan theology that included three stages: conversion, entire sanctification, and then baptism in the Holy Spirit. These churches still mention entire sanctification in their belief statements.

I grew up in an independent Pentecostal church that only taught two stages: conversion and Spirit baptism. Sanctification was viewed as a lifelong progressive process. However, my family did attend a Pentecostal Holiness Church for several months once when our home church was going through a dysfunctional time. While I clearly heard references to and saw incidents of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit, I never once heard a sermon or reference to someone "getting sanctified." Would anyone who has been a member of these churches help me understand what exactly is believed about sanctification in these churches today?

Thanks.

I was raised baptist but converted to pentecostalism. I am a Oneness pentecostal, but have also attended a few different AOG churches as well. From what I can tell, the beliefs are different between the two, but the worship and prayer are very similar.

A main difference between the Oneness Pentecostals and the others is that they do not believe that there is a difference between the infilling or baptism of the Holy Ghost.