What do you think about Pentecostals?

[Bill McEnaney]

I know.

But within each faith tradition there often are--not always but often--variances in style. If so, they appeal to different people, and that's all to the good.

I agree, Albion. Even before Vatican II, different kinds of Catholic worshipped in different styles. Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgies differ enough from the Traditional Latin Mass to make some TLM attendees wonder whether they stumbled into an Eastern Orthodox one when they've found instead a Catholic one St. John Chrysostom wrote in the fourth century.

That's partly why the phrase "Roman Catholic" can mislead people unfamiliar with Eastern Catholic liturgies. Most people equate Roman Catholic liturgy with the New Mass that came along in about 1970, because that's the only Catholic liturgy they've ever known. A Lutheran friend of mine even thought Roman Rite Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics belonged to different denominations. No, they're members of the Church the pope rules, though they worship in eastern ways.

The Ukrainian Liturgy is great for some Catholics. But I detest it partly because like the New Mass, it keeps the congregation too busy with plenty of singing, lots of spoken replies, sitting one moment, standing, a minute later. The sound floods my senses enough that I can hardly concentrate, let alone pray the way Pope St. Pius X asks Roman Rite Catholics to help at Mass.

During the vernacular ones, you'll hear about what it's fans call "active participants," laymen who read Old and New Testament passages to the congregation, who give Holy Communion to others there at church, or who wander around to shake every extended hand and to hug anybody who opens her arms.

St. Pius X meant another kind of active participation, a mostly internal, meditative one. He wanted us to concentrate on what the priest was doing at the altar to pray silently for him and for others, to meditate on Sacrifice of the Mass, to feel penitent . . ., not to keep running perpetually the way Martha did when Mary sat at Our Blessed Lord's feet. I imagine Martha saying, "Rabbi, would you like more coffee? Mary how about another piece of chocolate cream pie? Oh, I better hurry. The egg timer just rang. Did I start the microwave?"

 

[NorrinRadd]

I don't know what to think of Pentecostals, but charismatic services frighten me. Imagine how much I worried when a woman laughed while she rolled on the floor during the sermon. A young man seemed offended when I asked whether he felt well when he prostrated then. I kept worrying, "Oh no, if someone dies at this emotionally charged service, no one will notice." Now that the Traditional Latin Mass is the only service I attend, I get to contemplate quietly.

This is not a complaint, but more of an observation that everyone has his or her own definitions of terms.

From the mid '80s to mid '90s, I attended a Pentecostal church where that "laughing in the Spirit" or "holy laughter" occurred frequently (during the ministry time after the sermon, not during the sermon itself except on rare occasions when certain guest preachers presided). During that time, I visited a couple of other Pentecostal churches where similar activities occurred. (The denominations or affiliations were Independent Assemblies of God, Church of God, and Christian Assembly / Christian Church of North America. Most of the area branches of the "regular" Assemblies of God would probably not have been as open to such things.)

Also during that time, such activities and more became somewhat notable in the fledgling "Vineyard" group, which would probably be considered Charismatic rather than Pentecostal. Further into the '90s, they rather "exploded" via the (in)famous "Toronto Vineyard," and soon after, the Brownsville/Pensacola Outpouring (which involved the AG of that region).

Not all of the Vineyard was involved in those activities, and in recent years they have refined their doctrines and practices, and dissociated from the more extreme local branches.

Meanwhile, from what I understand, Charismatic groups such as Calvary Chapel have never really been home to such things.

My point is that I'm not sure what you mean by "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic."

For my purposes, the CF site definitions are adequate:

Pentecostal

Charismatic

For me, the main differences involve Spirit-baptism and the issue of "tongues." I agree with Pentecostals that the ability to pray in tongues is intended for all believers. However, since the site rules explicitly require agreement with the "separate and subsequent" understanding of Spirit-baptism relative to salvation, and the "initial evidence" view of tongues, I can't properly use that icon and post in that forum, hence my choice of "Charismatic."

There is also Word of Faith. For me, it is an excessive variant of Pentecostalism. I'm less satisfied with that SoF, because it does not emphasize the importance of "proper" speaking as much as did the WoF of my own experience. The Pentecostal churches I earlier mentioned attending and described as demonstrating "holy laughter" and such were at the very least "friendly" to WoF (in contrast to the AG, which explicitly rejects "Positive Confession").

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Norrin,

I'm sorry I didn't define "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic" when I joined this discussion. The word "charismatic" reminds me of joyful, arm-swingers who prophesy, speak in tongues, sing better than I ever could, say things like "Praise you, Jesus," and swoon sometimes when someone prays over them. But I still need to learn about what distinguishes, say, Assemblies of God faithful from other people I've met at services I went to with friends of mine. I read voraciously about Catholicism, Catholic theology, and Catholic philosophy. Sadly, I'm too, too ignorant about non-Catholic Christian beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Norrin,

I'm sorry I didn't define "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic" when I joined this discussion. The word "charismatic" reminds me of joyful, arm-swingers who prophesy, speak in tongues, sing better than I ever could, say things like "Praise you, Jesus," and swoon sometimes when someone prays over them. But I still need to learn about what distinguishes, say, Assemblies of God faithful from other people I've met at services I went to with friends of mine. I read voraciously about Catholicism, Catholic theology, and Catholic philosophy. Sadly, I'm too, too ignorant about non-Catholic Christian beliefs.

I think you've framed the issue well, but there probably is no quick rule of thumb that we can use to distinguish Charismatics from Pentecostals or--more to the point--Pentecostals from other Pentecostals.

And while there are differences from one Pentecostal denomination to another, there often are significant differences from one congregation to the next congregation within a single denomination. The AofG are a good example of that.

 

[The realist]

This is not a complaint, but more of an observation that everyone has his or her own definitions of terms.

From the mid '80s to mid '90s, I attended a Pentecostal church where that "laughing in the Spirit" or "holy laughter" occurred frequently (during the ministry time after the sermon, not during the sermon itself except on rare occasions when certain guest preachers presided). During that time, I visited a couple of other Pentecostal churches where similar activities occurred. (The denominations or affiliations were Independent Assemblies of God, Church of God, and Christian Assembly / Christian Church of North America. Most of the area branches of the "regular" Assemblies of God would probably not have been as open to such things.)

Also during that time, such activities and more became somewhat notable in the fledgling "Vineyard" group, which would probably be considered Charismatic rather than Pentecostal. Further into the '90s, they rather "exploded" via the (in)famous "Toronto Vineyard," and soon after, the Brownsville/Pensacola Outpouring (which involved the AG of that region).

Not all of the Vineyard was involved in those activities, and in recent years they have refined their doctrines and practices, and dissociated from the more extreme local branches.

Meanwhile, from what I understand, Charismatic groups such as Calvary Chapel have never really been home to such things.

My point is that I'm not sure what you mean by "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic."

For my purposes, the CF site definitions are adequate:

Pentecostal

Charismatic

For me, the main differences involve Spirit-baptism and the issue of "tongues." I agree with Pentecostals that the ability to pray in tongues is intended for all believers. However, since the site rules explicitly require agreement with the "separate and subsequent" understanding of Spirit-baptism relative to salvation, and the "initial evidence" view of tongues, I can't properly use that icon and post in that forum, hence my choice of "Charismatic."

There is also Word of Faith. For me, it is an excessive variant of Pentecostalism. I'm less satisfied with that SoF, because it does not emphasize the importance of "proper" speaking as much as did the WoF of my own experience. The Pentecostal churches I earlier mentioned attending and described as demonstrating "holy laughter" and such were at the very least "friendly" to WoF (in contrast to the AG, which explicitly rejects "Positive Confession").

A little off topic,
Although I agree that holy laughter is a huge experience in C/P circles, this phenomenon is much older then Pentecostals and charismatics. Holy laughter is wittnessed in some of the greatest revivals in history. From Edwards, Wesley ( although Wesley demonized this phenomenon early on his ministry he later spoke well of the experience) and even the great evangelist himself Charles Finney all wrote about holy laughter at one point or another. I'm not entirely against laughing in the Spirit or rejoicing in the lord. It's the extreme that I don't understand. When some sincere christians laugh and shake on the ground is what gets me. But I won't demonize what I don't know. When we are under the power of God sometimes our physical bodies can act in different ways. Sometimes those ways are common and other times they can be weird like the prophet daniel falling down like a dead man during an angelic visitation.
By the way the root word for charis is "chairo" and this means to rejoice. This word explains common experiences in charismatic circles.

But getting back to the thread,
Traditional Pentecostals seems to lean more on the holiness aspects of the Christian walk.
While Traditional Charismatics seems to focus more on the charisma gifts of ministry.
I'm not implying that "chrismatic theology" does not focus on holiness in great detail, it's just not their main theology. However, I do believe that both groups complete each other more then we realize.


God bless

 

[Bill McEnaney]

I think you've framed the issue well, but there probably is no quick rule of thumb that we can use to distinguish Charismatics from Pentecostals or--more to the point--Pentecostals from other Pentecostals.

And while there are differences from one Pentecostal denomination to another, there often are significant differences from one congregation to the next congregation within a single denomination. The AofG are a good example of that.

Thank you, Albion. You've just reminded me of why I need to learn from you and my other friends here. You and they know the distinctions, the nuances, and details that I still need to learn. Perhaps Plato's dialogues or my computer science professors taught me to define a thing rather than a word, to write a definition to specify the nature of the defined thing. Maybe no one can define Pentecostalism or the "charismaticism" with a definition of that kind. I may need to settle for an intuitive one, eh?

 

[Purge187]

I'm still up in the air concerning tongues.

Paul said in Corinthians that not everyone has the gift and that only a few people should engage in it at a time, and even then only when there was someone there to interpret what was being said. That to me disqualifies the sorts of worship where many or all appear to be speaking in tongues. He also said that it was a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

And there's the issue of Cessation and whether or not such gifts ceased when the apostles were martyred.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Since I'm not a member of the Charismatic movement, it's hard for me to believe that anyone speaks in any supernatural language by speaking in tongues. Maybe the tongues the Bibles are natural,spoken languages that the speakers don't understand. Remember the passage where someone asked why people in a group heard an Apostle speak in their own languages.

Gerry Matatics, a professional Catholic apologist, prayed a psalm in Hebrew to see whether anyone at a charismatic prayer meeting would interpret what he said supposedly in tongues. Unfortunately, the other man's interpretation showed that he had no idea what the Hebrew meant. Although I'm open-minded about whether anything supernatural happens at charismatic events, I suspect that during theirs services, charismatics probably mistake purely natural events for supernatural ones. Maybe I did that, too, at the Mass where I swooned when a priest touched my shoulder.

 

[rdclmn72]

Being no stranger to pentecostalism since the mid-70's, I can honestly say that we are subject to many doctrines, some of which are just plain silly and are baseless.
The same can be said of just about every church group out there.
I also believe that God has a destiny for each of our church groups as we are in the middle of the greatest revival in history, with enough work for all.

 

[Athanasias]

I think pentecostals taste good on rye bread with a little chipotle mayo and fava beans.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

I think pentecostals taste good on rye bread with a little chipotle mayo and fava beans.

So does pent-tee pasta.

 

[The realist]

I'm still up in the air concerning tongues.

Paul said in Corinthians that not everyone has the gift and that only a few people should engage in it at a time, and even then only when there was someone there to interpret what was being said. That to me disqualifies the sorts of worship where many or all appear to be speaking in tongues. He also said that it was a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

And there's the issue of Cessation and whether or not such gifts ceased when the apostles were martyred.

According to some this is not the thread for this topic. But if you want a good thread that does talk about "glossolalia" there's one that was started sometime ago called" 'Tongues, Not in the bible" it has now extended to three threads in total.
You can find this thread in the "general theology" forum.
Below is a link to the first thread and from there it will lead you to the rest of them:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7716845-new/

God bless

 

[The realist]

I think pentecostals taste good on rye bread with a little chipotle mayo and fava beans.

I like fava beans

 

[NorrinRadd]

According to some this is not the thread for this topic. But if you want a good thread that does talk about "glossolalia" there's one that was started sometime ago called" 'Tongues, Not in the bible" it has now extended to three threads in total.
You can find this thread in the "general theology" forum.
Below is a link to the first thread and from there it will lead you to the rest of them:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7716845-new/

God bless

Thanks for the reminder. I'd let that one slip, and IIRC there was at least one post directed to me to which I never responded.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

Gerry Matatics, a professional Catholic apologist, prayed a psalm in Hebrew to see whether anyone at a charismatic prayer meeting would interpret what he said supposedly in tongues. Unfortunately, the other man's interpretation showed that he had no idea what the Hebrew meant. ...

IMO, this proves nothing. Since the Hebrew-speak was not by the Spirit, there was no reason for the Spirit to play Gerry's game. An interesting question at this point would be whether the other man said anything unscriptural in his response. For all we know, God basically said, "Ok, I'm going to just ignore that little 'test' that idiot tried to perform, and go ahead and say what *I* want said."

 

[Bill McEnaney]

IMO, this proves nothing. Since the Hebrew-speak was not by the Spirit, there was no reason for the Spirit to play Gerry's game. An interesting question at this point would be whether the other man said anything unscriptural in his response. For all we know, God basically said, "Ok, I'm going to just ignore that little 'test' that idiot tried to perform, and go ahead and say what *I* want said."

They're good points. But if the other man thought mistakenly that he interpreted what Matatics said, for me, that's a pretty good reason to believe that the Holy Ghost didn't give him the incorrect interpretation. I see no reason to feel any less doubtful about whether charismatics speak supernatural languages when they at least believe they're speaking in tongues. Matatics is only an acquaintance of mine. But I'm familiar enough with his work to know that he's a fine theologian fluent in both Hebrew and NT Greek.

 

[The realist]

IMO, this proves nothing. Since the Hebrew-speak was not by the Spirit, there was no reason for the Spirit to play Gerry's game. An interesting question at this point would be whether the other man said anything unscriptural in his response. For all we know, God basically said, "Ok, I'm going to just ignore that little 'test' that idiot tried to perform, and go ahead and say what *I* want said."

Great response.
Well said

 

[Nate1980]

I consider myself Pentecostal although their are so many different versions I do not try nor want to keep track. For me what keeps me Pentecostal and not Baptist is the working gifts of the Spirit that I believe are alive today just as in the books of Acts. I have experienced this in my own life and will always hold to this. Although I do believe that one must be careful in any denomination that we call the will of God. I do not think any of us has it right although outside of salvation sake does it matter? I suppose we must try. I would prefer a million men and woman know Christ as their savior and not be 100% on their theology than 1000 who may have it supposedly all figured out.

 

[The realist]

I consider myself Pentecostal although their are so many different versions I do not try nor want to keep track. For me what keeps me Pentecostal and not Baptist is the working gifts of the Spirit that I believe are alive today just as in the books of Acts. I have experienced this in my own life and will always hold to this. Although I do believe that one must be careful in any denomination that we call the will of God. I do not think any of us has it right although outside of salvation sake does it matter? I suppose we must try. I would prefer a million men and woman know Christ as their savior and not be 100% on their theology than 1000 who may have it supposedly all figured out.

I love it! Your post is true

 

[blujon]

I was raised in an Assembly Of God Church, I attended the same church for about 15 years. I never realized, until about 2 years ago, that many of the things that I was raised to believe were wrong and out of context. Mainly what they teach about "speaking in tounges," and the way they teach salvation.

I started Bible College a year and a half ago, now that I am learning how to study God's word properly and hermeneutically enterprit scripture I can safely say that I will never be going back to another AOG church.

Im not trying to inflame or anger anyone that is AOG or Pentecostal, I just personally believe that they are a little off on their teachings.

What are your views on AOG churches? Do you believe they are accurate in what they teach? This isn't going to be a debate or anything, I just want to have a mature conversation with people.

I HAVE HEARD IT SAID THAT IF THEY TALK IN TONGUES, PUSH PEOPLE OVER BACKWARD AND CLAIM THEY ARE CURING THE THE HANDICAPPED. I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT! PAUL SAID THEY ARE NOT TO FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN HIS DAY, BUT THE WAY THEY RUN THE ISLES AND HOOP AND HOLLAR AND BLABBER AT THE MOUTH, PAUL SAID THEY ARE NOT TO DO THAT, BUT THEY STILL DO IT. THEN THE PUSHING OVER BACKWARD, WELL! ANY VERSE YOU READ IN THE BIBLE IMPLIES THAT GOING OVER BACKWARD IS A SIGN OF WICKEDNESS,(EVEN THOSE WHO CAME TO TAKE JESUS FELL OVER BACKWARD, AND MANY DIED IN THE OT FOR GOING OVER BACKWARD) IT IS A PLOT OF SATAN IMITATING CHRIST, BUT NOT LETING ANYONE KNOW THE TRUTH OF IT. AND IT IS EVIL SPIRITS IN THE LAST DAYS THAT GO AROUND FAKING MIRACLES(BOOK OF REVELATIONS), SATAN DOES HAVE A POWER TO MAKE YOU SICK AND THEN REMOVE HIS BURDEN FROM YOU AND MAKE YOU THINK YOU ARE WELL AGAIN. I'D RATHER BE CATHOLIC THAN PENTECOSTAL, BUT I ALSO DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF CATHOLIC TEACHING. THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ONLY HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. PRAY TO JEHOVAH TO LEAD YOU.