What do you think about Pentecostals?

[Bill McEnaney]

Norrin,

Thank you for your inoffensive, polite candor. I know the Traditional Latin Mass will be unfamiliar to most people who grew up on other religious traditions. Until about 12 years ago, it was new to me, too, because I grew up with the New Mass. I was born in 1961, priests began to say it in 1970.

The Traditional Mass is certainly much more old-covenant-like than any evangelical service you'll ever attend. It should remind us of OT events, too, partly, because Holy Mass is a sacrifice that Christ offers to His Heavenly Father through the priests. No, He doesn't die again. The priest consecrates bread and win separately because Christ's blood left His body when He died. Separate consecrations stand for that separation. The priest wears vestments because he does something like what Aaron did in the Holy of Holies. Here's an excellent explanation of the Mass.

Here's a bunch of photos from the Mass I attended January 2, 2014 at St. Joseph's Church in Troy, New York. The crucifix is standing on the tabernacle.

http://stpeters-troy.tripod.com/id310.html

The Catholic Mass explained by Archbishop Fulton Sheen - YouTube

The tabernacle is a fancy, holy-of-holies-like locked place where transubstantiated Hosts stay during Holy Mass and after it. It's something like a safe. We take Our Lord literally when He says "This is my body" and "This is my blood." We believe that while the priest consecrates the bread and the wine, they become His body, blood, soul, and divinity. The essence of the bread becomes the essence of His living, glorified body. The essence changes into the essence of His blood. That's why I posted the two-part article about the Eucharistic miracle that happened in Lanciano, Italy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Livelier, it is. But that isn't the only consideration. While I have enjoyed Pentecostal services and feel the sincerity of the people, it always seems more like a religious concert or special program than a worship service.

I've been to a lot of Pentecostal services, and some of them are more like that then others.

One I recall was at a very wealthy church (now that I think about it, it was a non-denom and may not have had Pentecostal leanings - I only visited it with a friend who attended there). The worship leader was a famous "star" actually, and the worship music was accompanied by a laser-light show. A bit over-the-top for me!

Another was a Pentecostal non-denom church I liked otherwise, but the lead worship leader was -- enthusiastic. He played electric guitar and sang, and I recall a few times he would get into concert-like dancing moves. I was very uncomfortable with that little show.

My favorite Pentecostal worship service was a Church of God where there was a choir, and they regularly had prayer meetings, fasts, and were very serious about seeking the Lord as part of their responsibility in leading worship. The music was led by a very talented man who played a keyboard - he usually kept it to a piano or organ sound. The worship in that church was - hard to describe. They would sing praise songs and hymns, but it was the kind of worship where you could close your eyes and feel like you were in the crowd gathered around the very Throne of God. I absolutely LOVED that church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks. I think I do have a relationship with Our Lord. But I try hard to avoid highly emotional religious events because my feelings already are too strong, especially while I write this post.

You remind me of things I had forgotten.

I used to attend very staid worship services, and I still tended to weep sometimes. I was thankful for having long hair I could hide behind. I could not have handled Pentecostal services then, I think.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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 actually don't know all of their various theologies, which I'm sure I'd disagree with some.

The main thing I recall from them is that they tend to teach that speaking in tongues is necessarily going to happen as evidence of having received the filling of the Holy Spirit, and I actually disagree on that point. It's not too major a point, but it can cause believers to doubt the filling of the Holy Spirit, or to feel pressured to "force" tongues when they are not happening.

 

[Purge187]

I'm in a similar position as Kylissa. The Pentecostal church I'm currently attending subscribes to Modalism and I don't. But as I said in my thread in the church-search forum, the Bishop gave an analogy toward the end of the sermon to emphasize how the different customs of different churches shouldn't allow us to stop strengthening each other in Christ. They were some of the friendliest people I've met.

 

[Forever trying]

While I do admire the AOG movement for many things, there are areas that I do disagree with, which I guess stems from each church being independent in many regards. There are those that place an over emphasis on tongues. There are also those that place a great focus on prosperity doctrine. Such as I went to one service at a big AOG church, and the young pastor even told the crowd (many young people) "Make a coffee for you boss, and you will be rewarded. It's biblical". You can't say that, because it's not biblical (hard work is, sucking up isn't), and it gives young people the wrong idea. Plus an overemphasis on tithing just to receive EARTHLY rewards in turn. And I do think that particularly larger AOG churches let young people have to much of a say, just to get the crowds. Which even though I don't doubt their intentions, what happens is like the coffee for your boss story, wrong teachings and more glitz and glamour music and hanging out than actually learning about the bible.

 

[Albion]

Before I read that last post, I was thinking approximately the same thing.

I know a number of Pentecostals and they're very nice people, but the whole premise about tongues not having ceased, not to mention other things like being 'slain in the spirit' is just untenable. And that's to say nothing about really serious doctrinal errors such as have been mentioned by others here.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Before I read that last post, I was thinking approximately the same thing.

I know a number of Pentecostals and they're very nice people, but the whole premise about tongues not having ceased, not to mention other things like being 'slain in the spirit' is just untenable. And that's to say nothing about really serious doctrinal errors such as have been mentioned by others here.

This gives the impression N.T. Wright disagrees with your assessment.

 

[Albion]

This gives the impression N.T. Wright disagrees with your assessment.

Maybe he does. We're Anglicans, after all. Would you like a list of Anglican bishops who disagree with him?

 

[PersephonesTear]

The main thing I recall from them is that they tend to teach that speaking in tongues is necessarily going to happen as evidence of having received the filling of the Holy Spirit, and I actually disagree on that point. It's not too major a point, but it can cause believers to doubt the filling of the Holy Spirit, or to feel pressured to "force" tongues when they are not happening.

I am an AoG'er, and I am with you on this one. I absolutely believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for everyone - but I do not believe that everyone who receives it will speak in tongues. I have simply known too many spirit-filled believers who haven't. This perception that you have to certainly can be harmful to believers, I'm afraid.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Maybe he does. We're Anglicans, after all. Would you like a list of Anglican bishops who disagree with him?

No need. I'm sure there are many. Frankly, there are no opinions I value above my own, and my own is that the conclusion that the continuation of "tongues" is "untenable" is itself untenable. :-D Since there is already a thrice-split thread more directly devoted to that topic, there is no need to explore it at length here. My only purpose in citing Wright was to provide someone well regarded from within your own "house," in case that might lead you to choose a softer term than "untenable."

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am an AoG'er, and I am with you on this one. I absolutely believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for everyone - but I do not believe that everyone who receives it will speak in tongues. I have simply known too many spirit-filled believers who haven't. This perception that you have to certainly can be harmful to believers, I'm afraid.

Yes, I've known a lot of angst among believers who felt slighted by God, or that they weren't "good enough" or were otherwise frustrated, thinking they could not receive the filling of the Holy Spirit, when I was pretty sure they already had.

I've even seen teachers teach against any filling of the Holy Spirit, while they seemed to have received it themselves. But I think the whole issue of "tongues" muddies the water so much, that they would deny they had received a filling of the Holy Spirit if you asked them.

And I also believe that there are probably more believers who have the ABILITY to speak in tongues who actually don't - because they don't believe in it, they don't have spontaneous worship perhaps, maybe they maintain an extremely tight control - I'm not sure of the reasons. Scripture makes it plain that even in the time of the Apostles, not all spoke in tongues. But I do think the ability is probably more widespread than we see, since so many branches of the church generally don't experience, allow, and/or believe in it.

Somehow it has gotten to be far too important a "hot button" issue that has divided the church.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I decided it was time I actually responded to the OP. (What an odd notion! If I hadn't seen Kylissa do it, the thought might never have occurred to me!)

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'm curious as to what concern you have about how the AG teaches 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.

I could attend AG churches, but I'd have trouble being a member.

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.

My views are very mixed. I was trying to organize them, but have given up and instead will just burp out a rather random list:

-- I like the fact that they have clearly defined beliefs, and put out the effort to publish official and semi-official positions on numerous matters of doctrine, practice, and controversial issues.

-- I like the fact that they officially reject "Positive Confession," popularly known as "Name it and Claim it," or pejoratively as "Blab it and Grab it."

-- I like the fact that they officially affirm full equality of women in ministry.

-- I DISlike the fact that their official published positions regarding authority structures in the home are hopelessly inconsistent.

-- I like their view of Original Sin, which rejects the notion of inherited guilt.

-- I like their affirmation and encouragement of the gifts of the Spirit.

-- I like that they encourage the practice of "speaking in tongues."

-- I DISagree with their all-too-common view that there is such a thing as a "message" in tongues.

-- I DISagree with their view that "tongues" is the necessary "initial evidence" of being "baptized in the Spirit."

-- I like their advocacy of seeking empowerment by the Spirit and the leading of the Spirit.

-- I DISagree with their view that "baptism in the Spirit" is always "separate and subsequent" relative to rebirth. It particularly bothers me that they ascribe such importance to this fact that they make it part of one of their four "Cardinal Doctrines," which are essentially "super-beliefs" within their overall Statement of Faith (which they term "Fundamental Truths").

-- I like that individual churches have freedom to follow their own "style" of worship -- e.g. organ music and dress-up, vs. contemporary "praise" band and casual attire.

-- I DISlike that that autonomy also often leads to individual churches and pastors wandering far from the "official" denominational positions on matters of doctrine and practice.

-- I like that they are evangelistic and missions oriented.

-- I DISlike their extra-Biblical "holiness" standards, which often take the form of legalism.

-- I like that my favorite author, Gordon Fee, is an AG guy. And I really like that he has written and taught very explicitly challenging the AG positions on the meaning of "baptism in the Spirit," the "separate and subsequent" issue, the "initial evidence" doctrine, the "messages in tongues" practice, the "Pre-Trib Rapture" dogma (another "Cardinal Doctrine"), and, more subtly, the "holiness" rules. I'm not sure how he has retained his AG ministry credentials through the decades, other than the fact that he's a widely respected scholar, and the AG needs such to counter the old notion that Pentecostals are uneducated hicks.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Oh, and the reason I'd have trouble being a "member" is that at least some AG churches require one to sign a document agreeing with both the "Fundamental Truths" and the "holiness" standards in order to become a "member" with voting privileges.

 

[tulipbee]

What are your views on AOG churches? Do you believe they are
accurate in what they teach?

They are very inaccurate. If person A and person B, both have the natural ability to awaken extra sensitive energy events that causes them to cry, laugh, jump, flop like fishes, make vocal babbles, then both have the exact same bodily behavior. If person A is a Penticoastal and person B is an atheist, the person A would say that God caused them to babble and at the same time person A would say the person B is babbling by the force of Satan.
This means that a pentecostal spends 80+% of thier time in church being lied to by a positive speaking guru who is trained to apply psychology to a large group.

Such bodily events has been around for ages. That's why a church lead a women that has already been babbling but asked one of the deciples if he could teach them how to speak in spoken languages used by other countries. It's simple. The deciples were speaking in other spoken languages while others were babbling in natural human event.
The pentecostals are speaking in the natural babble languages while the Bible are already written in multiple languages. It's possible for the right biblical tongues to still be used but an AOL really doesn't need any more than English language.

It's ok AOG to babble but it not OK for them to stab themselves in the back saying babble is from God and babble is from Satan at the same time. Not a smart church and no where near a wise church.

 

[NorrinRadd]

They are very inaccurate. If person A and person B, both have the natural ability to awaken extra sensitive energy events that causes them to cry, laugh, jump, flop like fishes, make vocal babbles, then both have the exact same bodily behavior. If person A is a Penticoastal and person B is an atheist, the person A would say that God caused them to babble and at the same time person A would say the person B is babbling by the force of Satan.
This means that a pentecostal spends 80+% of thier time in church being lied to by a positive speaking guru who is trained to apply psychology to a large group.

Such bodily events has been around for ages. That's why a church lead a women that has already been babbling but asked one of the deciples if he could teach them how to speak in spoken languages used by other countries. It's simple. The deciples were speaking in other spoken languages while others were babbling in natural human event.
The pentecostals are speaking in the natural babble languages while the Bible are already written in multiple languages. It's possible for the right biblical tongues to still be used but an AOL really doesn't need any more than English language.

It's ok AOG to babble but it not OK for them to stab themselves in the back saying babble is from God and babble is from Satan at the same time. Not a smart church and no where near a wise church.

Amusing. Beyond the fact that your post gives no evidence that you know anything substantive about actual AG doctrine and practice, most of your underwear-knottage seems to revolve around the practice of "speaking in tongues."

Would I be correct in assuming that you are firmly set in your prejudice, such that there is no point in my naming at least half a dozen widely respected (i.e. beyond the ranks of "Pentecostals") theologians, Biblical scholars, and apologists who affirm and even advocate the practice of "speaking in tongues"?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm curious as to what concern you have about how the AG teaches salvation.

I could attend AG churches, but I'd have trouble being a member.

My views are very mixed. I was trying to organize them, but have given up and instead will just burp out a rather random list:

-- I like the fact that they have clearly defined beliefs, and put out the effort to publish official and semi-official positions on numerous matters of doctrine, practice, and controversial issues.

-- I like the fact that they officially reject "Positive Confession," popularly known as "Name it and Claim it," or pejoratively as "Blab it and Grab it."

-- I like the fact that they officially affirm full equality of women in ministry.

-- I DISlike the fact that their official published positions regarding authority structures in the home are hopelessly inconsistent.

-- I like their view of Original Sin, which rejects the notion of inherited guilt.

-- I like their affirmation and encouragement of the gifts of the Spirit.

-- I like that they encourage the practice of "speaking in tongues."

-- I DISagree with their all-too-common view that there is such a thing as a "message" in tongues.

-- I DISagree with their view that "tongues" is the necessary "initial evidence" of being "baptized in the Spirit."

-- I like their advocacy of seeking empowerment by the Spirit and the leading of the Spirit.

-- I DISagree with their view that "baptism in the Spirit" is always "separate and subsequent" relative to rebirth. It particularly bothers me that they ascribe such importance to this fact that they make it part of one of their four "Cardinal Doctrines," which are essentially "super-beliefs" within their overall Statement of Faith (which they term "Fundamental Truths").

-- I like that individual churches have freedom to follow their own "style" of worship -- e.g. organ music and dress-up, vs. contemporary "praise" band and casual attire.

-- I DISlike that that autonomy also often leads to individual churches and pastors wandering far from the "official" denominational positions on matters of doctrine and practice.

-- I like that they are evangelistic and missions oriented.

-- I DISlike their extra-Biblical "holiness" standards, which often take the form of legalism.

-- I like that my favorite author, Gordon Fee, is an AG guy. And I really like that he has written and taught very explicitly challenging the AG positions on the meaning of "baptism in the Spirit," the "separate and subsequent" issue, the "initial evidence" doctrine, the "messages in tongues" practice, the "Pre-Trib Rapture" dogma (another "Cardinal Doctrine"), and, more subtly, the "holiness" rules. I'm not sure how he has retained his AG ministry credentials through the decades, other than the fact that he's a widely respected scholar, and the AG needs such to counter the old notion that Pentecostals are uneducated hicks.

That was a very helpful list.

I hadn't realized that the AoG did not believe in a message in tongues, while supporting tongues as a private prayer language. That makes sense then, why I have been in AoG churches where they obviously believe in it, but don't allow tongues to be spoken in the assembly. I always wondered how they reconciled that as policy. Refreshingly, I can support both aspects, though I'm not SURE on the first part - it does seem right to me.

I'm a little surprised too that they insist on "separate and subsequent" and elevate it to the level of a cardinal doctrine. It never seemed to happen that way in the Bible, did it?

Thanks for the rundown. I was considering visiting one tonight for the worship service, but you're right, I could never be a "member" either ...

 

[NorrinRadd]

That was a very helpful list.

I hadn't realized that the AoG did not believe in a message in tongues, while supporting tongues as a private prayer language. That makes sense then, why I have been in AoG churches where they obviously believe in it, but don't allow tongues to be spoken in the assembly. I always wondered how they reconciled that as policy. Refreshingly, I can support both aspects, though I'm not SURE on the first part - it does seem right to me.

No, wait, I think you misunderstood me. They DO believe in "messages" in tongues, unless they've changed in the past few years. They believe there are two "versions" of tongues: One is for prayer and praise, and is the "initial evidence" everyone is supposed to get when "baptized in the Spirit"; the other is for "messages," is only intended for some, not all, and must always be combined with "interpretation." They view Paul as talking about the two different versions in 1 Cor. 14. So in practice, most Pentecostal churches I've attended will at times have the whole congregation (together, not one at a time, and not just three total) pray or sing in tongues with no interpretation, but when individuals have "messages," each must be interpreted, they must take turns, and there can be no more than three.

I don't happen to agree with that traditional view. I believe there is only one "version" of tongues -- the one for prayer and praise. I believe the "rules" in 1 Cor. 14 are pragmatic suggestions. In Acts, there was never any taking turns, never any interpretation, never any limit of three. So those things aren't mandatory. But if there is concern about alarming or giving opportunity for mocking to unbelievers or untaught believers, it might be practical to avoid the sorts of practices demonstrated in Acts in some settings.

I'm a little surprised too that they insist on "separate and subsequent" and elevate it to the level of a cardinal doctrine. It never seemed to happen that way in the Bible, did it?

It seemed to in Acts 2, since I view the "He breathed into them and said 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" near the end of John as the point at which The Eleven were "born again." But it is not clear in the other occasions in Acts, and in 1 Cor. 12:13, as well as in the Gospels, "baptize in the Spirit" seems to refer to salvation itself.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, wait, I think you misunderstood me. They DO believe in "messages" in tongues, unless they've changed in the past few years. They believe there are two "versions" of tongues: One is for prayer and praise, and is the "initial evidence" everyone is supposed to get when "baptized in the Spirit"; the other is for "messages," is only intended for some, not all, and must always be combined with "interpretation." They view Paul as talking about the two different versions in 1 Cor. 14. So in practice, most Pentecostal churches I've attended will at times have the whole congregation (together, not one at a time, and not just three total) pray or sing in tongues with no interpretation, but when individuals have "messages," each must be interpreted, they must take turns, and there can be no more than three.

I don't happen to agree with that traditional view. I believe there is only one "version" of tongues -- the one for prayer and praise. I believe the "rules" in 1 Cor. 14 are pragmatic suggestions. In Acts, there was never any taking turns, never any interpretation, never any limit of three. So those things aren't mandatory. But if there is concern about alarming or giving opportunity for mocking to unbelievers or untaught believers, it might be practical to avoid the sorts of practices demonstrated in Acts in some settings.

Ah, OK, I did misunderstand you then. It's not hugely important to me. I'm in the process of re-examining some doctrines, and when I finish, somehow I think I may not find a church whose doctrines and practices I wholly agree with, LOL.

I see. I'm not actually dogmatic on it myself. I've heard teaching that they were separate gifts, and that they were not. It seems to me that if you "separate" ... then the "message tongues" are essentially prophecy that needs interpretation?

I'm just personally not comfortable delivering a message in tongues in church. That's my own issue as far as I can tell. I've never felt I needed to do it anyway.

It seemed to in Acts 2, since I view the "He breathed into them and said 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" near the end of John as the point at which The Eleven were "born again." But it is not clear in the other occasions in Acts, and in 1 Cor. 12:13, as well as in the Gospels, "baptize in the Spirit" seems to refer to salvation itself.

True, but it doesn't make sense (to me) to base doctrine of what to expect today on the events of Pentecost. Jesus said God WOULD SEND the Holy Spirit, and that they should WAIT on Him. If the Holy Spirit in the NT is different from the way He would come to rest on people in the OT (and I believe it is different), then perhaps the moment of Pentecost marked that change. If that is the case, then the fact that they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until that moment (subsequent to "salvation") ... that can't be considered proof that it will always be that way.

It seemed to be in the future scenes of conversion, that the Holy Spirit fell on each of them.

If anything, the Scriptures make me question whether subsequent filling can be valid. Of course, I DO believe subsequent can be valid, as that has been my experience as well as many others, and it happened at least one other time in Scripture as well, with John's disciples.

But to say it MUST be that way, and further to elevate that belief to a key position, just seems ... not right to me.

I'm sure others can disagree, and I guess that's the point here ... "What do you think of AoG doctrine". But that's my take at least.

Thanks SO much for explaining and clarifying.