What do you think about Pentecostals?

[rockytopva]

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?


Pentecostalism is a child of the Methodist movement. It is a part of the church just like all the others. Whether you like it or not, it is here to stay.

 

[The realist]

No kidding... No where in the bible does it even suggest that tongues will cease. If tongues were for a time frame I think Christ or one of his Apostles would have told us so.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. - Mark 16:17-18

Unfortunately the only signs you see in church today are the exit and restroom signs!

Exactly! Your post is dead on!
This is the problem with theoretical arguments;There's no scriptural support behind it. And neither is there historical support as I've shown in my post above. And there's definitely no experiential support neither Because there are millions of Christians speaking in tongues today.

There must be better explanations that's been given here on these posts to form a better debate.
As I can see that according to my three hypothesis there is only one probable cause, and explanation, and it that tongues did not cease.

You cant seperate pentecostals from tongues.
This needs to be apart of this topic.
This is what pentecostal are and i don't think that some on here understands this.

But again nice post

 

[Albion]

Pentecostalism is a child of the Methodist movement. It is a part of the church just like all the others. Whether you like it or not, it is here to stay.

You're right to say "child of" since it was a distortion of Methodist teaching, not a Methodist hallmark.

I'm sure that most of the cults we have these days are 'here to stay,' too, but that doesn't mean that what they teach is worth giving our allegiance to.

 

[rockytopva]

You're right to say "child of" since it was a distortion of Methodist teaching, not a Methodist hallmark.

I'm sure that most of the cults we have these days are 'here to stay,' too, but that doesn't mean that what they teach is worth giving our allegiance to.

I am Pentecostal because of that which was born in my heart. If I had not experienced this in my heart then my mind might have reasoned otherwise.

 

[The realist]

Obviously, you can point to a lot of people giving forth in unintelligible sounds and deeming them to be some sort of gift, even though they do not meet the test of being the tongues described in the New Testament. But that aside, they are only the product of a movement to reintroduce them into Christianity a couple of centuries ago when Christianity was being swept by the idea of recovering lost knowledge and ancient wisdom. It's the same impulse that gave rise to Mormonism and golden plates, Adventism, and "Restorationist" Christianity in general.

The more important point is that the tongues known to the early church did cease and we know this because---get ready for this--they didn't happen (except for a reported case here or there) for over a thousand years of Christian history. That's "cessationism," even if some folks started up trying to make sounds in the 1800s.


It really doesn't matter. If it isn't from the HS, it's delusional. But if it IS from the Holy Spirit, it's still a resumption of something that was not part of the church for most of its history. Yet the true believers in Pentecostalism are bent upon pretending otherwise because they think it's essential to their credibility.


Wrong. The mention of them having ceased is nothing but the recognition of the unavoidable truth. The notion that masses of Christians were receiving the gifts in an unbroken stream for over a thousand years--but that NO ONE WITNESSED IT--is simply fantasy. No history or historian supports it. There are no records to verify it. Yet we are expected to believe everyone is wrong about that and something of this magnitude went on for centuries unnoticed.
You might as well claim that people were regularly travelling between earth and Mars, but the Medieval Church was able to hush it up for some reason.

Now, at this point, I remind us all that this conversation cannot bear fruit. The most that can be accomplished is for each side to progressively become more exasperated at the unwillingness of the other to bend, until it moves to the level of name-calling. I don't want that to happen and, what's more, IT IS NOT THE TOPIC here!

The topic concerned what people think of PentecostalS, i.e. Christians who are Pentecostalites or Charismatics. It is not about Pentecostalism itself, its practices or interpretations of Scripture, etc.
So, I hope the discussion now turns in the direction is should have followed from the start: "What do you think about Pentecostals?"

All of this is completly false!
You may need to go back and study your history for yourself.
There are cases all throughout history where tongues were in GREAT operation within the first thousand year period of Christianity.
I've shown this above in my post already and I can show more.
You just can't admit it.
I can care less what historians say. Historians claim
That there's no evidence for Jesus ressurrection. Does this make it true?
We know its not true. We know when you look at history the only rational explanation is that Jesus rosed from dead and history supports this fact. I can tell you a lot of things that historians say is false.

On top of historical facts my stand is on God's word alone

 

[The realist]

Again these are the facts: there's historical evidence that speaking in tongues still occured throughout every century from the first thousand years of Christianity.Evidence of the gifts of the spirit in 2century:Clement of Rome (died 100?) reminded the Corinthians that "a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon you all.[174]Ignatius (died 107?) wrote to the church at Smyrna: "Ignatius… to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained EVERY kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in NO gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness… Be ye strong, I pray, in the power of the Holy Ghost."(175][He also admonished Polycarp to pray so that he might "be wanting in nothing, and… abound in every gift."[176]TheDidache says, "For the Father desireth that the gifts be given to all" and also describes prophets who speak "in the Spirit."[177]Justin Martyr wrote, "For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time… Now it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess GIFTS of the Spirit of God."[178]Irenaeus (130?-202?), Bishop of Lyons, wrote, "[T]hose who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform (miracles). It is not possible to name the numbers of the gifts which the Church (scattered) throughout THE HOLE WORLD, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ."[179 He taught the necessity of receiving the Spirit and specifically described speaking in tongues as evidence of the Spirit:"[T]he perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father… For this reason does the apostle declare, 'We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,' terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used [h]imself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages… whom also the apostle terms 'spiritual,' they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit."[bless and do not curse][180]

Celsus, a pagan, wrote near the end of the second century that Christians in his day spoke in tongues. The theologian Origen (died 254?) preserved his testimony without denying the existence and validity of tongues, and accepted the gifts of the Spirit for his day.[181]

Third century:Tertullian "Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God… let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer - only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him… Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) ARE forthcoming from my side without any difficulty."[183] tertullian wasn't the only who taught this in the third century. Sebellius claimed that it happened.

4fourth and 5th centuries:Hilary bishop of Poitiers, also spoke on tongues describing them as "agents of ministry" ordained of God.Ambrose bishop of milan taught that all gifts of corinth 12chp were still in operation.
CHAPTER 11THE WITNESS IN CHURCH HISTORY:TONGUES

There's ample evidence that Christians still spoke in tongues in the 4th and 5th centurys.But the church labled them heretics mainly because they wasn't apart of the catholic church. Granted there were groups who really were heritetics but there were others who wasn't.

What about the 6th century through the 10th century?Robert Sungines in his article on the gifts of tongues states that "In the subsequent development of western Christianity in the 6th through the 10th centuries...Evidence shows that the experience still occured... "

Doctor Harold hunter on an artical of the cessation of tongues says and I quote"My research done elswhere has concluded there may NOT be a century without tongues-speech apearing somewhere among Christians."

11thand 12 century:The waldenses in Europe spoke in tongues.]Albegenses also spoke in tongues in Europe.

This idea that tongues ceased is ridiculously absurd and full of rubbish assumptions. I have no beef in saying that tongues wasnt very common during the last ending of the first thousand year period. This can be explained. But my beef comes when critics say that they CEASED, this is completly wrong without any real historical and biblical support!! However My foundation is in the word of God. The scriptural support is what I stand on. And if there's no scriptural support to back up your claims then your claims are biblicaly unstabled.Here's another fact: there are over 600million Christians in the world who believe in speaking in tongues and its growing even more. This is (almost)all of protestant believers. This and the rest of my three hypothises must be explained.

 

[Albion]

All of this is completly false!

No, actually it's all true. But as I said, the topic is Pentecostals, not a lot of extraneous banter about glossolalia.

 

[The realist]

Again these are the facts: there's historical evidence that speaking in tongues still occured throughout every century from the first thousand years of Christianity.Evidence of the gifts of the spirit in
2century:
Clement of Rome (died 100?) reminded the Corinthians that "a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon you all.[174]Ignatius (died 107?) wrote to the church at Smyrna: "Ignatius… to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained EVERY kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in NO gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness… Be ye strong, I pray, in the power of the Holy Ghost."(175][He also admonished Polycarp to pray so that he might "be wanting in nothing, and… abound in every gift."[176]TheDidache says, "For the Father desireth that the gifts be given to all" and also describes prophets who speak "in the Spirit."

[177]Justin Martyr wrote, "For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time… Now it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess GIFTS of the Spirit of God."

[178]Irenaeus (130?-202?), Bishop of Lyons, wrote, "[T]hose who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform (miracles). It is not possible to name the numbers of the gifts which the Church (scattered) throughout THE HOLE WORLD, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ."[179 He taught the necessity of receiving the Spirit and specifically described speaking in tongues as evidence of the Spirit:"[T]he perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father… For this reason does the apostle declare, 'We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,' terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used [h]imself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages… whom also the apostle terms 'spiritual,' they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit."[180]Celsus, a pagan, wrote near the end of the second century that Christians in his day spoke in tongues.

The theologian Origen (died 254?) preserved his testimony without denying the existence and validity of tongues, and accepted the gifts of the Spirit for his day.[181]

Third century:Tertullian "Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God… let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer - only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him… Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) ARE forthcoming from my side without any difficulty."[183] tertullian wasn't the only who taught this in the third century. Sebellius claimed that it happened.4fourth and 5th centuries:Hilary bishop of Poitiers, also spoke on tongues describing them as "agents of ministry" ordained of God.Ambrose bishop of milan taught that all gifts of corinth 12chp were still in operation.CHAPTER 11THE WITNESS IN CHURCH HISTORY:TONGUES

There's ample evidence that Christians still spoke in tongues in the 4th and 5th centurys.But the church labled them heretics mainly because they wasn't apart of the catholic church.
Granted there were groups who really were heritetics but there were others who wasn't.

What about the 6th century through the 10th century?Robert Sungines in his article on the gifts of tongues states that "In the subsequent development of western Christianity in the 6th through the 10th centuries...Evidence shows that the experience still occured...

"Doctor Harold hunter on an artical of the cessation of tongues says and I quote"My research done elswhere has concluded there may NOT be a century without tongues-speech apearing somewhere among Christians."

11thand 12 century:The waldenses in Europe spoke in tongues.]Albegenses also spoke in tongues in Europe.

This idea that tongues ceased is ridiculously absurd and full of rubbish assumptions. I have no beef in saying that tongues wasnt very common during the last ending of the first thousand year period. This can be explained. But my beef comes when critics say that they CEASED, this is completly wrong without any real historical and biblical support!! However My foundation is in the word of God. The scriptural support is what I stand on. And if there's no scriptural support to back up your claims then your claims are biblicaly unstabled.Here's another fact: there are over 600million Christians in the world who believe in speaking in tongues and its growing even more. This is (almost)all of protestant believers. This and the rest of my three hypothises must be explained.

 

[rockytopva]

My take on the churches...

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?


These churches are indeed saved, but they look narrowing on each other. There have also been actual wars in which the movements would battle on another. I can tell the Sardisean apart from any other church movement...

1. They hate Catholics
2. They believe speaking of tongues is of the devil
3. They strongly discourage 'emotionalism'
4. Again... Doctrine in the head... Little in the heart

As the Sardius is a gem, yes it is elegant, so these people have the look. But a Sardius is also hard (shelled), so it is pointless trying to change their outlook. Until the Holy Spirit warms the old hardened heart they will likely die in such a state.

 

[Forever trying]

It's always just take a couple to high-jack a good thread for to beat their own drums... Can't you guys just leave dead dogs be, let this thread go back to the topic it was about, and if you want create another thread on this topic? You know tongues is an area most Christians agree to disagree on in terms of significance (rightly or wrongly), so there's no need go off track with a bottomless pit of an argument in a thread created by someone else for what WAS, an interesting topic! Particularly when some of the arguments now being used are very weird, hateful and cultists like... No one does any favours for themselves or their denominations.

 

[Forever trying]

I think moderators just need to lock this thread down now if it doesn't get back on topic.

 

[rockytopva]

I think that we pentecostals have the right to defend ourselves especially when being accused of being cultist.

 

[Forever trying]

I think that we pentecostals have the right to defend ourselves especially when being accused of being cultist.

Sorry, but you don't have the right to play innocent. I'm not tarnishing all Pentecostals with the same brush, and my best friends (literally) are Pentecostals, and I also go to a Pentecostals church on Sunday mornings... But there's been more than the fair share of Pentecostals on CF who ripped into other denominations particularly, in your own forums, calling them unbiblical or being totally wrong! So how is that right!? I'm not saying people calling Pentecostals cultist is okay, but two wrongs don't make a right. And this thread started with someone asking what our opions were on Pentecostals, anyway. If anyone calls you guys a cult either ignore them or report them, but if someone just has a denominational difference (even if they could have worded it better), then answer it with a balance argument. Don't hijack an otherwise harmless thread, that is now leading to a couple of you guys writing just as insulting notes on other peoples denominations, otherwise then you are just reinforcing a bad stereotype or what people do think.

 

[sonny1293]

I like pentecostals personally. Not every pentecostal believes that tongues is the way to salvation.

 

[rockytopva]

Most pentecostals / charismatics here are from the Wesleyan branch. I have never heard the first sermon against any other branch from these people. As this is the Laodicea church age many have strayed too far away from the Wesleyan roots. In which I believe many have been publically set down for their errors.

 

[The realist]

It's always just take a couple to high-jack a good thread for to beat their own drums... Can't you guys just leave dead dogs be, let this thread go back to the topic it was about, and if you want create another thread on this topic? You know tongues is an area most Christians agree to disagree on in terms of significance (rightly or wrongly), so there's no need go off track with a bottomless pit of an argument in a thread created by someone else for what WAS, an interesting topic! Particularly when some of the arguments now being used are very weird, hateful and cultists like... No one does any favours for themselves or their denominations.

I'm sorry forever trying but sometimes people just tickle my feathers lol. I asked one person a question about a remark they said concerning Tongues and someone else responded incorrectly. So I felt the need to correct them.

But again I'm sorry about that. We can continue the thread.

I read somewhere that you attend a pentecostal and Catholic church?
That's good that you can still worship the lord together even if you do have some disagreements. Even though I'm not a pentecostal I think thats what I love about pentecostals. Within the last 100 years they unified so many christans and destroyed so many walls and barriers in the church that was up for a lot of years. Now there have been some who went to the extreme connecting tongues with salvation and creating a seperation.
But for the most part pentecostals are true brothers and sisters in the faith. I love them.

 

[The realist]

I like pentecostals personally. Not every pentecostal believes that tongues is the way to salvation.

I agree with you. Anyone who adds to the redemptive work of Christ is in error. The only work that leads to salvation is Jesus Christ alone. He alone is our salvation. But I love pentecostals. One thing you cannot do is question their passion for the Lord. I've seen pentecostals hold all night prayer meetings that lasted 6 to 7 hours! During the early 1900s when pentecostal first started they would enter towns and people would hate them so much that they would throw eggs and hit their cars with bats. Some lives were even threatened yet they still marched on. Right now in the second and third world countries pentecostals are dying every day for their love for the lord. There is a great revival in these countries even in the face of death and persecution. We can learn a lot from pentecostals.

But yeah I agree

 

[Albion]

I like pentecostals personally. Not every pentecostal believes that tongues is the way to salvation.

I agree with that. Even those I know personally and argue with are friends, and the arguments merely exchanges of POVs, no hard feelings. However, there are some things about Pentecostals that have been criticized by some very learned churchmen.

For instance, many Pentecostals are so convinced that to exhibit at least one of the gifts is necessary for one to be a "real" Christian that they unofficially see the body of Christ as divided between those who "do" and those who "don't," without any other consideration concerning true doctrine.

IOW, it doesn't matter to some folks if their neighbor is totally wrong about the Lord's Supper, salvation, church governance, etc. just so long as he speaks in tongues. And denomination doesn't mean anything.

This--it is said--amounts to a dangerous kind of (perhaps unintentional) homogenization of Christian doctrine that is similar to those liberal religionists who say it doesn't matter what you believe so long as you are loving, or it doesn't matter what your view of the Bible is so long as you believe in Jesus (defined however you want).

 

[The realist]

I agree with that. Even those I know personally and argue with are friends, and the arguments merely exchanges of POVs, no hard feelings. However, there are some things about Pentecostals that have been criticized by some very learned churchmen.

For instance, many Pentecostals are so convinced that to exhibit at least one of the gifts is necessary for one to be a "real" Christian that they unofficially see the body of Christ as divided between those who "do" and those who "don't," without any other consideration concerning true doctrine.

IOW, it doesn't matter to some folks if their neighbor is totally wrong about the Lord's Supper, salvation, church governance, etc. just so long as he speaks in tongues. And denomination doesn't mean anything.

This--it is said--amounts to a dangerous kind of (perhaps unintentional) homogenization of Christian doctrine that is similar to those liberal religionists who say it doesn't matter what you believe so long as you are loving, or it doesn't matter what your view of the Bible is so long as you believe in Jesus (defined however you want).

We finally agree on something. These things must be discussed BIBICALLY and not by mans own ideologies and dogmatic principles. If pentecostals and other denonminations ever progress the way they should with each other its to going to have to be BASED on biblical terms and scriptural AUTHORITY. Man's dogmatic principles should not get in the way of this. We also must do this in love. We can't lable heretics on people just because their leaders have a bad name( unless that is if one destroys the foundational principles of christianity) if we expect to come together as a unified church that the world can see Christ love in. Sometimes we get into this war. That if you don't speak in tongues and are not a pentecostal then your not saved, or if you do speak in tongues and are pentecostal you have a devil and your a heretic. This needs to stop if we are going to progress in the body of Christ.

I miss the old days when men would have a dialogue over sunday dinner and use scriptural support for their theories.

I agree with your post brother.

 

[mark kennedy]

Pentecostals actually have one of the better theologies, not that most of them would realize that. Most people don't have much use for a systematic theology but the old school Wesleyan perfection doctrine is at least prepositionally true. I don't think they speak New Testament tongues but I know that over all they are New Testament Christians. The Apostolic Pentecostals deny the Trinity and require tongues for salvation, that will get you branded a cult, denying the Trinity always does. What is important to understand is that salvation is about the fruit of the Spirit, that's what your saved for. You can manifest a gift of the Spirit and never really know Christ in a personal way but you can't know Christ and not have a gift of the Spirit.

At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

Grace and peace,
Mark