What's the difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic?

freemansw · May 23, 2006

Rosebaronet said:
May the Lord guards me from pride and self-righteousness, and ever mindful that I am nothing without Jesus.

I think holiness is a unconscious experience, I do not think I am holy, and I think even those who experienced holiness would conscious recognize those holiness. However I believe that through following the Bible, loving of others, respect and kindness to alll, the Holy Ghost would never be compromised.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by Holiness; I was talking about living a separated life and not being worldly. As we would say when I was growing up: living a holy life.

Rosebaronet · May 23, 2006

How do you define holiness and how do you define worldly? I will need precise examples to be able to discuss the issue, my friend.

freemansw · May 23, 2006

So you want an example? OK, where do you stand on these scriptures?

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1st Peter 3:1-6

Rosebaronet · May 23, 2006

freemansw said:
So you want an example? OK, where do you stand on these scriptures?

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1st Peter 3:1-6

I am sorry, but the example quoted by you has not yet relevancy to my life, since I have yet to live with a woman, but right after 1-6,

Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered. 8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. 9

7-9

Therefore women only needs to submit to their husband if the husband keeps his end of the bargan, "treating her considerately. etc"

I think women would be happily submit to husbands if she was treated with love, consideration and respects. But if the husband treats her with dishonor, inconsideration and abuse, then the deal is anulled.

freemansw · May 23, 2006

It does not say anything about the woman's behavior being conditional on the man's behavior.

Rosebaronet · May 23, 2006

Nor did it say men's behavior is conditional on women's, but it prescribed submission to women while at the same prescribes loving kindness to men, therefore logically the two prescribed codes are mutually binding when two enters marriage, naturally, should one party failed his or her end of the bargain, the marriage would fail. I think the central theme in the passage is not about whether women should submit to men, but what men and women needs to do to maintain a successful marriage.

freemansw · May 23, 2006

Rosebaronet said:
Nor did it say men's behavior is conditional on women's, but it prescribed submission to women while at the same prescribes loving kindness to men, therefore logically the two prescribed codes are mutually binding when two enters marriage, naturally, should one party failed his or her end of the bargain, the marriage would fail. I think the central theme in the passage is not about whether women should submit to men, but what men and women needs to do to maintain a successful marriage.

That is "Spin" rosebaronet. You should go work for the DNC.

Rosebaronet · May 23, 2006

Blessed be the Lord, and may He bless you.

By the way, what is DNC? lol

freemansw · May 23, 2006

DNC (Democratic National Committee) Satan's national headquarters in the United States of America

Rosebaronet · May 23, 2006

LOL I am not the one to judge you, DNC or RNC, but what has our discussion got to do with Holiness? My Friend?

freemansw · May 23, 2006

What does it have to do with Holiness? Everything!! It is all about attitude. Every thing is about attitude!!

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Matthew 15:17-20

If the womans behavior is conditional on the mans Behavior, what reward does she have?

Rosebaronet · May 23, 2006

Why are you so decdedly and singlemindedly concerned about women's behavior, are we both not men? Should we not be concerned about our own behavior prescribed by Peter than the other sex?

The same question can be asked of men, no? What reward does he have?

Men should treat women with love and respect to get a blissful marriage, women should submit to the men to get a blissful marriage, the two component cannot missing one. That is the reasoning behind why it's better for Christians to marry other Christians, because the both should understand through Bible what needs to be done.

freemansw · May 24, 2006

You asked for an example, and I gave you one. I must have been led by Spirit when I picked that particular example, because I obviously hit a raw nerve with you because of the way you keep side-stepping the whole issue.

Rosebaronet · May 24, 2006

It's not that I am side stepping, you gave me 1-Peter, I gave you my interpretation of that particular extract, that's all, but I'd like to know how you interpret the very same extract and how it has to do with holiness.

JEBrady · May 24, 2006

Rosebaronet said:
May the Lord guards me from pride and self-righteousness, and ever mindful that I am nothing without Jesus.

I think holiness is a unconscious experience, I do not think I am holy, and I think even those who experienced holiness would conscious recognize those holiness. However I believe that through following the Bible, loving of others, respect and kindness to alll, the Holy Ghost would never be compromised.

If I might bug in here on this question- first, Im not sure what you mean by holiness being unconscious. Holiness and sanctification are exactly the same words in the Bible. What makes us holy or set apart to God is the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Once we receive him, we are holy, sanctified. So on that score, Id say its not so much unconscious (because He witnesses with our spirit that we are saved), but it is transparent, since it is totally Gods work and none of our work. On the other hand, the process of sanctification has everything to do with our cooperation with God to transform us from glory to glory through the washing of the water of the Word (the renewing of the mind) and the putting off of the old man and growing in grace.

That process is the one that freemansw is alluding to. Its a matter of habitual obedience to the revealed will of God in turning from sin, repenting from the things the Lord shows us through His word and by His Spirit.

Churches that tend to be legalistic err on the side of trying to be the Holy Spirit for the congregants by making lots of rules (laws) to live by. Theres nothing wrong with keeping Gods rules, but the line into legalism is crossed when the rules venture into matters of conscience and disputable matters.

Also, in your previous post, I disagree completely. You are fully capable of understanding true doctrine, for the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation is in you! And rightly so, because doctrine is important. It is the basis of faith.

and now back to the original discussion
Theres going to be a number of viewpoints on the OP. What I was told about the charismatic movement, basically, was that since it was a move of God to institute the baptism in the Holy Spirit in the mainline churches/denominations, the biggest difference was the teaching that went along with it. Because charismatics were more or less marooned in mainline churches that had no experience with the move of God, and no doctrine with respect to being spirit-filled, that doctrine was pretty lacking on spiritual issues and folks got a lot of doctrine discussing the Bible over pizza. We called it Pizza revelations. Then there were a number of teachings that came down the pike from the shepherding movement to Toronto that found a lot of charismatic adherents. Lots of Pentecostal churches were not necessarily buying in to this, so there became a doctrinal separation that widened and fragmented full-Gospel folks to a greater and greater degree. Each of those movements had abuses that discredited them, there was an awful lot of imbalance in the doctrine (due to the tendency to major in only part of the Truth), and either the Pentecostals were cooling off and missing the move of the Spirit, or the charismatics were falling into error.

I heard lots of people say things like, when the church gets the doctrine together with the move of the Spirit the church will (add your favorite expression of revival here).

OK, Im done. Is this a hard subject or what, with all the diversity in charismatic and Pentecostal circles. Who dares to generalize?
/runs for foxhole

Rosebaronet · May 24, 2006

freemansw said:
But what happens when you cross that line, when you become like the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:14-21. Or you become full of pride and you become self-righteous, or you continue to compromise on holiness just a little each day until finally the Holy Spirit leaves you and you never even notice it, or you are like those who try to have the Pentecostal “Experience” while bypassing holiness altogether.

Thank you for the clarification, if by the process of receiving the Holy Spirit and obeying the Lord, makes us Holy, then it would still be an unconscious process, since it is the Lord that makes us Holy, we do not consciously become holy.

If we go by this definition, then nobody can bypass holiness because I think most Pentecostals (or at least I hope) received Holy Spirit and Lord into their lives, so Holiness therefore is pre-requisite, and no Pentecostal can bypass.

freemansw · May 24, 2006

Well said JEBrady, I will have to save that post for future reference.

JEBrady · May 24, 2006

Rosebaronet said:
Thank you for the clarification, if by the process of receiving the Holy Spirit and obeying the Lord, makes us Holy, then it would still be an unconscious process, since it is the Lord that makes us Holy, we do not consciously become holy.

If we go by this definition, then nobody can bypass holiness because I think most Pentecostals (or at least I hope) received Holy Spirit and Lord into their lives, so Holiness therefore is pre-requisite, and no Pentecostal can bypass.

Yes, anyone who is born again, Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, it doesn't matter, receives the Holy Spirit and is seated in the heavenlies with the Lord. Holy means "set apart" (for God's purposes), and by receiving the Holy Spirit we are holy.

JEBrady · May 24, 2006

freemansw said:
Well said JEBrady, I will have to save that post for future reference.

God's Word is life to them that find it and health to all their flesh. So glad that blessed ya!

Tenebrae · May 24, 2006

Chortos said:
The fundamental difference between Charismatic vs. Pentecostal is not "denominational". The difference is whether one's doctrine embraces a doctrine of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit as a second work of God's grace. Then, there are divisions within that category.

I would disagree, penticostals have the same sort of quirks that traditional denom churches have

In my experience the term charasmatic is more applied to people of the traditional denom churches who have been born again and move in the gifts of the spirit

What's the difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic?

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

A follower of The Way

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency