whats the difference?

[LynneClomina]

what's the difference between pentecostal, charismatic, and spirit-filled? why so many terms?

 

[enoch son]

what's the difference between pentecostal, charismatic, and spirit-filled? why so many terms?

Bottom line on Pentecostal if you do not speak in tongues or prophesy you are not infilled with the Holy Spirit. And there is 500,000,000 of us and growing. It is undebatable and is just fact.

 

[LynneClomina]

is that all the difference there is?

 

[HumbleMan]

Pentecostals of the UPC, and some Apostolic Pentecostals, believe to be baptized in the Spirit, you MUST speak in tongues. Some even go so far as say you aren't saved until you are baptized in the Spirit. They do believe in all the Holy Gifts.

Charismatics (Vineyard, WoF, etc.) believe in the Holy Gifts, just not the tongues/baptism doctrine.

Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave, etc. are just names for Christians who believe in the Holy Spirit and the Gifts. Everything else is just doctrine.

 

[LynneClomina]

thanks.... but what is apostolic pentecostals?

 

[enoch son]

there just a different doctrine with in the pentecostal chruchs. It can be holliness, salvation, water baptism etc. . But tongues at the infilling is a standard doctrine.

 

[immersedingrace]

You do not need to speak in tongues to be saved OR to be Pentecostal. Tongues is the only PHYSICAL evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit BUT not a precursor to salvation OR the Holy Spirit. Yes, I am Pentecostal and yes, my church and pastors, and covering would agree with me.

A different question: I grew up in a church where women were not condemned for wearing jewelry, cutting their hair, or wearing pants. My mom, however, was raised in a church where that was unconscionable. Both churches are pentecostal. What's the difference there?

 

[immersedingrace]

Oh, and a good book on the topic is The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 years of Pentecostcostal and Charismatic Renewal published by Thomas Nelson, written by Vinson Synan.

 

[enoch son]

You do not need to speak in tongues to be saved OR to be Pentecostal. Tongues is the only PHYSICAL evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit BUT not a precursor to salvation OR the Holy Spirit. Yes, I am Pentecostal and yes, my church and pastors, and covering would agree with me.

A different question: I grew up in a church where women were not condemned for wearing jewelry, cutting their hair, or wearing pants. My mom, however, was raised in a church where that was unconscionable. Both churches are pentecostal. What's the difference there?

The infilling with tongues is the second event in salvation Acts 8-14 & 15. As for the second question on woman. The pentecostal movement came out of the Hollines movement of the 1800's. One must live up to a chruch standard to be holy. We know that Jesus is the only standard. It's Him in our hearts not in what we wear. One can be set free only to be put back under the law. "Don't eat, Don't touch" so to speak.

 

[immersedingrace]

The infilling with tongues is the second event in salvation Acts 8-14 & 15.

Ok, I read Acts 8:14-17. Yes, baptism in the Holy Spirit was given after salvation, HOWEVER, it wasn't immediate nor was it said anywhere in the passage, that without it one was not saved. I went a little further and read in Acts 9:17-19, the account of Saul's baptism. There's no indication that at that time that he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit or spoke in tongues. Acts 13:9 indicates Saul (at this time called Paul) was filled with the Holy Spirit, but again, no indication of tongues. In 1 Corinthians, when he mentions speaking in tongues, is he speaking of the GIFT of tongues that's not for everyone, OR is he speaking of tongues as a SIGN of to unbelievers? Yes, I did read further to Acts 14:18, where he mentions he speaks "with tongues", but AGAIN is it the GIFT of tongues or the SIGN? I still maintain that tongues is NOT necessary for salvation. The Holy Spirit is given to ALL believers, whether or not they believe in speaking in tongues.

God bless.

 

[enoch son]

Ok, I read Acts 8:14-17. Yes, baptism in the Holy Spirit was given after salvation, HOWEVER, it wasn't immediate nor was it said anywhere in the passage, that without it one was not saved. I went a little further and read in Acts 9:17-19, the account of Saul's baptism. There's no indication that at that time that he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit or spoke in tongues. Acts 13:9 indicates Saul (at this time called Paul) was filled with the Holy Spirit, but again, no indication of tongues. In 1 Corinthians, when he mentions speaking in tongues, is he speaking of the GIFT of tongues that's not for everyone, OR is he speaking of tongues as a SIGN of to unbelievers? Yes, I did read further to Acts 14:18, where he mentions he speaks "with tongues", but AGAIN is it the GIFT of tongues or the SIGN? I still maintain that tongues is NOT necessary for salvation. The Holy Spirit is given to ALL believers, whether or not they believe in speaking in tongues.

God bless.

No where have I said that one is not saved without speaking in tongues. But one cannot speak in tongues till one is saved. As for Paul in 1 Cor. for him to speak in tongues more then them all. He would have been out of order in the chruch by his owen writting. So the question comes to mind where did this take place? Answer; pray language at infilling following the Acts format. God doesn't change! He is the same yesterday today and forever.

 

[immersedingrace]

No where have I said that one is not saved without speaking in tongues. But one cannot speak in tongues till one is saved.

My apologies, that's how it sounded to me. On this second point, I wholeheartedly agree...one cannot speak in tongues or move in any of the other gifts unless they are saved.

As for Paul in 1 Cor. for him to speak in tongues more then them all. He would have been out of order in the chruch by his owen writting. So the question comes to mind where did this take place? Answer; pray language at infilling following the Acts format.

That is still my question(what I've highlighted): where (or when) did He begin speaking in tongues. I found no evidence of where he BEGAN speaking in tongues and was infilled with the Holy Spirit. It's clear that Paul did speak in tongues as we both cited in 1 Cor., but the question remains is WHERE/WHEN did it begin, because at his physical baptism, it doesn't state he began speaking in tongues...not saying he didn't, it's just that it doesn't state it, and I'm hesitant to ASSUME that it did just because it would put it in a neat package.

God doesn't change! He is the same yesterday today and forever.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Blade]

Bottom line on Pentecostal if you do not speak in tongues or prophesy you are not infilled with the Holy Spirit. And there is 500,000,000 of us and growing. It is undebatable and is just fact.

You know I have never seen it like that. Please I am not saying you are wrong. I have went to alot of Pentecostal churchs and was never told I was not saved if I was not filled with the Holy Spirit. Now I have went to WOF churchs and have been blessed to be around some great men and women of WOF and still the only difference I saw was WOF (man I almost hate using that) was more free. More open worship things like that. But if there is 500,000,000 then I have not got out much.

 

[rapturefish]

I'd like to ask, if you put any number of Pentecostals in a room with a charismatics and Third-Wavers, what would happen? Would they all have a great time worshipping in unity or will there be certain tensions arising?

cheers,

 

[pentecostal girl]

Hey, how's everyone doing? Anywho, If I were in a room filled with charasmatics and third-waivers I would think as long as everything was done in order; there would be no problem. One question, what are third-waivers? I have never heard of them. Hope everyone is having a blessed day.

 

[rapturefish]

Hey, how's everyone doing? Anywho, If I were in a room filled with charasmatics and third-waivers I would think as long as everything was done in order; there would be no problem. One question, what are third-waivers? I have never heard of them. Hope everyone is having a blessed day.

Third-Wavers as I perceive it is a term that some have given to a church movement that seeks to bridge the gap between evangelical churches and charismatic beliefs. Some churches want to seek more of the Holy Spirit but don't want to be associated with the charismatic or Pentecostal label. A classic example of this type of church is the Vineyard Christian Fellowships.

The term "Third-Wave" refers to a supposed third wave of the Holy Spirit, the first being the Pentecostal Wave, the second being the charismatic one. I'm sure there is debate over whether a third wave occurred or not, nonetheless it's there.

The emphasis seems to shy away from tongues (although they definitely believe and operate in that gift) and the doctrine that necessitates that one who is baptized with the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues. They tend to say that it may be but definitely not being so definitive about it. Also the belief is that there is only one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and that it happens at conversion, but that there can be any number of subsequent fillings afterwards. They say this because they believe the bible says there is only one baptism of the Holy Spirit, but have to account for when God's Spirit touches people after that initial time.

I don't tend to think there is much, if any major differences between Third-wavers and charismatics, in fact it's hard to tell which is which sometimes.

cheers,

 

[fiveinjuly]

You do not need to speak in tongues to be saved OR to be Pentecostal. Tongues is the only PHYSICAL evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit BUT not a precursor to salvation OR the Holy Spirit. Yes, I am Pentecostal and yes, my church and pastors, and covering would agree with me.

A different question: I grew up in a church where women were not condemned for wearing jewelry, cutting their hair, or wearing pants. My mom, however, was raised in a church where that was unconscionable. Both churches are pentecostal. What's the difference there?

I bet that you were probably raise Assembly of God or somewhere along the line your church branched off from one of those, and your mom was probably United Pentecostal or Apostolic. UPCs (and some Apostolics, although it is about 50/50) are strict.

 

[immersedingrace]

I bet that you were probably raise Assembly of God or somewhere along the line your church branched off from one of those, and your mom was probably United Pentecostal or Apostolic. UPCs (and some Apostolics, although it is about 50/50) are strict.

It's quite possible. Looking back, I believe the church I grew up in is non-denominational, but covered by Full-Gospel Businessmen.

My mom grew up in a strict home that, from what she tells me, seemed to be defined by religion. She wasn't allowed to wear pants, jewelry, curl her hair (although my grandmother did allow her to for special occasions), wear makeup, dance, play cards or watch television (my grandfather broke this one watching wresting )

There were a few things I'm not sure were religion inspired such as no riding a bike, a sled, etc.

She still insists on wearing dresses to church, and as a result, I generally do to (just tradition), doesn't have her ears pierced (but does like most other jewelry), BUT curls and colors her hair frequently.

I know where these beliefs come from, but are they still adhered to today in some Pentecostal churches? Or are the differences we're talking about just in regards to tongues and such?

 

[theman238]

Im currently in an apostolic church, we go by those priciples sept maybe the riding bikes and sleding ones. it doesnt really seem all that strange to me. I agree with it totally. (first post)

 

[immersedingrace]

Im currently in an apostolic church, we go by those priciples sept maybe the riding bikes and sleding ones. it doesnt really seem all that strange to me. I agree with it totally. (first post)

I'm glad my mom chose to raise me differently then . I like to dance, play cards, wear jewelry, wear shorts, wear tank tops, and although I tend to wear dresses and skirts midcalf to ankle length, I like to have the OPTION of not having someone else tell me what to wear. If I'd have grown up in a church that strict, I think I'd have been in her situation at 18 also - pregnant, backslidden, and married to an adulterer.

Anyway, I'm glad it works for you . I just know for my mom, it made her walk away from God for a time, and I know it would NEVER, NEVER, EVER, in a million years work for me.

Blessings.