The Original Pentecostal Movement

[cfultz3]

I believe that the gift of tongues is this:

For non-believers:

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.​

For believers spiritually speaking to God:

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.​

Speaking in "tongues (foreign languages)" edifies more people then "speaking in tongues (spiritual language (v14))" which only edifies the one speaking. Spiritual tongue is different (v23) than foreign language tongue, seeing that in Acts, everyone understood. But, here in 1Co:14, it only edifies the one speaking.


Addition: I suppose there are two sorts of tongues? Your thoughts?

 

[LT]

I believe that the gift of tongues is this:

For non-believers:

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.​

For believers spiritually speaking to God:

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.​

Speaking in "tongues (foreign languages)" edifies more people then "speaking in tongues (spiritual language (v14))" which only edifies the one speaking. Spiritual tongue is different (v23) than foreign language tongue, seeing that in Acts, everyone understood. But, here in 1Co:14, it only edifies the one speaking.

I will look into your interpretation and get back to you.
I always saw verse 14 as being borderline sarcastic, for the purpose of dissuading people from speaking in unknown tongues (the "humm-monnah shummah faaah" stuff that every teenager in Church tests out at some point).

 

[cfultz3]

I will look into your interpretation and get back to you.
I always saw verse 14 as being borderline sarcastic, for the purpose of dissuading people from speaking in unknown tongues (the "humm-monnah shummah faaah" stuff that every teenager in Church tests out at some point).

Thanks and I look forward to your reply.

I was thinking:

In Acts, people understood what was being said because they heard it by the language they understood.

However, 1Cor 14 gives the impression of an "unknown tongue". If it is unknown, would that not imply that men do not know it as a language? Seeing that it further goes on to say that the one speaking an "unknown tongue" does edify himself, but not the people who are listening.

If they (foreign language and spiritual language) are the same, then the stranger who would be coming in would understand what is being said as they did in Acts, along with the believers (who is said to also not understand the spiritual language in Corinthians)?

 

[unclefester]

hi Fester.

i wonder if Kenneth Hagin is accepted by the old-time (?) pentecostals...i.e: The Original Pentecostal Movement?

the site you linked to has a lengthy portion on Hagin.

"KENNETH HAGIN, SR.

KENNETH HAGIN, SR. (1917- ) is one of the most influential Pentecostal leaders today. He claims that his teaching was given to him by God, but in fact he plagiarized heavily from the writings of E.W. KENYON (1867-1948). D.R. McConnell, in his book A Different Gospel, documents this with pages of comparisons proving beyond question that Hagin plagiarized Kenyon's writings. McConnel introduces this section of his book by saying: "Hagin has, indeed, copied word-for-word without documentation from Kenyon's writings. The following excerpts of plagiarisms from no less than eight books by E.W. Kenyon are presented as evidence of this charge. This is only a sampling of such plagiarisms. Many more could be cited." Plagiarism is not only deceit; it is a criminal offense.

Kenyon was a Baptist pastor and never joined the Pentecostal movement (though he did move in Pentecostal circles toward the end of his life), but his pioneer radio broadcasts and voluminous writings had broad influence in the Deeper Life and Pentecostal-Charismatic movements."....

THE STRANGE HISTORY OF PENTECOSTALISM PART 2 OF 3

i don't know...is he considered a fringe guy or heretic? or is he considered orthodox in the community?
opinions seem to vary. was he at one time orthodox but turned, or what? i guess that's part of the confusion....nobody really seems to want to own this guy...or do they? i don't know.

[video=youtube;X2V7KbbfRHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2V7KbbfRHA[/video]

Kenneth E. Hagin - Drunk in the Spirit, Holy Laughter

Your questions are my questions. Who is "legit" ... and who isn't ? Do those seeking the truth have the right to ask and know (I would think so) ... or is turning a blind eye to the chaos something that would be pleasing to God ... "for the sake of unity" ? One cannot be a tried and true pentecostal without at least admitting privately that there are many within their so-called ranks who have exhibited some "Holy Ghost practices" that are beyond ridiculous and an affront to God's truth. Literally thousands of self-proclaimed prophets. A multitude of modern day apostles. I mean ... seriously ? Do these people actually believe this nonsense ?? I grew up in a Roman Catholic home. Was an altarboy for years. But I have no problem addressing and admitting to those things which I now know are not in sync with the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I can only guess that it is fear driving the mindset of many within the pentecostal ranks. Fear of offending God's Spirit without ever truly understanding the Spirit's task ... which is to lead all to Christ in true repentance. Not sure what else there is to say

 

[jimmydiggs]

I am the only one that thinks it is kind of funny that someone that continues to lash out against the pentecostal denomination and attack those in those denominations and movements now seeks to gather facts about the movement and their origins and portends to be doing a non combative form of discourse and now wishes substantive contribution.

I have read many posts from you and its obvious you have your beliefs and all you seek to do is cause division and discourse.

Your lack of objectivity will invariably cause this thread to just become another he said/she said bashing of those who espouse and believe in the Pentecostal Full Gospel.

As a self proclaimed reformed saint who believes in cessation, there is nothing anyone that is a Pentecostal/Full Gospel believer could say, which would convince you, of anything that is contrary to your theology.

Why not discuss this at the next potluck at the Synod, I am sure the Vicar's will seek to canonize you for being such a zealous defender of the faith, for exposing all those wolves in sheep's skin.

Your ulterior motive is glaring, have a nice day.

... and here is part of what gives me concern about Pentecostalism. If you aren't a pentecostal speaking in tongues, you have at best a partial gospel.

 

[jimmydiggs]

The family tree of Pentecostalism is, therefore, as follows: Pietism -- the Moravians -- Wesley -- Finney -- Holiness Movement

Eww, especially finney.

 

[Stephen63]

I won't post the entire article again but I will provide the following link that traces the history of Pentecostalism and it's keynote personalities from it's beginnings. This article can be read in it's entirety or one can simply choose to read the isolated pieces per keynote person as interested. It is the most thorough writing on the topic and persons I have read to date ... without becoming overly cumbersome. This link is posted with the express consent of it's author, David W. Cloud.


THE STRANGE HISTORY OF PENTECOSTALISM

***"continued bar provided at the bottom of each page of this article"***

Let's see.......... Which of us believe the writings of KJV onlyists?

The King James Bible
​

​

 

[Stephen63]

hi LT.
i was informed there was an Original Pentecostal Movement that was orthodox and foretold in scripture and ordained by God.
it is that Original and orthodox Pentecostal Movement i was interested in - NOT the Charismatics.


NOT THE CHARISMATICS or more recent pentecostal hybrid groups...this thread is not about them.

i am interested in the Original Pentecostal Movement.

Funny.... you remember little details, & didn't remember I didn't say that? Such incorrect details can be disproved very easily, no? 2 strikes already with disinformation.

 

[unclefester]

Let's see.......... Which of us believe the writings of KJV onlyists?

The King James Bible
​

​

I'm not a KJV onlyist Stephen. Pretty sure you already knew that. I'm not a believer in the pre-trib rapture. I'm not a believer in tongues as evidence of the infilling of God's Holy Spirit. I'm not a believer in modern day tongues ... period. No prophets ... no apostles today either. But I'm not a believer that there are no saved souls within the pentecostal community. And I'm also not a believer that there are no "good" modern English translations of the bible other than the KJV. Mr. Clouds personal preference and beliefs regarding the KJV neither sway nor affect my own understanding of God's Written Word. And regardless of one's personal preference and conviction in this regard, the matter of modern day tongues is neither disguised nor clouded (no pun intended) in any of today's "modern" English translations. So your point is mute. But I am not surprised with your chosen path of defending your stance. You have nothing else on which to lean or discredit. Stephen ... you're a pastor. Do you have your own "personal favorite" bible translation ? I do. And it is not the 17th century KJV ... although I have no doubt that it is generally considered one of the best available, if not the best. But that's neither here nor there regarding the issue of tongues. Furthermore, I have posted views of many a great bible scholar far more worthy to be called such than me with whom I do not always agree on everything. If your post above should convey anything to you, let it convey the truth regarding modern day tongues ... regardless of bible translation. The following is Mr. Clouds view in regards to the KJV. Good for him. When and where did pentecostalism have it's beginnings Stephen ?


D.W. CLOUD:

“I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. I believe that God had His hand upon the KJV in a special way because of the singular role it would play in the transmission of the Word of God during a long and crucial epoch of church history. In contrast with the modern English versions, I believe the KJV is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates a superior theology; it embodies a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it has a superior history. I believe the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God because it accurately translates the inspired text.”

 

[zone]

Funny.... you remember little details, & didn't remember I didn't say that? Such incorrect details can be disproved very easily, no? 2 strikes already with disinformation.

well okay....

Agreed, these things do not save. But I wonder........ when Jesus did this, & He did all the time, I wonder what people would've called that "movement"?

In both instances we see the same results. What Jesus did was real, & ordered by God. But still had the same results. This plainly shows that the last day results of the Pentecostal Movement should NOT be an indicator of illegitimacy, since it wasn't for Jesus Himself.

What was wrong with Jesus's "movement"? The people were attracted by the glamour in His day, & were happy to be healed also. He attracted bigger crowds of the same kind of people. Weeks later, He was condemned to die by some of the same people! They "fell away" much quicker with Him than they are now. It's all in The Book.

Mind you, I'm not talking about the modern day Pentecostals like some stereotype the whole movement with (TV preachers, Vineyard movement, Word of Faith, etc., etc.), I'm speaking about the original movement of the early 1900's. Back when they glorified the Lord & praised Him in prophetic utterances just like they did on the Day of Pentecost.

People should be careful when judging all those old movements for what happened years afterward. Note the Scripture:

Acts 20:26-31 (KJV) [SUP]26 [/SUP]Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. [SUP]27 [/SUP]For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. [SUP]28 [/SUP]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [SUP]29 [/SUP]For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [SUP]30 [/SUP]Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. [SUP]31 [/SUP]Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Paul prophesied what would happen to his "movement". Throughout church history, what Paul states here has happened to every single one!

Why is there so much negative publicity about the Pentecostal Movement & the Charismatic Movement? Simple, when you take time to think about it:

1. We're in the last days, only a stonesthrow from the Antichrist. The Falling Away has begun.
2. These 2 movements happened just before the falling away...... they will look worse because we're looking at them in our lifetime as well as going into the falling away. We didn't see the others.
3. These are the last 2 "movements"....no others will come behind them. It is just that close to being over.

this looked like you claiming the Pentecostal movement was ordained....and you appear to be prophesying there won't be any "others".

and if this isn't a claim of ordination by God:

In both instances we see the same results. What Jesus did was real, & ordered by God. But still had the same results. This plainly shows that the last day results of the Pentecostal Movement should NOT be an indicator of illegitimacy, since it wasn't for Jesus Himself.

i do apologize.

so can we say then that the Pentecostal Movement is NOT said to have been ordained by God?
it is NOT prophesied in Scripture?

Funny.... you remember little details, & didn't remember I didn't say that? Such incorrect details can be disproved very easily, no? 2 strikes already with disinformation.

stephen, if you spend your time and energy just addressing the issues we could possible resolve them.

at least reach some understanding.

in any case, there are enough folks participating and providing information - so, thanks anyways.
please don't derail this thread with sniping.

it's a serious attempt to define the beginnings of and characteristics of the Original Pentecostal Movement.
if you're not seriously contributing please stop posting. i honored your request. please do likewise.

 

[Stephen63]

1Still_waters, I'm wondering why you chose the NY Times, a newspaper bought out by the secret societies (A History of the Pentecostal Church in America), & a Lexington, Ky. Lutheran pastor (Pentecostalism) to use as your "legitimate" references? Can you explain? Are you sure you want to use these? Really?

 

[RickyZ]

The Original Pentecostal Movement

You mean, the one documented in the book of Acts? Was that not the original pentacostal movement?

I'm pretty sure that was ordained by God.

 

[Stephen63]

well okay....



this looked like you claiming the Pentecostal movement was ordained....and you appear to be prophesying there won't be any "others".

and if this isn't a claim of ordination by God:

In both instances we see the same results. What Jesus did was real, & ordered by God. But still had the same results. This plainly shows that the last day results of the Pentecostal Movement should NOT be an indicator of illegitimacy, since it wasn't for Jesus Himself.

i do apologize.

so can we say then that the Pentecostal Movement is NOT said to have been ordained by God?
it is NOT prophesied in Scripture?



stephen, if you spend your time and energy just addressing the issues we could possible resolve them.

at least reach some understanding.

in any case, there are enough folks participating and providing information - so, thanks anyways.
please don't derail this thread with sniping.

it's a serious attempt to define the beginnings of and characteristics of the Original Pentecostal Movement.
if you're not seriously contributing please stop posting. i honored your request. please do likewise.

You quoted that part, but not my explanation of it...... Since the Op brought it up, here it is:

See, even now you're making play on my words....... either that, or you can't understand anything. Which is it?

Originally Posted by zone

now you're prophesying?

Nope. Some see the signs of the times.

and....like....the animonisty toward the unbiblical pentecostal and charismatic movements is the falling away?
did i read that right?

Nope. Nothing unbiblical about the original movements. That's only the opinions of the websites you parrot...... you know, those "validated" ones.

or they are the falling away from "the original movement of the early 1900's"?

LOLOL!

Imagine that.....only your joke is correct.

Paul prophesied of the Pentecostal Movement?
doubt....it

Nope. I only showed that Bible history continually repeats itself. That's biblical.

 

[unclefester]

Let's see.......... Which of us believe the writings of KJV onlyists?

The King James Bible
​

​

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Forty-five percent of Pentecostal pastors use the King James Version, 23 percent the NIV and 15 percent the New King James Version. Pentecostal pastors gave an excellent rating to the King James Version (56 percent), the New King James Version (49 percent) and the NIV (36 percent).


Most pastors use the NIV, KJV Bibles, study suggests - Pastors and Christian Leadership Resources

 

[Stephen63]

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Forty-five percent of Pentecostal pastors use the King James Version, 23 percent the NIV and 15 percent the New King James Version. Pentecostal pastors gave an excellent rating to the King James Version (56 percent), the New King James Version (49 percent) and the NIV (36 percent).

I use it also, but I'm not a KJV onlyist. David Cloud IS.​ Please don't make excuses for him or you.

 

[RickShafer]

Why feed the penguins Stephen?
Let them splash in their own dialectic.
It's their happiness.
Leave them be.

 

[zone]

1Still_waters, I'm wondering why you chose the NY Times, a newspaper bought out by the secret societies (A History of the Pentecostal Church in America), & a Lexington, Ky. Lutheran pastor (Pentecostalism) to use as your "legitimate" references? Can you explain? Are you sure you want to use these? Really?

hi stephen.
could you please document the History of the Pentecostal Movement (citing sources)?
others are doing the best they can without you so far.

if there are errors in either history posted, could you please say what the errors are?
that would be very helpful.

 

[zone]

You mean, the one documented in the book of Acts? Was that not the original pentacostal movement?

I'm pretty sure that was ordained by God.

hello ricky.
how are you? well i hope.

no, if you've read through the posts, the Day of Pentecost and the subsequent event of Acts 10 involving the blessing falling on the gentiles is not the subject of this thread.

i'm aware of those, most are - we have our bibles and can read.

The Pentecostal Movement is the subject.

 

[zone]

You quoted that part, but not my explanation of it...... Since the Op brought it up, here it is:

""the original movement of the early 1900's"

okay thank you. this was really what i was asking.

so is it safe to say now that you basically consider the Pentecostal Movement of the early 1900s the beginning of the Movement?

is this reasonably accurate?:

Origin/History

Pentecostal historians usually date the beginning of Pentecostalism to the experience of two key figures at the turn of the Twentieth Century. Charles Fox Parnham (1873-1929), the founder of Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, became convinced from his study of Paul’s letters that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (especially the speaking in tongues) were available to Christians of his day also. The first incident of such tongues-speaking happened at Bethel Bible in 1901. In April, 1906, one of Parnham’s former students, W. J. Seymour, who was preaching in Los Angeles became a catalyst for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As he was preaching at a Methodist Church on Azusa Street on the need for every Christian to have a personal Pentecost experience (as it happened to the 120 believers in Acts 2:1-4), many in attendance were baptized in the Holy Spirit, which was evidenced in some by the speaking of tongues, and others by miraculous healings. The revival and the outpouring of the Spirit lasted for three months. Word quickly spread, and thousands traveled to Los Angeles, many of whom were also allegedly baptized in the Holy Spirit. These then gladly took the Pentecostal message and experience back to their homes. By 1909 there were 12 Pentecostal preaching stations in Los Angles. Within a generation the Pentecostal movement had spread all over America and was a new force in Christendom.

Pentecostalism

if not, could you say what the author has wrong?
hoping to just get your approved history so that we might narrow down the discussion.
hopefully - the discussion can be about what you see went wrong with the Original Movement (if anything)....and so on.

that way, when the subject comes up, we won't need to wade through the stuff you reject to get to what you approve.

 

[Stephen63]

hi stephen.
could you please document the History of the Pentecostal Movement (citing sources)?
others are doing the best they can without you so far.

if there are errors in either history posted, could you please say what the errors are?
that would be very helpful.

I can only say this....... When you research, don't look for spiritual perfection to the "T", 'cause you won't find any. People blunder, Holy Spirit or not. This is biblical, & can be proven in scripture. I'm also still waiting on Stilly's reply to my question.