Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[SophieT]

Yes, I agree that based on this account, both Parham and Ozman sound like dodgy characters trying to convince the congregation for evidence of an outpouring of the holy spirit through tongues-speaking (in this example, someone claimed that it was Chinese).

1 Cor 14:22 also says this:
"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers." (ESV)

From this passage, the application of tongues is for the preaching of the gospel to unbelievers when God's Spirit works to enable the unbeliever to hear and understand the spoken word from the preacher (medium) in his own native language.

wrong..do not create doctrine out of one verse. cessationists seem to have created their 'tongues' doctrine on this verse in particular..HOWEVER, scripture, begs to differ

Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

1 Corinthians 12:10-11
To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Acts 19:6
All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

1 Corinthians 14:2
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:13
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.

1 Corinthians 14:14
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

1 Corinthians 14:27
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.

1 Corinthians 14:39
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:4
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

 

[SophieT]

But I just think some believers are too obsessed with tongues.

LOL!....most of these 'tongues' threads are started by cessationists. like the op

 

[OrphanedRepublican]

A structure is only as solid as its foundation. In this short study into Pentecostalism's origins we'll discover whether it's built on solid rock or sinking sand.

Charles Fox Parham, Pentecostalism's acknowledged founder, spent the summer of 1900 at Frank W. Sanford's Holiness commune in Shiloh, Maine. While there, he learned of the Holiness doctrine of an approaching "latter rain," that is, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which would fall on people as it had in the church's early day. This would be a sign of Christ's imminent return. What scriptural basis is there for the latter rain doctrine? James says: "Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains."—James 5:7 This is the only verse from which a case might be made for a latter rain. So we must understand clearly what this verse actually says. Is James instructing his readers to be patient for the latter rain or for Christ's return. He's clearly encouraging them be patient for the Lord's return using an agricultural metaphor to make his point. There are no other New Testament scriptures from which we can put together a "latter rain" doctrine; it simply isn't taught. In fact, rather than worldwide revival, the scriptures clearly reveal the world will descend into darkness before the Lord's return.

While at Shiloh, Sanford filled Parham's head with tales of foreign missionaries who had spontaneously begun speaking the language of their foreign hosts without ever learning the language. In other words, they could preach to them in their own languages using the gift of tongues. But what evidence is there of this ever really happening? None that I'm aware of. But Parham was fascinated; he was convinced that this was a sure sign of the end-time and Christ's imminent return.

Returning to Topeka, Kansas, Parham established a missionary training center. In December of 1900, he challenged his students to find evidence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit like what happened in Acts 2. He also suggested that the surest evidence of this would be speaking in tongues. At their New Year's eve service, 1901, right on schedule, Agnes Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her head and pray she would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ozman began singing in an unknown language, which someone identified as Chinese.

What's strange about this picture? First of all, there's no evidence from the New Testament that missionaries ever used the gift of tongues to preach the good news. When missionaries did eventually go to foreign countries after the "latter rains" started falling, they failed miserably. Secondly, notice that Parham gave his students a suggestion which they pondered for a month. This wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Parham orchestrated the whole thing.

So, the question I leave you with is this: If the tree is bad, how can the fruit possibly be good?

There is scripture about God's abundant outpouring of His spirit in the latter times or last days. Isaiah 44:3. Joel 2:28. Zechariah 12:10. Acts 2:17.

It's my understanding that that's what the latter rain was about, the abundant outpouring of the spirit on man in the latter days.

 

[Magpi89]

To answer your question, yes, I do; but it goes beyond that. In my original post I mentioned the "latter rain" doctrine. I first started becoming skeptical of Pentecostalism when I started hearing about this. As far as I can tell, based on my understanding of scripture, it's a false doctrine. I can't find "latter rain" or a worldwide revival in the New Testament. All I see is a descent into deception and darkness. Pentecostalism, in my view, is a big part the deception. What's it been now, over 120 years since Topeka? If the gift of tongues that supposedly manifested in 1900 was a sign of the Lord's imminent return, what's taking so long? I wouldn't call 120 years very imminent.

Brother, I think there's something that you missed out earlier from jb. In the last days, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will be a sign of Christ' second coming. If your 'latter rain' doctrine is referring to God's outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then I would point you to truth in Acts 2:16-17.

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." - ESV

Christ will return soon and we are nearing the last days. I would like to caveat that this is not an argument for Pentecostalism. There are individuals (like in the example you mentioned) where they take it too far and try to dramatize this outpouring when it's not evident at all.

 

[Magpi89]

wrong..do not create doctrine out of one verse. cessationists seem to have created their 'tongues' doctrine on this verse in particular..HOWEVER, scripture, begs to differ

Hi Sophie,

1. I would like to state for the record that I'm not a cessationist (in the context of the gift of tongues) as I believe Acts 2:16-17 and as in the day of Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit did enable his people to speak in tongues.

2. I think we should consider truth holistically. You have tried to make the case of believers speaking in tongues which I do not disagree with you. But we should also consider what 1 Cor 14:22 says on the purpose of tongues which are meant for an audience of unbelievers.


I commend you on your passionate reply

 

[Magpi89]

Brother, I think there's something that you missed out earlier from jb. In the last days, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will be a sign of Christ' second coming. If your 'latter rain' doctrine is referring to God's outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then I would point you to truth in Acts 2:16-17.

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." - ESV

Christ will return soon and we are nearing the last days. I would like to caveat that this is not an argument for Pentecostalism. There are individuals (like in the example you mentioned) where they take it too far and try to dramatize this outpouring when it's not evident at all.

I correct my verse reference, it should be Acts 2:17-18.

 

[soberxp]

Brother, I think there's something that you missed out earlier from jb. In the last days, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will be a sign of Christ' second coming. If your 'latter rain' doctrine is referring to God's outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then I would point you to truth in Acts 2:16-17.

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." - ESV

Christ will return soon and we are nearing the last days. I would like to caveat that this is not an argument for Pentecostalism. There are individuals (like in the example you mentioned) where they take it too far and try to dramatize this outpouring when it's not evident at all.

Not soon................ but already.
See my post about the second coming of Jesus.

Matthew 24:44 24:50

Luke 12:40 12:46 12:48

 

[mustaphadrink]

A structure is only as solid as its foundation. In this short study into Pentecostalism's origins we'll discover whether it's built on solid rock or sinking sand.

Charles Fox Parham, Pentecostalism's acknowledged founder, spent the summer of 1900 at Frank W. Sanford's Holiness commune in Shiloh, Maine. While there, he learned of the Holiness doctrine of an approaching "latter rain," that is, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which would fall on people as it had in the church's early day. This would be a sign of Christ's imminent return. What scriptural basis is there for the latter rain doctrine? James says: "Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains."—James 5:7 This is the only verse from which a case might be made for a latter rain. So we must understand clearly what this verse actually says. Is James instructing his readers to be patient for the latter rain or for Christ's return. He's clearly encouraging them be patient for the Lord's return using an agricultural metaphor to make his point. There are no other New Testament scriptures from which we can put together a "latter rain" doctrine; it simply isn't taught. In fact, rather than worldwide revival, the scriptures clearly reveal the world will descend into darkness before the Lord's return.

While at Shiloh, Sanford filled Parham's head with tales of foreign missionaries who had spontaneously begun speaking the language of their foreign hosts without ever learning the language. In other words, they could preach to them in their own languages using the gift of tongues. But what evidence is there of this ever really happening? None that I'm aware of. But Parham was fascinated; he was convinced that this was a sure sign of the end-time and Christ's imminent return.

Returning to Topeka, Kansas, Parham established a missionary training center. In December of 1900, he challenged his students to find evidence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit like what happened in Acts 2. He also suggested that the surest evidence of this would be speaking in tongues. At their New Year's eve service, 1901, right on schedule, Agnes Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her head and pray she would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ozman began singing in an unknown language, which someone identified as Chinese.

What's strange about this picture? First of all, there's no evidence from the New Testament that missionaries ever used the gift of tongues to preach the good news. When missionaries did eventually go to foreign countries after the "latter rains" started falling, they failed miserably. Secondly, notice that Parham gave his students a suggestion which they pondered for a month. This wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Parham orchestrated the whole thing.

So, the question I leave you with is this: If the tree is bad, how can the fruit possibly be good?

Y|ou have read into the story several things that are not there so here goes.

First I know of denominations started by godly men and when I look at them today, they are a shadow of what they were originally. So, just because the founder was good or bad does not write it off at a later date. Are you going to write off Willow Creek because of Bill Hybels indiscretions?

Then there is the Brethren who were adamant that the supernatural is not of God. Having spent about 15 years in the Brethren, I know that the men who ran the local fellowship were men of God and exemplary in their walk with the Lord. Plus, in the UK one of the major players in the Restoration Movement in the 70s, and 80s, were Elders who had come out of the Brethren because they had been baptised in the Holy Spirit and God used them mightily to revive the priesthood of ALL believers and the supernatural experience of God.

Even if the start was good and the men behind it were good, we only have to look at today's lot and see that they have fallen by the wayside, embracing the devil's programme and ignoring the word of God. So the character of the founder is no guarantee of its progress or standing.

Then there is the fact that what you call something is not important. It is what you do that counts. I have just finished reading up again on the "Third Wave" of John Wimber. I don't care what John called it, it is what happened that is important. In John's Third Wave things DID HAPPEN and you could only describe them as a supernatural act of God.

Now, regarding people talking in a language they didn't learn. I have heard that happen so the fact that you haven't means nothing.

And like so many people who write here, it is a case of your God is too small. You want him to fit into a box of your making so that you can control him, instead of him controlling you. I have been used by God to do things I would never have thought possible, but when you have an open mind not cluttered up with ifs, buts, maybe, possibly, don't think so, doesn't fit my theology, not my way of thinking, doesn't use the right words, can't see it in scripture God can use you in any way he wants to, for HIS glory, not yours.

Let me ask you. Do you own and drive a car? If so, where is that in scripture? If you follow scripture you must travel on foot, on a donkey or a horse and may be a horse and cart if you have money.

 

[mustaphadrink]

yass tongues as a sign is to unbelievers ... in the upper room there were no foreigners, no unbelievers ....

But on the day of Pentecoswt there were thousands of unbelievers and foreigners.

 

[mustaphadrink]

A structure is only as solid as its foundation. In this short study into Pentecostalism's origins we'll discover whether it's built on solid rock or sinking sand.

Charles Fox Parham, Pentecostalism's acknowledged founder, spent the summer of 1900 at Frank W. Sanford's Holiness commune in Shiloh, Maine. While there, he learned of the Holiness doctrine of an approaching "latter rain," that is, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which would fall on people as it had in the church's early day. This would be a sign of Christ's imminent return. What scriptural basis is there for the latter rain doctrine? James says: "Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains."—James 5:7 This is the only verse from which a case might be made for a latter rain. So we must understand clearly what this verse actually says. Is James instructing his readers to be patient for the latter rain or for Christ's return. He's clearly encouraging them be patient for the Lord's return using an agricultural metaphor to make his point. There are no other New Testament scriptures from which we can put together a "latter rain" doctrine; it simply isn't taught. In fact, rather than worldwide revival, the scriptures clearly reveal the world will descend into darkness before the Lord's return.

While at Shiloh, Sanford filled Parham's head with tales of foreign missionaries who had spontaneously begun speaking the language of their foreign hosts without ever learning the language. In other words, they could preach to them in their own languages using the gift of tongues. But what evidence is there of this ever really happening? None that I'm aware of. But Parham was fascinated; he was convinced that this was a sure sign of the end-time and Christ's imminent return.

Returning to Topeka, Kansas, Parham established a missionary training center. In December of 1900, he challenged his students to find evidence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit like what happened in Acts 2. He also suggested that the surest evidence of this would be speaking in tongues. At their New Year's eve service, 1901, right on schedule, Agnes Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her head and pray she would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ozman began singing in an unknown language, which someone identified as Chinese.

What's strange about this picture? First of all, there's no evidence from the New Testament that missionaries ever used the gift of tongues to preach the good news. When missionaries did eventually go to foreign countries after the "latter rains" started falling, they failed miserably. Secondly, notice that Parham gave his students a suggestion which they pondered for a month. This wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Parham orchestrated the whole thing.

So, the question I leave you with is this: If the tree is bad, how can the fruit possibly be good?

If it is built on sinking sand, why is it still going a hundred years later?

 

[mustaphadrink]

Maby you can find good morality, but this is no proof. I met Hindus with a giid morality and the blame the Western countrys (christians) to have a bad morality.
Two of my friends one father of 5 boys devorced his wife aber he attending of an pentecostal church. Another frien


So where is the proof for that pentecostalism was before Azuza and Topeka? Where was expierienced and taught that speaking in tongues is the sign that someone is baptised with the Holy Spirit in eastern europe and africa?

Acxtually they spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Just a thought. It is wrong if it is not in scripture. There are a lot of things in scripture and most churches totally ignore them. So what are you going to do about that?

 

[Aidan1]

wrong..do not create doctrine out of one verse. cessationists seem to have created their 'tongues' doctrine on this verse in particular..HOWEVER, scripture, begs to differ

Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

1 Corinthians 12:10-11
To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Acts 19:6
All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

1 Corinthians 14:2
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:13
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.

1 Corinthians 14:14
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

1 Corinthians 14:27
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.

1 Corinthians 14:39
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:4
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Well, why you only take the verses which support your view? You should consider all. F. E. 1.Cor. 12,30 ...do all speak with tongues? ...

 

[Evmur]

But on the day of Pentecoswt there were thousands of unbelievers and foreigners.

are you an unbeliever? you can be saved and yet an unbeliever, you believe some mebbe the most of the gospel, arguably you believe the most precious and important parts [and there is an argument there] and yet the things concerning the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit you do not believe. Tongues are a sign to you.

For us who believe it is a prayer language and a source of edification.

 

[Evmur]

Maby you can find good morality, but this is no proof. I met Hindus with a giid morality and the blame the Western countrys (christians) to have a bad morality.
Two of my friends one father of 5 boys devorced his wife aber he attending of an pentecostal church. Another frien


So where is the proof for that pentecostalism was before Azuza and Topeka? Where was expierienced and taught that speaking in tongues is the sign that someone is baptised with the Holy Spirit in eastern europe and africa?

Check out Maria Woodworth Etter, she was not called a Pentecostal but she was pentecostal. John Dowie was also around at the turn of the century, whatever he became in later years he did some good work in Africa and founded Zion city.

Only one or a few denominations teach tongues as a requirement. Pentecostalism is not a denomination.

Pentecostals were around in the 16th and 17th century in Europe, John Bunyan alludes to them.

He probably was referring to George Fox and the Quakers, George Fox was a remarkable person.

 

[Evmur]

If it is built on sinking sand, why is it still going a hundred years later?

yeh

 

[Evmur]

are you an unbeliever? you can be saved and yet an unbeliever, you believe some mebbe the most of the gospel, arguably you believe the most precious and important parts [and there is an argument there] and yet the things concerning the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit you do not believe. Tongues are a sign to you.

For us who believe it is a prayer language and a source of edification.

Having read some of Musty's posts I would prolly edit some of that ... dang that 5 minute rule.

 

[Aidan1]

Acxtually they spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost.

This is not the problem. Not all what is written in the bible is for all times.
It may be that God is uesing speaking in tongues ( foreign languages) for to call people in his family, today
But the pentecostal teaching since Topeka and Azusa was neither taught in the bible to believers, nor in the churchhistory.
And No one could give me the proof for the oposit.

 

[CS1]

Maby you can find good morality, but this is no proof. I met Hindus with a giid morality and the blame the Western countrys (christians) to have a bad morality.
Two of my friends one father of 5 boys devorced his wife aber he attending of an pentecostal church. Another frien


So where is the proof for that pentecostalism was before Azuza and Topeka? Where was expierienced and taught that speaking in tongues is the sign that someone is baptised with the Holy Spirit in eastern europe and africa?

the proof is found in Acts chapter 1:8 and 1cor chapter 12 through 14.

You need proof a sign, just as Jesus said a perverted adulterous generation needs a sign. Unlike Pentacostels we don't seek signs as you think, that is your biblical error. We believe what Jesus said that Sign Follow those who believe and God confirms his word with them.

Mark 16:17,20
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;"

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


YOu don't think the Lord follows us today? YOu don't see God doing great things in your church?
Or on the street? You see no one getting saved coming to the Lord after your Pastor preaches A MESSAGE? Or is it just a talk to only those who are "members"?

You don't pray for the sick? You don't hit the streets and go to places to repel evil works? The Pentecostals I know ARE Living Proof!


That the Lord Jesus still saves, delivers, and breaks addictions, Heals, and restores. God is still confirming HIS word today why are you not seeing it? Because you are not out there fulfilling the great commission. Yet you ask like a spoiled brat " where's the proof".


Where is your proof of doing the work that the body ALL the body is to be doing or do you just sit in the pews and say that the job of the pastor? Then you think you are theologically sound to attack the gifts of the Holy Spirit a Christian is using in faith?

Go to your slums, projects, and prisons, take your bible open it up and start reading it out loud just do that. And report back to us how many you led to Christ seen set free from addictions. Oh ya, Go to a community outside of your own ethnicity.

I'm sure those who are under the influence will be greatly impressed with your bible reading. But to pray for them to be healed, don't pray for them to be set free because it won't happen just read the bible you don't believe works today ok guy.

 

[SophieT]

Hi Sophie,

1. I would like to state for the record that I'm not a cessationist (in the context of the gift of tongues) as I believe Acts 2:16-17 and as in the day of Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit did enable his people to speak in tongues.

2. I think we should consider truth holistically. You have tried to make the case of believers speaking in tongues which I do not disagree with you. But we should also consider what 1 Cor 14:22 says on the purpose of tongues which are meant for an audience of unbelievers.


I commend you on your passionate reply

aww that's nice. but the post I replied to reads differently. as follows:

1 Cor 14:22 also says this:
"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers." (ESV)

From this passage, the application of tongues is for the preaching of the gospel to unbelievers when God's Spirit works to enable the unbeliever to hear and understand the spoken word from the preacher (medium) in his own native language.

scripture indicates the usage of tongues in several different ways, as per the verses I posted. you believe differently

even a cursory reading of those scriptures indicates far greater usage than in the presence of tongues..so yeah, if not cessationist, then partial cessationist it would seem

let's not be patronizing