Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
You know who has sketchy origins? Those Galileans. I heard one of them used the Roman soldiers as his power to strong arm Jews out of more taxes than they owed. Another one was possibly part of the "cut throat" gang. That's what I heard. And one of them was a thief, even sold their leader for 30 pieces of silver. So we can't be sure about that movement called "The Way" with it's sketchy roots and all.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
I am not a cessationist by any stretch of the definition.
Apologies, sometimes skipping in an out of here you miss your place. I'm going to have to start "read to here" like TL does. :)
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
You know who has sketchy origins? Those Galileans. I heard one of them used the Roman soldiers as his power to strong arm Jews out of more taxes than they owed. Another one was possibly part of the "cut throat" gang. That's what I heard. And one of them was a thief, even sold their leader for 30 pieces of silver. So we can't be sure about that movement called "The Way" with it's sketchy roots and all.

Pssst, ask the blind man, he saw it all. ;)
 
C

ChristianTonyB

Guest
I'm a bit puzzled about "TB". What is that? I've never heard of it.
Sorry guys, I misinterpreted the acronym Gideon used. Interesting enough, the anecdote he painted was similar, in a fashion, to what happened in my life.

My excuse for my mistake is, Gideon may have been speaking left handed, and I was listening right handed, or vice versa 🙄 Shalom. 🙂
 

Gideon300

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2021
5,251
3,090
113
Oh! I see. I am familiar with it. I believe that when it first started the emphasis was on the preaching of the Gospel through Stephen Hill, and many got saved. But as with many revivals, things got out of hand and things degenerated from there. I don't think that the two good Pentecostal pastors who mentored me to be a man of prayer and of the Word, would have gone along with what was happening at the Brownsville church.
The main instigators of the abomination were Kenneth Copeland and Rodney Howard-Browne. You can find videos of the first meetings on youtube.
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
My attitude is that if it has not be clearly written in the New Testament then Jesus never said it at any time.
That is a Very Good attitude to have.
Can you please specify what subject has not been clearly written in the New Testament???
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
69
28
I agree that scriptures should be taught focusing on ascertaining the intended message when the author wrote it and using all the rules of hermeneutics to do so. Understanding THAT message and preaching it is what will transform people and cause them to have an encounter with God.
I completely agree with this!!

The problem I have with Reformed theology is that they seemed to have stopped before they finished the job. Let's get back to the original pattern. I think the Pentecostals are more reformers than the Reformers.
I completely disagree with this!! The main issue is that the reformers understood the scriptures much better, but the P/Cs often impose their own feelings, reasoning, and experience onto the scriptures they read. To some extent they judge the scripture rather than letting the scripture judge them. And the excuse they make is "we have the Holy Spirit teaching us." Such is the M.O. of every false teacher.

And what I'm trying to say is that the modern tongues experience is not the same thing as described in the NT. But none of the P/Cs will listen, because they have a vested interest in being right about their claims.

Next we need to address the Lords Supper. It does not seem to have been reformed to the original method in any of our churches including the Reformed and the Pentecostals. It's as if we still have some Catholic artifacts still hanging around that need reformed.
This is off-topic, but I'll go with you here. If there are any Catholic/Orthodox artifacts hanging around, it's in the P/C movement, since they believe in losing salvation, and by claiming that people can choose to obey Christ on their own they deny total spiritual depravity. These two issues are the vestiges of Pelagian's legacy.

BTW, I don't subscribe to every detail of the Reformed movement, and confessions have changed in that regard.[/quote][/QUOTE]
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,214
3,561
113
The students were looking for truth. And they found it. As can you. Just read the scriptures and let them do what they do when read in faith. They produce faith. The message they convey will create an expectation for one to say "Here Am I Lord. Use Me" and He will. And expecting that He will use you as He did believers in the book of Acts, is the right attitude and right heart of faith.
They found what Parham had planted in their heads to find. If it was a true Pentecost experience they wouldn't have needed to "tarry" waiting for what they expected, it would've just happened, like on Pentecost. You left this part of it out. They had already concluded they should be expecting tongues, then they waited until it happened; it wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit, it was a counterfeit.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
69
28
My friend, you give yourself entirely too much credit. There is no personal affront, you said Pentecostals didn't know the Bible, but to say back to you is an affront ? smh


The personal affront is the sarcasm, as if to say I don't know what I'm talking about, which is the double standard I see in your responses. Did the apostle Paul ever say he knew better than other people? - 1 Tim. 1:7. In 1 Cor. 8:1, Paul mentions knowledge puffing up (the ego) in reference to idols. And this is what I see in much of P/C attitude. An experience misinterpreted inclines one to a cultic role, because they get the feeling they have something the ordinary Christian doesn't have. That's egos getting puffed up.

And besides that, P/C doctrine on soteriology has vestiges of Catholic/Orthodox religion in their legalistic bent. I saw it and felt it for 25 years when among them, and I see it a lot in these forums.

Aye my friend, there's the rub. You're judging the heart of your brother/sister in Christ. Anyone who wants the in filling of the Spirit can have it, and those who don't can walk away. It has nothing to do with salvation. Seems like there is spiritual jealousy at the root humm.
No, you misunderstand me (again, your prejudice is speaking here). Your false judgment of me simply proves what I said, you think you're above me and can judge my motives, but you are wrong about it. Your attitude reeks of "holier than thou."

No, I'm saying there can be two views here and how about acknowledging that
If you really believe that, then why aren't you acknowledging my view? Yet, one of us is wrong about the matter (or we both are). It's not a matter of "2 views," it's a matter of what modern tongues really is.

Because that's the topic.
You could make it about that, but I'm addressing a different narrative, which is directly related to the OP.

You believe, but there are other POVs. Be mature enough to acknowledge that.
This is where our paths diverge. My belief is based on what scripture says, but your belief is based on your assessment of your experience. Big difference. And besides that, maturity is not measured by the toleration of error.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about how my pastor friend was saved. He was passing a church and heard someone speaking in his language, he spoke broken English . Interested, he went into the church and the person speaking told him how to be saved. When he asked the pastor after the service who there was from Lebanon. The pastor said no one there was from that country, but explained the person had been speaking in tongues. That was my mistake, I wasn't clear in my response.
Correct, you were not clear. But this begs a question. Is that person still alive? Do you have access to them? Can their tongues be recorded? Since I'm a skeptic on the subject, I need more than an anecdote, since stories can be embellished, as do many in the P/C movement.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,214
3,561
113
Parham didn't initiate the speaking with tongues. It happened with a woman in his congregation, and then it spread through the whole group. It was just as new to him as it was with everyone else.
This is where you're mistaken. Parham was already familiar with tongues. He witnessed it at Frank Sandford's Shiloah community in Maine. He wanted it for his group, that's why he planted the suggestion into the heads of his students and then tried to make it look like it was all spontaneous. Please.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
69
28
I understand that is your testimony and I won't deny that is how you feel.

However, Pentecostals such as the AG do teach from many of the same text books in their bible colleges as Reformists. We believe the same things about the authority of Scripture and how to properly exegete a text.

I also am a lover of careful exegesis. Heremeneutics has been one of my favorite subjects in bible college and we are always teaching people how to identify the intended message in the text and preach that instead of all sorts of topical, and relevant messages that have nothing to do with what the author was communicating.

That the supernatural, life transforming message in the Word of God, the one with AUTHORITY, inspiration, inerrant, and infallible is the one that the author intended when he wrote it based on the original context.

And yes, it is true that when one discovers that message and applies it they will have "experiences." Experiences and the Word of God properly interpreted go hand in hand.

The Assemblies of God uses the same popular text books on Hermeneutics in their bible colleges that the non pentecostal and reformist bible colleges use. Same authors, same text books. They both teach how to identify the meaning that the author intended in the original context. And Pentecostals that do that do not put experience over the scripture, instead it is because they believe the scripture they are able to have the faith necessary to experience the same things that the early church experienced.

But it is true that many laymen Pentecostals do not know how to articulate from scripture a careful answer to the ones that would question them, and they lean on their experience as their proof that it is authentic.

This is simply because it is really true that those who have experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues know that it is real and they don't need to prove it to anyone so they don't educate themselves in such a way as to present a scholarly argument; which in turn opens them up to the accusation that they put experience over the scripture when it fact it was the scripture that brought them to their experience.

And I am not trying to get you to change your mind, I know we are both past that, I am simply trying to present more facts from a Pentecostal perspective about how we think about scripture and experience.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not demeaning everything in the P/C movement. After all, it was my family heritage and my Christian walk for 25 years. There is likely as much good in it as there was in the Reformed movement. I'm simply trying to address the tongues issue, and to say there is a good reason for it being so controversial.

So what you say here about hermeneutics, I've got a question for you. Do you believe in Biblical precedent, namely that what is first mentioned in the Bible supervises later mentions of the same thing? IOW, do you believe that Paul's description and process concerning tongues and the nature of tongues should follow Acts 2, because he assumes that what he has and what is practiced in the churches is the same thing?

Then, if so, the application of that would assume that if you speak in tongues, that it is a real language carrying real meaning, and it could be translated into English if someone knew that language. Do you practice tongues, and (if so) do you believe that what you speak is a real language (that is, not a pseudo-language or just repeated random syllables)?
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,997
4,304
113
Pentecostalism was around before Asuza. it was around in Eastern Europe as well as America and Africa in the 18th century.

If you were a Pharisee in the 1st century you could paint a pretty dodgy picture about the sketchy origins about the supposed "upper room" out-pouring.

Asuza St, was a mixed work and actually did not last but a few years.
ever since Acts chapter 2 :)
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,214
3,561
113
The students were looking for truth. And they found it. As can you. Just read the scriptures and let them do what they do when read in faith. They produce faith. The message they convey will create an expectation for one to say "Here Am I Lord. Use Me" and He will. And expecting that He will use you as He did believers in the book of Acts, is the right attitude and right heart of faith.
You seem to think if you don't have the "baptism" there's something lacking in a person's faith. This is the same old manipulation technique Pentecostals have been using for years. I heard the same tripe as a new believer many years ago. If there was anything to what you say you wouldn't have to resort to manipulation. But keep 'em coming, maybe I'll hear something new.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not demeaning everything in the P/C movement. After all, it was my family heritage and my Christian walk for 25 years. There is likely as much good in it as there was in the Reformed movement. I'm simply trying to address the tongues issue, and to say there is a good reason for it being so controversial.

So what you say here about hermeneutics, I've got a question for you. Do you believe in Biblical precedent, namely that what is first mentioned in the Bible supervises later mentions of the same thing? IOW, do you believe that Paul's description and process concerning tongues and the nature of tongues should follow Acts 2, because he assumes that what he has and what is practiced in the churches is the same thing?

Then, if so, the application of that would assume that if you speak in tongues, that it is a real language carrying real meaning, and it could be translated into English if someone knew that language. Do you practice tongues, and (if so) do you believe that what you speak is a real language (that is, not a pseudo-language or just repeated random syllables)?
If I were to form an 'law of first reference' rule out of Acts 2 I would soon have to abandon it as I read the other accounts that do not match my theory.

I think I need to take all of the scriptures and the context of each concerning speaking in tongues and get an entire picture by the contribution of each mention. I believe there is progressive revelation at play in the subsequent events and mentions. It is obvious that there are differences.

Also if one does formulate some kind of measuring rod with Acts 2 to judge all other instances that occur in scripture one better have the correct measurement of they will be far afield very quickly.

As already mentioned, a careful analysis of Acts 2 suggests that the reason for the amazement was not just that they had run into bilingual people. They were so confounded and Marveled because they could not figure out how it was possible for themselves and another person who spoke a different language, to both hear them speaking in their own languages.

Mind boggling How can this Be?

Now you may not agree with that interpretation but it is what the text says and I am being as faithful to it as possible without having to change the meaning to fit my bias or prejudice.

If this is what it means it adds to the supernatural element of this event.

5Now there were Jews staying in Jerusalem, devout people from every nation under heaven. 6When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7They were astounded and amazed, saying,A “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8How is it that each of us can hear them in our own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts), 11Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the magnificent acts of God in our own tongues.” 12They were all astounded and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?13But some sneered and said, “They’re drunk on new wine.”

If you read it carefully you can really get the sense that Luke is highlighting the impact it had on those who could not make sense of how people who spoke different languages could understand the same speakers in their own language. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? How is the possible? They were astounded and perplexed by this. It is way more than finding out someone can speak your own language that would cause all of these emotions and have this kind of impact.

It is also the fact that others who don't speak your language could understand the same speakers in their own language and you don't understand their language. How can this be?

At this point I lean toward the interpretation based on the plain reading of the text that it is a case where they understood all of the 120 speakers in their own language and others understood in their own language. But I cannot contend for that. Maybe they only heard some of the 120 that were near them and noticed that others of another language also understood them.

At this point I believe that the supernatural element of two or more people who spoke different languages understanding the same speakers in their own language were aware that others who spoke another language also understood the same speakers was the reason for their amazement and perplexity and this is what Luke was presenting. This boggled their minds at the supernatural event they were a part of.

Also that others mocking and accusing them of being drunk does not match what someone would think if they thought you had just learned a language instantly. They did not understand them. They thought they were speaking nonsense, babbling incoherently, like a drunk person. That is the most obvious interpretation that would not need further explanation from Luke.

If you insist that it was each 120 speaking a known foreign language such that one could record them send the recording to linguists and identify the language (which I do not believe is what is going on here) then you will have difficulty reconciling much of what Paul wrote about the use of the gift latter.

If you do use Acts 2 to insist that each of the other events in Acts has them speaking in foreign languages and yet there is no foreigners there to hear them, then what was the purpose. And some modifications to the "law of first reference' formulated from Acts 2 is immediately required. Also there is no mention of the cloven tongues of flame setting upon anyone else after the Acts 2 event in which case further modifications to the the rule of Acts 2 must be made.

When Paul writes so much about the use of the gift and says that his own understanding is unfruitful when he prays in tongues we cannot ignore the fact that these kinds of additional details give us a whole picture that makes it very difficult to insist on an identifiable language that can be recorded and sent to linguists for identification.

I believe that is not how the gift of tongues works. Nor can you record someone praying in tongues or even someone who gives a tongue in a church service to be interpreted and then take that recording and give it to someone who claims to have the gift of interpretation and have them interpret. If they really are used to give interpretations of tongues in their local church they will tell you that they cannot help you with that. That the Holy Spirit will not give them the interpretation under such a challenge circumstance like that. That the Holy Spirit will not cooperate with their challenge. That the Holy Spirit gives them interpretations in the moment of the utterance in the assembly to edify those that are there and not to answer a skeptics recording challenge.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,214
3,561
113
The following video reveals Parham's involvement with an alchemist who claimed to be able to manufacture "gold from God." It demonstrates: 1) Parham's incredible lack of discernment; or 2) His participation in a scam. Either one isn't good. It reminds me of Joseph Smith and his obsession with hidden gold.


This video shows Parham as the clear scam artist he was. He claims to have had a secret document that revealed the location of the Ark of the Covenant. Turns out his "secret document" was 2 Maccabees.

 

Aaron56

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
2,749
1,573
113
Shouldn't those who love the truth and know the scriptures be wary of any church label beyond that of location? To make one aspect of the New Testament account preeminent (Pentecost, baptism, Catholic, holy, brethren, orthodox, Messianic, Calvary, apostolic, charismatic, Bible, etc.) should be a warning to all who love the Truth. Even naming a group after Christ (Church of Christ) is clearly forbidden in Paul's epistle. And just so I don't leave anyone out, only a divisive heart would embrace the term "non-denominational": they glory in their separation from the other believers. This tradition causes deceptive and scheming men and women to continue unchecked in their own "version of the gospel".
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
You seem to think if you don't have the "baptism" there's something lacking in a person's faith. This is the same old manipulation technique Pentecostals have been using for years. I heard the same tripe as a new believer many years ago. If there was anything to what you say you wouldn't have to resort to manipulation. But keep 'em coming, maybe I'll hear something new.
I have heard this accusation from those who claim to be Reformist. They say that we are claiming elitist status among Christians. That we are claiming to be "better Christians" for having this gift. They say that is how we are "coming across" anyway.

I have examined myself and the accusation and have had discussions with those who say this to find out what exactly they are saying and I would have to agree that we do claim to be "more effective witnesses, soul winners, and preachers" on average. Not "better" or "more saved" but yes, more effective in ministry.

This is why. If I were to tell you that there were two pastors, one prayed often that God would completely have his way in their lives and that they would hear from the Spirit what they were to preach, and that they would be a more effective soul winner, and be lead by the Spirit, etc..." and this pastor spent quality time praying everyday. And then there was another pastor who never prayed. Went weeks without praying except for public prayers because he was expected to.

And then I ask you do you believe that the praying pastor would have a more effective ministry? I think that 99% of honest Christians would agree that the praying pastor would be more effective in his ministry. Why? Because we believe in the supernatural help that comes from God when we pray in faith.

So we believe that if someone askes for the out pouring of the Holy Spirit to receive power to be a witness and the gift of tongues to pray mysteries directly to God and for help to pray for things they don't even know to pray for, and they receive this gift and pray this way then we do believe we are more effective ministers as a result. And it is a fact that the Pentecostal movement is the largest missionary movement in the world seeing more churches planted and more souls saved than any other evangelical organization and so there is proof that we are more effective as a result of this gift which we claim.

We don't think we are better, we think we are more effective... And that was God's plan. That is why he gave the gift. To receive power to be a witness. We have no right to accuse those who believe what God said and receive this gift and become more effective than those who do not as being elitists. They are not elitists, they are are simply believers who step into the promises of God and are more equipped for ministry than those who don't.

Do I think that there is something lacking in someone's faith who does not claim the gift of speaking in tongues? Not on a salvific level. I don't think it matters about their eternal salvation in Christ. Do I think that their faith can be increased by praying in tongues in the Holy Spirit? Yes. I think that is one of the purposes of the gift.

Jude 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,997
4,304
113
Shouldn't those who love the truth and know the scriptures be wary of any church label beyond that of location? To make one aspect of the New Testament account preeminent (Pentecost, baptism, Catholic, holy, brethren, orthodox, Messianic, Calvary, apostolic, charismatic, Bible, etc.) should be a warning to all who love the Truth. Even naming a group after Christ (Church of Christ) is clearly forbidden in Paul's epistle. And just so I don't leave anyone out, only a divisive heart would embrace the term "non-denominational": they glory in their separation from the other believers. This tradition causes deceptive and scheming men and women to continue unchecked in their own "version of the gospel".
FYI Jesus even had names for Churches in the Book of Revelation.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
They found what Parham had planted in their heads to find. If it was a true Pentecost experience they wouldn't have needed to "tarry" waiting for what they expected, it would've just happened, like on Pentecost. You left this part of it out. They had already concluded they should be expecting tongues, then they waited until it happened; it wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit, it was a counterfeit.
That is your opinion but not really something that can be supported as scriptural. We are 2000 years on the other side of the initial events when they did not know what was coming. We now know. There is nothing less authentic about asking for it than asking for other things we have revelation of after the initial occurrence of it in the NT.

If I pray for the same experience that they had and ask to receive the same gift of tongues that they did, I don't hear the Holy Spirit saying, I can't do that because you would be expecting it and they were not.

I hear the Holy Spirit saying, Yes. The promise is to you your children and all that are afar off as many as the Lord shall call. Once this kept spreading and others received it don't you think there came a time when people asked for it specifically? It would be impossible for there to be a perpetual surprise wouldn't it?
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
They found what Parham had planted in their heads to find. If it was a true Pentecost experience they wouldn't have needed to "tarry" waiting for what they expected, it would've just happened, like on Pentecost. You left this part of it out. They had already concluded they should be expecting tongues, then they waited until it happened; it wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit, it was a counterfeit.
The truth is that when I got baptized with the Holy Spirit and first spoke in tongues I had never heard of Parham, Asuza, the Pentecostals, or Charismatics.

I had no church influence or knew any Christians. Had never read anything or had any discussion about anything related to this. I was saved in jail and had never heard the Gospel before then. I read my bible all day every day while in prison with no other christians around to talk to about these things. I studied the book of Acts from a bible that had no study notes and as I read the book of Acts I had faith that I could receive the same experience.

A volunteer chaplain came to visit our tank and I told him how I had been born again after getting arrested and how God had changed my life. He asked me "if I had received the Holy Ghost since I believed." I knew he was quoting Acts and I said, "I just read that and I am asking the Lord for that."

He said "Can I lay hands on you and pray for it right now?" And I said "yes, please do."

And then I got on my knees (he did not ask me too, it just seemed like the right thing to do) I was imagining being one of those disciples in Ephesus in Acts I suppose. And as soon as he prayed over me I started speaking in tongues.

I also became 10 x the soul winner I was before, and very effective at leading people to Christ. I could give many stories of the power to witness that came into my life at that time.

So my point is that I am living proof that I was not influenced by Parham, or anyone in the modern Pentecostal movement. My testimony is too simple to find fault with it. If your proposition that people have been caught up in a movement that has sketchy origins is true, it does not apply to me since as I have explained I never knew about any of these things and yet by reading the bible and having faith I experienced the same thing they did.

Another thing that came from my experience that I can vouch for. I never considered the question or the answer "what is the initial evidence that someone is baptized in the Holy Spirit?" I never asked that question. Therefore, that part of the modern Pentecostal movement is something I read about later. Not something I needed to ask to receive the gift. It is just not something that I think that much about. Like Reformers philosophizing about free will or not free will. I just don't care. I never was concerned about how God knows something is going to happen, It is beyond my scope of responsibility and I don't get into it with people.

I didn't need to search out the question "what is the evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit" and so that is not why I asked for it. I asked for it because I read it and believed. The scriptures themselves produced that expectation in me.