Ask a Pentecostal

[Hat4]

I edit Wikipedia, so I will give you a tip . . . Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything.

The 500 million is not for classical Pentecostalism alone. It is for all Pentecostals and charismatic Christians. Charismatic Christians include those Christians in mainline Protestant and the Catholic Church who participate in the Charismatic Renewal.

I see what you’re saying. I misunderstood your point before. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it was quick and easy and looked to have the same numbers I had seen on various other sources.

 

[Nicea325]

As a Protestant from a charismatic background seeking a church where the Real Presence is taught and practiced, I am quite curious about the history as well.

My current AOG church stresses that communion is symbolic only. I always just accepted that until more recently.

Here is the problem with the belief of communion being symbolic:

If the communion is was taught as symbolic from the get-go and considered orthodox in nature,then where are the protests against the Real Presence? If the Real Presence was heretical or a great usurpation from Christ teaching, then how odd no where is it being attacked by the early church as being false.

 

[peace2u2]

Classical Pentecostal theology has traditionally made a distinction between speaking in tongues as evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit (one’s prayer language) and the gift of tongues (when one is given messages for the edification of others). They are not different in essence (both are unknown languages) only different in purpose (one is for private edification and one is for the edification of others). Every Christian has a potential prayer language, but not every Christian can operate in a gift of tongues.

However, they are both gifts in the general sense of the word because both come from God and we do nothing to “deserve” them.

I’m not sure if speaking in tongues would be the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit as it is a Charism, an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit who wills all or some of these extraordinary gifts as He wills and to whom He wills.

1 Cor. 12:11 states, “But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.”, and that is probably why not every Christian can operate in a gift of tongues, especially if a person doesn’t want this gift.

I have a Catholic friend who is very traditional not charismatic at all and has even said she doesn’t want the gift so I guess if its a gift, we have the choice of either accepting this gift or rejecting it for whatever reason.

Do you have any of the other extraordinary gifts?

Are there any converts from Catholicism at your Church?

What type of programs do you have for children, teens and young adults?

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Here is the problem with the belief of communion being symbolic:

If the communion is was taught as symbolic from the get-go and considered orthodox in nature,then where are the protests against the Real Presence? If the Real Presence was heretical or a great usurpation from Christ teaching, then how odd no where is it being attacked by the early church as being false.

Exactly why I believe in the Real Presence. Was never disputed by anyone until well after the Early Church fathers.

 

[peace2u2]

Do you mean “Holy Laughter?” Personally, I don’t see the point in God making an entire revival out of people laughing uncontrollably, but I don’t see anything per se wrong with people having joy in the presence of the Lord. If you get happy when the power of God falls on you, who am I to tell you to be quiet? It’s like shouting. Who am I to tell someone they can’t praise God with a shout? The Bible does say, Shout unto God with a voice of triumph. The Bible also says that a fruit of the Spirit is joy. There are a lot worse things someone could do in church than fall over laughing.

Some “courtesy fall” because they want to fit in or they think they’re supposed to fall out. They are misinformed and possibly in a church that encourages that type of behavior. Yet, no one should mock God by pretending such things. God does not need your help to nock you on the floor. If God wants you to fall under His power, then you will feel the heaviness of His glory. You don’t have to fake it.

The prayer line in a Pentecostal church is like going up to a priest and asking for a blessing. We have no reason to believe or expect that some physical manifestation must accompany the laying on of hands. If it does, praise God. If it doesn’t, praise God too.

I have been at prayer retreats and healing Mass/services and yes, sometimes, esp. at the retreats, people leave so soaked in the Lord’s Presence that some start to laugh and cry its such a wonderful experience and if you were someone who just happened upon these people, you would have thought they were drinking alcohol but no everyone was sober. And we call it “Slain in the Spirit” in the Catholic Church as well.

Its like this song, Grace Like Rain by Chris Tomlin, line that says, "Hallelujah, Grace Like Rain, falls down on me,
youtube.com/watch?v=jwCTbhImNeI

A friend of mine attended a healing prayer Mass/service celebrated by Fr. Michael Sears and she was slain in the spirit and also healed of her cancer(she said there were people there to catch her and she wasn’t even expecting this to happen, they were all just invited up to receive a blessing before the actual healing service and after the Mass was over).

apostlesofdivinemercy.org/our-priests/fr-michael-sears/

 

[Filioque]

Classical Pentecostal theology has traditionally made a distinction between speaking in tongues as evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit (one’s prayer language) and the gift of tongues (when one is given messages for the edification of others). They are not different in essence (both are unknown languages) only different in purpose (one is for private edification and one is for the edification of others). Every Christian has a potential prayer language, but not every Christian can operate in a gift of tongues.

However, they are both gifts in the general sense of the word because both come from God and we do nothing to “deserve” them.

Since we are only 9 days away from Pentecost, when Tounges was first seen in the Church, how do you reconcile an "unknown language, with the fact that while the Apostles and those who had been in hiding in the upper room spoke their own (known) language, through the intervention of the Holy Ghost the hearers heard it in their own languages. While the idea or practice of the unknown language is not forbidden to Catholics, where do we get the idea that tounges is this unkown language?

I’m a bit fuzzy on the whole idea that tounges is an “unknown language”. That tounges may require an interpreter does not stike me as proof that it is that unknown language, as much as each of us has a different capacity and is at a different stage of spiritual growth. So if I use the term Hypostatic Union, some instantly know what I am referring to, and others need interpretation of instruction.

Now as Catholics we have held for over a millenia that like the Agape, which was no longer useful, but rather became counter productive was suppressed by the Apostles, once the Message of Salvation took firm root through the effort of the Church, some gifts like tounges were no longer widespread, as they were no longer needed. Why the resurgance only 100-150 years ago?

 

[peace2u2]

Also since there is so much conversation about the gift of tongues in this thread, I thought it would be good to post from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 12 said of the extraordinary gifts:

“. . . they are not to be rashly sought, nor should one presumptuously expect of them the fruits of the apostolic works; but the judgment as to whether or not they are genuine, and as to their ordered use pertains to those who are in charge in the Church . . . .” When these gifts are used with careful discernment of spirits and obedience, they are “fitting and useful for the needs of the Church”

 

[ltwin]

Itwin,

Do Pentecostals view themselves as having a faith that is Apostolic?

Yeah.

If so…

How do they reconcile that the Jesus taught the apostles…and wherever the apostles went, they taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? That the bread and wine truly becomes the body and blood of our Lord.

Justin Martyr describes the Mass in 155ad…staying the same until our present day.

So curious I am on if Pentecostals view themselves as following an apostolic faith, but not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as the Church has believed for 2,000 years (and which can be seen in the Words of scripture when view from the apostolic light). And in doing so, where does this tradition come from and why?

Great thread…thank you for starting it…I’m learning about them Pentecostals.

Pork

For one, we take Scripture as it is. Jesus took bread and wine, blessed it, and said this is my body/blood, take eat and do this in remembrance of me, later on Paul talks about eating unworthily and that is why people are sick. That is what we read. That is what we believe. The bread remains bread. The wine remains wine. We see no reason to come up with theories about substance and accidents. We believe Christ is really present wherever 2 or 3 are gathered. Simple as that.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Here is the problem with the belief of communion being symbolic:

If the communion is was taught as symbolic from the get-go and considered orthodox in nature,then where are the protests against the Real Presence? If the Real Presence was heretical or a great usurpation from Christ teaching, then how odd no where is it being attacked by the early church as being false.

Exactly why I believe in the Real Presence. Was never disputed by anyone until well after the Early Church fathers.

Precisely. Oh,but there are some Protestants who will tell you it was not contested because it did not exist? What a cop-out and escapist position.

 

[Nicea325]

Yeah.

For one, we take Scripture as it is. Jesus took bread and wine, blessed it, and said this is my body/blood, take eat and do this in remembrance of me, later on Paul talks about eating unworthily and that is why people are sick. That is what we read. That is what we believe. The bread remains bread. The wine remains wine. We see no reason to come up with theories about substance and accidents. We believe Christ is really present wherever 2 or 3 are gathered. Simple as that.

Pentecostals take Scripture for it is? All but the Eucharist or John 6 were it is only symbolic or only a memorial. Then evidently your faith community does not it take for it is,especially when in conflict with your beliefs.

I beg your pardon? Theories? If it only remains bread and wine as you claim,then Paul sure uses harsh words about bread remaining bread and wine remaining wine.

 

[Filioque]

Yeah.

For one, we take Scripture as it is. Jesus took bread and wine, blessed it, and said this is my body/blood, take eat and do this in remembrance of me, later on Paul talks about eating unworthily and that is why people are sick. That is what we read. That is what we believe. The bread remains bread. The wine remains wine. We see no reason to come up with theories about substance and accidents. We believe Christ is really present wherever 2 or 3 are gathered. Simple as that.

But what Jesus said was not a simple rememberance, it was to make anmensis. Now to remember something is one thing, to make anmensis while translated rememberence is another.

At the Seder, which Jesus and those gathered were celebrating to commemorate the freedom from bondage Jews are taught that the participation in the rituals of Passover is not a simple recalling of events long ago, but an Amensis, or participation in the actual event. One cannot consider that the Events of the Exodus are something that happened to others at another time and place, but that we too participate in them by our actions at the Seder.

If Jesus, and the inspired writers of the narrative had wanted to tell us it was a memorial, or simple recalling they would not have told us it was an Amensis. If Jesus was not God, He could not have taken the bread and wine and by His authority made it His body and blood, nor could He have commissioned others to do so. Knowing that some would not accept what He said, He also commanded, that we eat His body and drink His blood, there the scriptures use the term to chew on, when the crowd left Him because what He said was too hard for them to accept.

 

[Steveabrous]

Yeah.

For one, we take Scripture as it is. Jesus took bread and wine, blessed it, and said this is my body/blood, take eat and do this in remembrance of me, later on Paul talks about eating unworthily and that is why people are sick. That is what we read. That is what we believe. The bread remains bread. The wine remains wine. We see no reason to come up with theories about substance and accidents. We believe Christ is really present wherever 2 or 3 are gathered. Simple as that.

I’m sorry but you Quote Jesus saying ***this is my body/blood, ***say you take it for what the bible says, and then say the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine.
When Jesus himself said it does not remain bread and wine but is his body and blood.

In John chapter 6 Jesus says over and over the bread is my flesh which is given up for you.

Paul talks about eating it unworthily he also says it is a participation in the body and blood of christ.

No where in the bible is the Eucharist said to be symbolic. But over and over in the bible the Eucharist is said to be the body and blood of Christ. Yet you claim to have the biblical view?

I’m sorry but in my opinion the Symbolism of bread and wine Heresy is not biblical at all.

 

[ltwin]

Christians disagree as to what exactly is canonoized Holy Scripture. What books are contained within the Pentacostal canon?

There is no “Pentecostal canon.” It would be the 66 books shared with other Protestants.

How do you reconcile parts of the Bble that can be vague regarding doctrine such as whether elective abortion is murder,

That isn’t vague to Pentecostals. It’s clear murder. Scripture is full of indications that unborn children are living persons with destinies ordained of God.

can someone divorce someone they are married to, or whether Holy Communion is symbolic or more than symbolic?

Some denominations forbid divorce.

For others, people entangled in divorce situations are urged to (1) repent and (2) resolve their situation according to their conscience in the light of God’s word.

 

[ltwin]

Where?

Bishop Atto of Vercelli, for example, who lived in tenth century Italy wrote that in the ancient church the disproportionate amount of female converts made it an absolute necessity that women, like Phoebe of Cenchrae mentioned in Romans 16, receive holy orders alongside men. Like their male counterparts, these presbyterae preached to, directed, and taught Christian communities, according to Atto.

You pointed out things that you say we believe that aren’t in the bible. So therefore you don’t accept them.

So, if we are going to use sources other then the bible of the early church then let’s talk about the wrttings of Ignatius of Antioch, the Protoevangeleum of James, irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, etc…which leave no doubt that the early church had apostolic succession, the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church, the eucharist in reality not symbolism, and believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and intercessory pray to the saints. All those things you object to.

We can talk about witnesses outside Scripture. It’s a matter of authority. The fact that there was or might have been female priests at some location and some time does not mean that Scripture allows women to have a pastoral role. However, it does expand the terms of the debate. When it comes down to it, I’d rather someone give more weight to Scripture than I would them give more weight to Bishop Atto.

 

[ltwin]

I’m not sure if speaking in tongues would be the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit as it is a Charism, an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit who wills all or some of these extraordinary gifts as He wills and to whom He wills.

1 Cor. 12:11 states, “But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.”, and that is probably why not every Christian can operate in a gift of tongues, especially if a person doesn’t want this gift.

The “evidential tongues” is derived from the Book of Acts. Every time someone was baptized in the Spirit in Acts, it is explicitly or implicitly indicated that unknown languages were present.

I should point out, not every Pentecostal subscribes to the “initial evidence doctrine.”

Do you have any of the other extraordinary gifts?

I don’t consider tongues “extraordinary.”

But to your questions, no. I’m completely ordinary. Pretty boring actually.

Are there any converts from Catholicism at your Church?

Years ago we had a Filipino family attend our church.

Somewhat more recently there was a revival at my church that a Catholic woman participated in frequently. After the revival was over we didn’t see her anymore, so I guess she just liked the revival service.

What type of programs do you have for children, teens and young adults?

We have children’s church on Sundays. We have a youth program for teenage kids. They do a lot of stuff. My mother was over the children’s ministry for years.

 

[Steveabrous]

Bishop Atto of Vercelli, for example, who lived in tenth century Italy wrote that in the ancient church the disproportionate amount of female converts made it an absolute necessity that women, like Phoebe of Cenchrae mentioned in Romans 16, receive holy orders alongside men. Like their male counterparts, these presbyterae preached to, directed, and taught Christian communities, according to Atto.
.

I am unable to confirm that this letter existed or that what it says represents the truth other then on pro women ordination websites. Which I do not consider credible on the matter. I’m not saying it’s false. I am just not able to confirm it.

I am able to find quotes from the 2nd century on from early church fathers denying that women were ever given ordination. Or that only heretical groups did. Just saying.

 

[ltwin]

Since we are only 9 days away from Pentecost, when Tounges was first seen in the Church, how do you reconcile an "unknown language, with the fact that while the Apostles and those who had been in hiding in the upper room spoke their own (known) language, through the intervention of the Holy Ghost the hearers heard it in their own languages. While the idea or practice of the unknown language is not forbidden to Catholics, where do we get the idea that tounges is this unkown language?

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.”

Pentecostals recognize that there is a “diversity” to this gift. As Scripture shows, speaking in tongues cannot be put in some narrow box of definition.

I’m a bit fuzzy on the whole idea that tounges is an “unknown language”. That tounges may require an interpreter does not stike me as proof that it is that unknown language, as much as each of us has a different capacity and is at a different stage of spiritual growth. So if I use the term Hypostatic Union, some instantly know what I am referring to, and others need interpretation of instruction.

Semantics? If I have no idea what you are saying, this language is unknown to me. Call it whatever you want, “diverse tongues” or what have you.

Now as Catholics we have held for over a millenia that like the Agape, which was no longer useful, but rather became counter productive was suppressed by the Apostles, once the Message of Salvation took firm root through the effort of the Church, some gifts like tounges were no longer widespread, as they were no longer needed. Why the resurgance only 100-150 years ago?

It may not have gotten a lot of publicity, but it’s my belief that tongues never “ceased.” As to why in the last 100 years it has become more visible, I have no idea except that it is a move of God.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

There is no “Pentecostal canon.” It would be the 66 books shared with other Protestants…

Why do Pentacostals reject 7 books of the canon of Holy Scripture? Was this something revealed through prophesy which is why they followed the Protestants in this regard or is there another reason?
Itwin:

…Some denominations forbid divorce…

Could you elaborate on this point? Are you saying some Pentacostal denominations forbid divorce but others do not? Can prophesy help to discern which way the Bible teaches on this issue?

 

[ltwin]

Why do Pentacostals reject 7 books of the canon of Holy Scripture? Was this something revealed through prophesy which is why they followed the Protestants in this regard or is there another reason?

Prophecy had nothing to do with it. The first Pentecostals were part of the Wesleyan-Holiness Movement. The Wesleyan-Holiness Movement began in the Methodist Church as a renewal of holiness and sanctification, but when the Methodist leaders rejected it, the holiness advocates left and became an interdenominational movement.

Pentecostals used the same Bible they had while they were members of the holiness church or the Methodist Church.

Could you elaborate on this point? Are you saying some Pentacostal denominations forbid divorce but others do not?

Pentecostal churches don’t forbid divorce, but they may forbid remarriage. The issue is remarriage if a former spouse is still alive. In that case, a person is committing adultery because whether they are civilly divorced or not, they are still married in the eyes of God.

Most Pentecostals also recognize that there are some situations in Scripture where divorce is permitted. These would be the Pauline privilege, fornication, and adultery. However, reconciliation is always preferred over divorce.

Most Pentecostal denominations have rather strict prohibitions on divorce and remarriage for its clergy. They will not license or ordain a person who has a former spouse living or who is married to someone who has a former spouse living.

For lay people, I suppose there would be two ways to handle it:

1. If the church takes a hard line on divorce and remarriage, the local leaders would take things by a case by case basis looking at the actual circumstances.
2. If the church doesn’t take a hard line on divorce and remarriage, they recognize that it is a sin but not an unforgivable sin and leave it to individual conscience to sort out their marital entanglements.

I think method 2 is most common today, but method 1 would have been the rule earlier on. There has been a softening on Pentecostal prohibitions on divorce and remarriage over the years.

Can prophesy help to discern which way the Bible teaches on this issue?

Perhaps on an individual level. But it would still be personal revelation and would not be binding on anyone else.

 

[Filioque]

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.”

Semantics? If I have no idea what you are saying, this language is unknown to me. Call it whatever you want, “diverse tongues” or what have you. .

Not quite sure I buy that, The Scriptures are speaking of somthing that is for the Church, and needs an interpreter, not just something between God and myself. It would seem to point out the difference between us is the Pentecostal idea is it’s primarily a personal thing, and the Catholic Church teaching that it’s something that is not done alone but in union or communion with the three states of the Church, and their head, Christ Jesus. I could be wrong.

Secondarily it would blow out of the water the argument many Pentecostals and other Protestants have made in the past against the Church using Latin or other dead languages in the worship of God, as while few (at least in more recent years) understood Latin, it would seem to fall under their interpretation of authentic worship languages. As most had access to a Latin/Vernacular missal, or at least had the sermon and Biblical lessons in the local language, they had interpretation, according to the Pentecostal argument.