Ask a Pentecostal

[PJM]

=ltwin;10723272]For starters, my father and mother are Pentecostal and was raised in the Pentecostal tradition. Faith was always a big part of our family life, but it was only when I was 10 years old that I actually had a conversion experience. That was around the time that I began to internalize the faith I was taught and actually act on it.

A few years later I was baptized in the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, so I had moved beyond the typical evangelical Protestant experience.

It’s not so much that I believe Pentecostalism is somehow the “correct faith” and all other Christian churches are wrong. I don’t really think like that. There are many things I was taught as a child that I would disagree with today. One that stands out is the more extreme versions of prosperity/health and wealth gospel that was a big thing at my church.

I do believe that the basics I was taught were true to the Gospel and the overarching Christian tradition. I believe that what I was taught about God’s nature and his divine plan are accurate. The Pentecostal understanding of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are accurate. I also believe that the basic experiential dimension of Pentecostal spirituality is faithful to biblical standards. Freedom of worship is something that I’ve come to love and value, and I get uncomfortable in other churches that impose to much control over the congregation or the move of the Spirit.

Sincere THANKS for sharring.

From your faith expereince and background, I’d like to ask:

IF we believe that God is ONE?

How then can God hold more than One position [one set of faith-beliefs] on LONG defined Faith-issues?

 

[ltwin]

I also thought of another example of a message in tongues. This comes from the “Memphis Miracle” of 1994, which was a reconciliation of white and black Pentecostal denominations in North America where the white Pentecostals repented and asked forgiveness for causing the racial breach in early Pentecostalism.

The climactic moment, however, came in the scholar’s session on the afternoon of October 18, after Bishop Blake tearfully told the delegates, Brothers and Sisters, I commit my love to you. There are problems down the road, but a strong commitment to love will overcome them all. Suddenly there was a sweeping move of the Holy Spirit over the entire assembly. A young black brother uttered a spirited message in tongues after which Jack Hayford hurried to the microphone to give the interpretation. He began by saying, For the Lord would speak to you this day, by the tongue, by the quickening of the Spirit, and he would say:

*"My sons and my daughters, look if you will from the heavenward side of things, and see where you have been‚ two, separate streams, that is, streams as at flood tide. For I have poured out of my Spirit upon you and flooded you with grace in both your circles of gathering and fellowship. But as streams at flood tide, nonetheless, the waters have been muddied to some degree. Those of desperate thirst have come, nonetheless, for muddy water is better than none at all.

My sons and my daughters, if you will look and see that there are some not come to drink because of what they have seen. You have not been aware of it, for only heaven has seen those who would doubt what flowed in your midst, because of the waters muddied having been soiled by the clay of your humanness, not by your crudity, lucidity, or intentionality, but by the clay of your humanness the river has been made impure.

But look. Look, for I, by my Spirit, am flowing the two streams into one. And the two becoming one, if you can see from the heaven side of things, are being purified and not only is there a new purity coming in your midst, but there will be multitudes more who will gather at this one mighty river because they will see the purity of the reality of my love manifest in you. And so, know that as heaven observes and tells us what is taking place, there is reason for you to rejoice and prepare yourself for here shall be multitudes more than ever before come to this joint surging of my grace among you, says the Lord."*

 

[ltwin]

Sincere THANKS for sharring.

From your faith expereince and background, I’d like to ask:

IF we believe that God is ONE?

How then can God hold more than One position [one set of faith-beliefs] on LONG defined Faith-issues?

God doesn’t. People do.

 

[Hat4]

As a Pentecostal, if you move do you seek out another church of the same branch of Pentecostalism or would any of them do? For instance if you had been attending an AOG church and moved out of town could you go to a Church of God in Christ church if it’s closer to your house or do Pentecostals tend to stay in the same tradition? I assume with the different branches there are theological differences but would that pose a problem?

 

[ltwin]

As a Pentecostal, if you move do you seek out another church of the same branch of Pentecostalism or would any of them do?

In my situation, I have a lot of freedom because I grew up in the independent or the “unorganized” Pentecostal movement. However, my church was founded as a Pentecostal Church of God, but later withdrew. The basic theology has remained the same, but our church has been influenced by other movements, like Word of Faith, prosperity gospel, etc.

If I had to choose, I would probably attend an AG church, since its theology is basically the same as the PCG. Both the PCG and the AG are Baptistic Pentecostals, meaning they believe in progressive sanctification.

However, my family attended 2 Pentecostal Holiness Churches for short periods. I really enjoyed one of these. So, I’m not opposed to Wesleyan denominations like the PHC or the Church of God (Cleveland, TN).

In some circumstance I could see myself in a Church of God in Christ church. The COGIC is theologically Wesleyan. This church has a strongly African-American heritage. My background is in the “white” Pentecostal movement (though all the Pentecostal churches I’ve been to have been multiracial). What I mean is that predominantly African-American churches have their own traditions and ways of doing things that would take some getting used to for me.

For instance if you had been attending an AOG church and moved out of town could you go to a Church of God in Christ church if it’s closer to your house or do Pentecostals tend to stay in the same tradition?

The relationship of the AG and the COGIC is interesting. The AG is the largest predominantly white Pentecostal church in the US. The COGIC is the largest predominantly black Pentecostal church in the US. There is some evidence that some of the first AG ministers were licensed by the COGIC before they withdrew to form the AG. Throughout the Jim Crow Era, the AG considered the COGIC its “colored” counterpart. If black people inquired about membership or ordination in the AG, AG churches were advised to direct them to the nearest COGIC church. Of course, today, the AG church is integrated and has a lot of black members in it.

If someone has a strong background in a particular denomination, they would most likely stay in that denomination. However, many Pentecostal churches don’t make a big deal about advertising that they are part of a denomination. So, you could spend years in a Pentecostal church and not know that it is affiliated with any particular denomination unless they explicitly make a note of mentioning it. For example, “New Hope Assembly of God” is pretty clear. But names like “Victory Christian Center,” “The Upper Room,” or the hoplessly redundant, “Free Liberty Holy Spirit Church” are not very clear on what denomination if any they are affiliated.

I assume with the different branches there are theological differences but would that pose a problem?

If we’re talking classical Pentecostalism, not so much. You have 3 branches to Classic Pentecostalism:

Wesleyan-Holiness or “Methodistic” Pentecostalism (the oldest branch)
Baptistic or Reformed or “Finished Work” Pentecostalism
And Oneness or “Apostolic” or “Jesus Name” or “Jesus Only” (a pejorative) which came out of Finished Work Pentecostalism

Obviously, the Oneness Pentecostals would not be acceptable to Trinitarian Pentecostals. So that leaves two branches, the Wesleyans and the Reformed Pentecostals. Wesleyan Pentecostalism is exactly what it sounds like, Wesleyan theology with Pentecostal tongues doctrine attached. Reformed or Baptistic Pentecostals reject the Wesleyan-holiness doctrine of “entire sanctification” and instead believe in progressive sanctification. Neither of these differences would prevent crossover, which happens frequently.

 

[PJM]

=ltwin;10723478]Let me start off by saying that there are things I appreciate about the Catholic Church. I do like the fact that Catholics have history and they know who they are. Pentecostals don’t appreciate their own history enough. Too much we focus on the “new thing” God is doing in our lives and in the church and not enough looking back to give God thanks for what he has done in history. I also appreciate that the Catholic Church has never fallen into the trap of believing in cessationism

That said the biggest problems are beliefs that don’t appear to be warranted in scripture: Apostolic Succession, the pope’s unique role, Mariology, prayers to the saints, purgatory. It’s claim that other churches are simply “ecclesial communities” and somehow less than the Catholic Church is something that troubles me as well.

Another thing I’m not comfortable with is something that I perceive from my very limited interaction with the Catholic Church (mainly discussions on this forum). This is the lack of correlation between the rites of Christian initiation and the experience of Christian conversion. From my Pentecostal heritage, the performance of any sacerdotal or ecclesiastical rites is useless unless their is a Christian experience that accompanies it.

I also believe that Catholic liturgical worship is too routinized and the authority structure is too top heavy. But that has more to do with my own Pentecostal background than it does with whether the Catholic Church is “correct” in all its beliefs.

I respect your views as your own.

That said; Christ founded only One church “My Church” [singular] in Mt 16. At that time and all-time before [OT history] and within the New Covenant was a SINGLE set of Faith beliefs.

Eph. 2:3-6 is precise and clear:
“Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace One body [church/faith] and one Spirit;[Faith] as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

And there are numerous teachings that support this fact.

One God simply cannot hold not only differnt positions on the same Long defined issues; but contradictory ones at that. Ita a theological and Moral impossibility.

NOR did God wait more than one thousand years to expose HIS One Faith; One set of true believes within in the Only Church Jesus Founded and Protects. Biblically provable.

Ecclesiasticus 15:18
Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:

God Bless you!

 

[PJM]

=coachkfan1;10723762]Also, (sorry) but do you believe that someone who does not have the gift of tongues is not saved?

Even Saint Paul agrees with you:

1Cor.12 Verses 25 to 30 " that there may be no discord in the body,** but that the members may have the same care for one another.** If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles,/COLOR] then healers, helpers, administrators, [AND THEN!] speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"

Amen

 

[ltwin]

Even Saint Paul agrees with you:

1Cor.12 Verses 25 to 30 " that there may be no discord in the body,** but that the members may have the same care for one another.** If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles,/COLOR] then healers, helpers, administrators, [AND THEN!] speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"

Amen

I refer you to my answer to coachkfan1, post 47 on page 4.

 

[value]

Hello, Itwin. First, I would like to say that your answers thus far are very well-formed and informative. It is always refreshing to come across a Christian who understands their own faith so well and with such conviction.

I’ve got a few questions, just off the top of my head…

1. What are your thoughts on sacraments, sacramental theology, etc.? I would imagine that the Catholic or Orthodox views regarding the sacraments/mysteries are not a part of your personal faith, though I wonder if a Pentacostal would be open to the possibility that the sacraments as understood by Catholics are manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s work. Do you only consider Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be ‘sacraments’, as many other Reformed groups do? Or does the general concept of sacraments not figure into your faith life?
2. Spinning off of the last question, what do you believe occurs at Baptism? Also, what are your thoughts on the Eucharist?
3. You’ve said that you don’t view one church as being superior to another, but for you personally, what is attractive about your church (and/or congregation) that other communities lack?
4. Naturally, the Bible and Scripture is important to your faith. Do you have thoughts on the Deuterocanon?
5. Just a personal question: What’s your favorite verse/passage from Scripture? And what’s your preferred English translation?

I’ll lay off for now! Thanks for making this thread!

hello-- im also interested in how you process q’s #1, & #2,

as i live in both camps-- as a charismatic , and a penecostial,

 

[grannymh]

I don’t want to appear to be proselytizing, so I’ll pass on answering this one. However, I’m sure the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has some guidance on this question.

brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf

nsc-chariscenter.org/index.asp

 

[ltwin]

hello-- im also interested in how you process q’s #1, & #2,

as i live in both camps-- as a charismatic , and a penecostial,

Look on page 4 at post 50.

 

[ltwin]

Perhaps the best route is what you put in bold. Sin is foreign to human nature.

I think we agree on that. I’m still not sure exactly what the Catholic objection is. Is it the belief in the depravity of man? I would assume that that would make it difficult to believe that works have a role in salvation if Catholics believed that were true?

 

[value]

I don’t want to appear to be proselytizing, so I’ll pass on answering this one. However, I’m sure the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has some guidance on this question.

hello, interesting thread-- my story of catholic 2-Pentecostalism , was when the holy spirit told me to go to a particular bible college as an adult-- i would not do it-- and refused to for 3 years-- because my catholic family would have persecuted me, ( and they did)

when i finally said to the H.S ok-- where do you what me to go-- the Holy Spirit sent me to some AOG bible school with african american prophets–who - along with the ministry team-- layed hands on me and the rest as they say is “a testimony”

what people do not “really” get is they are a vessel, like a cup or “a house”, that can be filled with the Holy Spirit-- and what comes out – is not you–

i have functioned with all 9 gifts of the spirit-- and it can be a pain in the but–

when dealing with ( fill-in-the-blank)

but praying in tongues 2-build yourself -up -in your most holy faith- (jude)

but many people confuse quoting scripture-- as if that is understanding the word and presence and plan of God-- yes the same God as Jesus referred to–

numbers 11;29–

nice to see who well you have dealt with the many questions

 

[4Squarebaby]

As a Pentecostal, if you move do you seek out another church of the same branch of Pentecostalism or would any of them do? For instance if you had been attending an AOG church and moved out of town could you go to a Church of God in Christ church if it’s closer to your house or do Pentecostals tend to stay in the same tradition? I assume with the different branches there are theological differences but would that pose a problem?

It is not theological difference but more stylistic differences between local congregations. In general at this time COGIC churches besides being historically Black tend to emphasis the speaking of tongues more then the Foursquare Church. And historically because of segregation patterns of the only foriegn language speaking AOG churches tend to be located in or near Black communities while Foursquare tends to be like the United Methodist and found in most ethnic communities.

 

[grannymh]

I think we agree on that. I’m still not sure exactly what the Catholic objection is. Is it the belief in the depravity of man? I would assume that that would make it difficult to believe that works have a role in salvation if Catholics believed that were true?

The real problem is that some people have not learned about Adam before the Fall. Consequently, they get hung up in the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus miss the very clear temptation of Satan. Also, there is the funny mistake of thinking that “innocence” means dumbness.

Here are some Catholic teachings on human nature. “Being in the image of God, the human person possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone.” (Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 357) The human person is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. (Source: CCC 356)

And here is the clincher, which I did not fully see until I returned to my research stamping grounds. "God created man …God established him in His friendship. (Source: CCC 355). At this initial point in creation, it is obvious that being in God’s friendship is part of human nature. Being sinless is why Adam could remain in God’s friendship. In other words, it is before the Fall, before the actual Original Sin, that sin was foreign to human nature.

Here we need to clarify human nature. Human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. This unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: that is, it is because of its spiritual soul, that the body made of matter becomes a living human person. (Source: CCC 365)

Hold that thought while I go back to CCC 357. I know that this says persons in the plural. But who is the first person Adam was in communion with? Here is the interesting sentence portion. The human person is capable “of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons.” It is because Adam is, at that point, free from sin, that he is in communion with God. It is because of Adam’s spiritual soul that he has the rational intellect and free will which can keep him sinless. It is those words “freely giving himself” which tells us that Adam has to make a choice.

At times, the Catholic Catechism is like a maze. Yet, by blending the above, we have a good idea of what Adam was like before the Fall. He was a fully-complete human being with rational intellect and ability to choose his own actions. His relationship with God was firm. Catholicism calls this state of Adam’s nature, original holiness and justice. In addition, Catholicism teaches that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone but for all human nature. Unfortunately, Adam defied the limitations of his humanity and chose himself over God. Instead of original holiness coming to us through one person, St. Paul has to say that [human] death came to us through one person. And one person, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, conquered the reign of death by His conquering death on a cross.

I am not sure how works having a role in salvation would fit with this early part of the human story.

Sometimes, I get the impression that people consider Original Sin a simple sin of eating organic fruit in disobedience. Without knowing the pre-Fall Adam, all kinds of scenarios are presented. In order to understand the seriousness of Original Sin, one needs to understand the importance of Adam for all humanity descending from him.

I am not sure if Pentecostalism goes into this much depth in regard to Adam, but I would guess that their theology would come close to the above.

What say you, Itwin?

In post 230, you say “We believe that sin is both a condition and an act.” My apology, but there are so many ways “sin” is used. Does this comment refer to Adam or to us?

Where we start to differ theologically is at this sentence “The transgression of Adam passed to all his descendants, except for Christ.” This is where Catholicism separates the act of the individual, first human Adam committing Original Sin from the natural consequence of Adam’s act which becomes a “state” or a “condition” which is then transmitted. Therefore, Original Sin does not have the character of a personal fault in Adam’s descendants. This is why Catholicism teaches that human nature was wounded, but not cursed into a sin nature.

This a good spot to pause.

 

[ltwin]

In post 230, you say “We believe that sin is both a condition and an act.” My apology, but there are so many ways “sin” is used. Does this comment refer to Adam or to us?

Where we start to differ theologically is at this sentence “The transgression of Adam passed to all his descendants, except for Christ.” This is where Catholicism separates the act of the individual, first human Adam committing Original Sin from the natural consequence of Adam’s act which becomes a “state” or a “condition” which is then transmitted. Therefore, Original Sin does not have the character of a personal fault in Adam’s descendants. This is why Catholicism teaches that human nature was wounded, but not cursed into a sin nature.

The following is what Duffield and Van Cleave say in Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (pp. 172-173):

*. . . The key verse in this passage [Romans 5:12-21] is verse 12 . . . sin did not begin with Adam; it merely entered into the human race through him. It had its beginning with Lucifer (Ez. 28:12-17). The important expression here is, “For all have sinned.” The Greek *aorist *tense is used, which indicates a single, completed past action. Thus, “all have sinned” is better rendered “all sinned.” . . .

“Sinned” is not equivalent to “became sinful.” Paul does not say death passed upon all men for that Adam sinned, but “for that* all *sinned” (v. 12, emphasis added).

Adam was the natural head of the human race, so that all men were in him when he sinned. Thus, we all are sinners because we sinned in him. This principle is illustrated in Hebrews 7:9-10 . . .

In like manner, the whole human race was in Adam, its natural head, when he sinned. God thus imputes the sin of Adam to each member of the race. . . no one would claim that each individual in Adam’s race consciously and purposefully sinned in Adam, yet there can be no doubt that God reckons that each member of the race sinned in Adam’s transgression. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 we read, “For as in Adam all die.” . . .

. . . In verse 14 we are told that Adam was the figure or type “of him that was to come,” Christ Jesus. . . .

. . . If any feel that it is unjust that the sin of Adam should be imputed to all his posterity, by the same reasoning it would be unjust to impute the righteousness of Jesus Christ to those who believe in Him. Yet this is the basis of our justification and salvation.*

 

[guanophore]

 I think we agree on that. I'm still not sure exactly what the Catholic objection is.

I am not sure I agree with Granny’s assertions, so I am interested to see how this unfolds. I think the Pentecostal position is much closer to Catholic than the Calvanist.

Is it the belief in the depravity of man? I would assume that that would make it difficult to believe that works have a role in salvation if Catholics believed that were true?

Calvin’s idea of depravity is certainly considered a significant departure from the Apostolic teaching, but I don’t think that relates to the role that works have in salvation, because Catholics do not believe any works have a role in our salvation unless we are justified. And like Calvanists retain the Apostolic teaching that a saving faith is a faith that works, and believers will produce good fruit.

 

[guanophore]

  The following is what Duffield and Van Cleave say in *Foundations of Pentecostal Theology* (pp. 172-173):

*. . . The key verse in this passage [Romans 5:12-21] is verse 12 . . . sin did not begin with Adam; it merely entered into the human race through him. It had its beginning with Lucifer (Ez. 28:12-17). The important expression here is, “For all have sinned.” The Greek *aorist *tense is used, which indicates a single, completed past action. Thus, “all have sinned” is better rendered “all sinned.” . . .

“Sinned” is not equivalent to “became sinful.” Paul does not say death passed upon all men for that Adam sinned, but “for that* all *sinned” (v. 12, emphasis added).

Adam was the natural head of the human race, so that all men were in him when he sinned. Thus, we all are sinners because we sinned in him. This principle is illustrated in Hebrews 7:9-10 . . .

In like manner, the whole human race was in Adam, its natural head, when he sinned. God thus imputes the sin of Adam to each member of the race. . . no one would claim that each individual in Adam’s race consciously and purposefully sinned in Adam, yet there can be no doubt that God reckons that each member of the race sinned in Adam’s transgression. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 we read, “For as in Adam all die.” . . .

. . . In verse 14 we are told that Adam was the figure or type “of him that was to come,” Christ Jesus. . . .

. . . If any feel that it is unjust that the sin of Adam should be imputed to all his posterity, by the same reasoning it would be unjust to impute the righteousness of Jesus Christ to those who believe in Him. Yet this is the basis of our justification and salvation.*

I think this might be one of the key differences Itwin. The Apostles taught that the sin of Adam was not imputed to all of us, but the consequence of his sin only. We are not held responsible for the personal sins of our ancestors, even the original ones. So all of humanity is then born into the world in this state of separation from God, such that we yearn for Him, but are unable to reach Him apart from grace.

 

[grannymh]

The following is what Duffield and Van Cleave say in Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (pp. 172-173):

*. . . The key verse in this passage [Romans 5:12-21] is verse 12 . . . sin did not begin with Adam; it merely entered into the human race through him. It had its beginning with Lucifer (Ez. 28:12-17). The important expression here is, “For all have sinned.” The Greek *aorist *tense is used, which indicates a single, completed past action. Thus, “all have sinned” is better rendered “all sinned.” . . . *

“Sinned” is not equivalent to “became sinful.” Paul does not say death passed upon all men for that Adam sinned, but "for that all sinned" (v. 12, emphasis added).

*Adam was the natural head of the human race, so that all men were in him when he sinned. Thus, we all are sinners because we sinned in him. This principle is illustrated in Hebrews 7:9-10 . . . *

*In like manner, the whole human race was in Adam, its natural head, when he sinned. God thus imputes the sin of Adam to each member of the race. . . no one would claim that each individual in Adam’s race consciously and purposefully sinned in Adam, yet there can be no doubt that God reckons that each member of the race sinned in Adam’s transgression. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 we read, “For as in Adam all die.” . . . *

*. . . In verse 14 we are told that Adam was the figure or type “of him that was to come,” Christ Jesus. . . . *

. . . If any feel that it is unjust that the sin of Adam should be imputed to all his posterity, by the same reasoning it would be unjust to impute the righteousness of Jesus Christ to those who believe in Him. Yet this is the basis of our justification and salvation.

It is essential to realize that not every Scripture key verse is automatically a Catholic doctrine.

The visible Catholic Church which operates on earth has a specific protocol dating to Acts, chapter 15. This protocol is based on chapter 14, Gospel of John.

The Index of Citations, page 689 in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is what I will use in order to backtrack the Scripture verses above.

 

[grannymh]

I think this might be one of the key differences Itwin. The Apostles taught that the sin of Adam was not imputed to all of us, but the consequence of his sin only. We are not held responsible for the personal sins of our ancestors, even the original ones. So all of humanity is then born into the world in this state of separation from God, such that we yearn for Him, but are unable to reach Him apart from grace.

This is basic Catholic doctrine.