Ask a Pentecostal

[grannymh]

We disagree. The guilt of Adam’s sin that is applied to us, imputed sin, is remedied by Christ’s imputed righteousness by justification. The inherent, inbred sin is remedied by imparted righteousness, the sanctifying work of the Spirit. The first is instantaneous; the second is progressive.

On the other hand, it is not really logical that Adam’s guilt is automatically transferred to someone else.

 

[ltwin]

I have to say I have been to a pencostal church before and I do like the feel I got there. Not saying I belive in tounges and all that but I did like the singing I heard.

Yeah. A lot of Pentecostal churches have really good music. It’s one of the best parts of the service.

 

[guanophore]

I have to say I have been to a pencostal church before and I do like the feel I got there. Not saying I belive in tounges and all that but I did like the singing I heard.

How can you claim to be Catholic, and yet say you do not believe in “tongues and all that”?

 

[Hat4]

We’re not discussing Oneness Pentecostals. We’re discussing Trinitarian Pentecostals, who are not divided on any major doctrines. The Oneness Pentecostals’ bizarre non-Trinitarianism obviously puts them outside the boundaries of historic, creedal Christianity.

So you don’t consider Oneness Pentecostals to be Pentecostal or even Christian? I assume they consider themselves both and base it on their reading of the bible. Are they pretty much the same as other Pentecostals except for their understanding of the Trinity?

 

[Hat4]

Yes by stylistic difference I mean what it will look like inside of the church. Where the leadership will sit and what they will normally wear. The predominate music played. How the congregations respond to the speaker. How often you will hear either a prophetic tongue or just members of the congregation singing out in their prayer language. The major reason there are two distinct organizations today between the AoG and COGIC is because of segregation in the United States of 1916 and the heavy presence of Black church leaders who came from the Azusa Street revivals. So today while the AoG is the largest Pentecostal organization worldwide in the United States the mostly African American COGIC is the largest Pentecostal organization. Some other cultural drift has occurred over the century since then but the split and the reason most would jump churches between was and is not theological

At my first church home the nearest mega-church is The West Angeles COGIC senior pastored by the organization’s Presiding Bishop. When we received new members from them the major reason was that 20,000 was just too large from them and ours was a upper medium sized church with room to grow

Is there any talk of merging or is unity not considered a big deal? If there aren’t any doctrinal issues then I assume it could just be two styles of worship within the same faith.

 

[grannymh]

How can you claim to be Catholic, and yet say you do not believe in “tongues and all that”?

May I gently point out that believing in Tongues is not a part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

 

[ltwin]

So you don’t consider Oneness Pentecostals to be Pentecostal or even Christian?

I didn’t say that. At its basic definition, Oneness Pentecostals are Pentecostal and they are Christian, i.e. they worship Christ. It’s just they are screwed up in their most basic of Bible knowledge.

I assume they consider themselves both and base it on their reading of the bible.

Obviously.

Are they pretty much the same as other Pentecostals except for their understanding of the Trinity?

Not really. First, they are into the whole “clothesline holiness” philosophy. You have to dress and look a certain way. Some don’t think you should have TV or internet in your home (but I think they are finally catching up to the 21st century on that).

Second, and more important, they add requirements to attaining salvation. Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that faith and repentance are essential for salvation. Oneness Pentecostals, however, add 2 more qualifications:

1)baptism in Jesus Name (Trinitarian baptism is NOT valid)
2)Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues

That is completely different from what Trinitarian Pentecostals believe.

 

[grannymh]

Yeah. A lot of Pentecostal churches have really good music. It’s one of the best parts of the service.

In the Catholic Church, the best part of the service is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[ltwin]

Is there any talk of merging or is unity not considered a big deal? If there aren’t any doctrinal issues then I assume it could just be two styles of worship within the same faith.

Institutional unity is not that big of a deal. Doctrinal and spiritual unity is more important. Pentecostals cooperate together in the Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America and the Pentecostal World Fellowship. We cooperate with other evangelical Christians through the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Alliance.

There have been mergers in the past. There is no will at this time for any of the major denominations to merge. They have their own ecclesiastical polities and organizations. Some are congregationally oriented; others are centralized. They have different approaches to how they do things.

Also, as I’ve written before, there are 2 branches of classical Trinitarian Pentecostalism—Wesleyan (Methodistic Pentecostalism) and Finished Work (Baptistic Pentecostalism). The differences center on whether sanctification is progressive (Finished Work) or if there is a definite experience of sanctification called “entire sanctification.” These differences are largely historical and irrelevant today. You will rarely if ever hear a sermon on “entire sanctification.” However, this does create a different doctrinal history between the two groups, which has been one reason that Pentecostalism has not consolidated.

However, as a side note, this does explain the phrase, “Saved, Sanctified, and Filled with the Holy Spirit” that is often used by Pentecostals. It sums of the three “crisis experiences” in the believer’s life: conversion, “entire sanctification” and then Spirit Baptism that Wesleyan Pentecostals expected to happen.

The last Wesleyan Pentecostal church I attended, a Pentecostal Holiness Church, only ever mentioned getting saved and getting Spirit baptized. Sanctification as an experience was never taught.

 

[benjohnson]

May I gently point out that believing in Tongues is not a part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Not to derail the topic, but I thought that the charismatic moment was alive in the Catholic church.

To be frank, Lutherans tend to very much discount the charismatic movement, but as I’ve seen here at CAF from several Catholics and non-Catholics who do “tongues and all that” that I need to reexamine my attitude. Frankly, what I’ve seen is that they’re alive with God’s grace.

While I’ll probably never come around to wholly accepting it as it seems like ‘playing God’, I’m not going to immediately discount their testimony either and I will take comfort in the love that God seems to have for them - even if they are wrong.

 

[Hat4]

I’m aware he became a Montanist. However, I’ve also read that he never split from the Catholic Church and died Catholic.

Yes and we can be sure that he was not alone in this views. If we assume that the Catholic position is correct and the church has always baptized infants from the very beginning, Tertullian indicates that at least by the era of his writing (he lived c. 160-c. 225) there were people disagreeing with this. Another way to look at it is that infant baptism was on among many trends that was gaining increasing dominance in the church and Tertullian is not happy about it.

I don’t, and never claimed to, agree with everything Tertullian said. I just used an important early Christian writer to point out that the following statement made by you was open to debate: “In the early Church, there was no controversy about whether infants should be baptized.”

Does it seem strange to you that someone living so close to the time of the Apostles would stay with the Church they established despite arguing a couple of points instead of breaking off and forming his own church? I don’t intend to make this question sound rude, I’m honestly curious.

 

[ltwin]

Not to derail the topic, but I thought that the charismatic moment was alive in the Catholic church.

To be frank, Lutherans tend to very much discount the charismatic movement, but as I’ve seen here at CAF from several Catholics and non-Catholics who do “tongues and all that” that I need to reexamine my attitude. Frankly, what I’ve seen is that they’re alive with God’s grace.

While I’ll probably never come around to wholly accepting it as it seems like ‘playing God’, I’m not going to immediately discount their testimony either and I will take comfort in the love that God seems to have for them - even if they are wrong.

I think you misunderstand grannymh. She is a charismatic Catholic!

What she was saying was that Catholics are not required to support or endorse the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The Catholic hierarchy has given it support and allowed to thrive in the CC, but it has never made it a matter of faith or doctrine to believe in it per se.

 

[benjohnson]

I think you misunderstand grannymh. She is a charismatic Catholic!

What she was saying was that Catholics are not required to support or endorse the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The Catholic hierarchy has given it support and allowed to thrive in the CC, but it has never made it a matter of faith or doctrine to believe in it per se.

Aha! I’m glad to hear that I’m wrong.

Itwin, I’ve enjoyed your thread here and have learned a lot and I enjoy hearing about your your faith. You can probably guess that you’re about as far away as one can be from a Lutheran - but if you were in front of my children, I would tell them that they should look up to you and your faith. But not that they should follow you

God bless you!

 

[Hat4]

Itwin,

I’m running to lunch (and should get back to work) so I’ll check back later tonight. It’s been an interesting thread, thanks for the time and effort to keep it going.

 

[grannymh]

Not to derail the topic, but I thought that the charismatic moment was alive in the Catholic church.

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is alive and well within the Catholic Church. My friend Itwin gave a good explanation in
post 310.

 

[ltwin]

Does it seem strange . . .

Well according to the standard Catholic line, towards the end of his life Tertullian became a Montanist and was no longer Catholic, so in a sense he did leave the CC if you believe the standard line.

However, forget all that. Let’s just think about your statement.

Does it seem strange to you that someone living so close to the time of the Apostles would stay with the Church they established despite arguing a couple of points instead of breaking off and forming his own church?

No. It doesn’t seem strange to me that Tertullian did not leave the Catholic Church over the timing of baptism. Tertullian believed in baptismal regeneration, and he also believed like other early Christians that there was limited or no opportunity to receive forgiveness for post-baptismal sin. Therefore, he stresses that infants should not be baptized because such action would inevitably lead to their fall into post-baptismal sin. Instead, Tertullian wanted children taught about Christianity and what it means to be a Christian. He wanted mature candidates for baptism that would have a greater chance of not falling into sin after baptism. Tertullian was a product of his time, as are we all. When its put in those terms and the historical context, what Tertullian was discussing made perfect sense.

 

[peace2u2]

The answer is that it’s irrelevant what the Church Fathers believed because I don’t think Pentecostals see that theology as something that is necessarily supposed to be traced back to the earliest Christians.

It’s not that Ignatius or Justin Martyr taught the real presence or not, it’s that it does not matter because they are not infallible, and are not considered “more knowledgeable” about proper Christian doctrine.

In fact, it is very rare to hear about the Early Christian Fathers in Evangelical sermons.

I believe it was Lord Jesus Himself that taught the Real Presence

John 6:55-56
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

I believe it was Lord Jesus who also instituted the Eucharist

Luke 22:19-20
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

As Catholics, we celebrate Jesus in the Eucharist at every Mass, like Jesus said to do until the end of time, at which time this celebration will no longer be necessary because we will be with Jesus in Heaven for eternity. We recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread even though His appearance is hidden in the looks of ordinary bread and wine but He is truly present at every Mass; We walk by faith not by sight. Just thought I would mention that a while ago, I had gone to a presentation on the Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Jesus and the presenter mentioned that the Apostles celebrated this breaking of the bread on Jesus’ burial cloth.

 

[guanophore]

May I gently point out that believing in Tongues is not a part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

On the contrary, everything in the NT is part of the once for all Divine Deposit of faith.

 

[guanophore]

Not to derail the topic, but I thought that the charismatic moment was alive in the Catholic church.

It is, but it has dwindled steadily over the last 30 years.

We may be having a semantics problem with the phrase “believe in tongues”, which is why was asking what that meant. Catholics are bound to believe what is found in the NT as inspired by God, and inerrant. The NT bears witness to the gift of tongues, but Catholics are not bound to believe that one has to speak in tongues to be saved, as some Pentecostals seem to believe.

There are some fundamentalist Pentecostals that believe a church service is not valid unless tongues are spoken. This is not consistent with the Apostolic faith either.

To be frank, Lutherans tend to very much discount the charismatic movement, but as I’ve seen here at CAF from several Catholics and non-Catholics who do “tongues and all that” that I need to reexamine my attitude. Frankly, what I’ve seen is that they’re alive with God’s grace.

We sure want to believe we are!

While I’ll probably never come around to wholly accepting it as it seems like ‘playing God’, I’m not going to immediately discount their testimony either and I will take comfort in the love that God seems to have for them - even if they are wrong.

This seems like an odd reaction to me. Do you think the OT prophets who spoke from God were “playing God”?

 

[guanophore]

I think you misunderstand grannymh. She is a charismatic Catholic!

What she was saying was that Catholics are not required to support or endorse the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The Catholic hierarchy has given it support and allowed to thrive in the CC, but it has never made it a matter of faith or doctrine to believe in it per se.

You are quite right about the Church, Itwin. I don’t know if you are accurately understanding grannymh or not. But the Catholic Charismatic Renewal as a movement, and the gift of Tongues as charismata of the Holy Spirit are two entirely different things. One is a modern phenomena, the other is part of the once for all Divine Deposit of faith.