C
Church_Militant
Guest
It should also be noted that the founder of Pentecostalism, Charles F. Parham, was a racist, becoming a full ledged member of the KKK by 1910.
It should also be noted that the founder of Pentecostalism, Charles F. Parham, was a racist, becoming a full ledged member of the KKK by 1910.
Historical fact.NO way!?
Great googlymoogly! I wasn’t aware of that. Not their most shining moment is it… That might also explain where some of the anti-Catholic influences have come from, since the KKK has never any love for our most holy faith.Historical fact.
Now his student, whose name was Seymore I believe, was a poor uneducated African-American had to sit outside Parham’s Bible classroom because he did not believe in race-mixing. Seymore later went on to found his own church and the Azuza Street revival, where it all began.
Many fundamentalists were also, if not actual members, were very sympathetic to the Klan. William Bell Reilly, Bob Jones Sr. (one of the buildings on his campus is named after a Klan grand dragon), Bob Schuler, Frank Norris and others.
Google Bibb Graves, Alabama Govenor in the twenties, Bob Jones University, and the Klan. Bob Jones Sr. had a very cozy relationship with the Klan. It’s never been proven however, whether he himself was a member. Graves was a Grand Dragon, and a dormitory on thier campus is named after him.Great googlymoogly! I wasn’t aware of that. Not their most shining moment is it… That might also explain where some of the anti-Catholic influences have come from, since the KKK has never any love for our most holy faith.![]()
Important note here, for the sake of strict accuracy.Historical fact.
Now his student, whose name was Seymore I believe, was a poor uneducated African-American had to sit outside Parham’s Bible classroom because he did not believe in race-mixing. Seymore later went on to found his own church and the Azuza Street revival, where it all began.
Many fundamentalists were also, if not actual members, were very sympathetic to the Klan. William Bell Reilly, Bob Jones Sr. (one of the buildings on his campus is named after a Klan grand dragon), Bob Schuler, Frank Norris and others.
So-called “Oneness” Pentecostals represent a minority in the movement. They were a schism from the Assemblies of God, early in the organization of that body.Those are ‘United Pentecostals’. They are a sub-sect of Pentecostalism, considered heretics by ‘Full Gospel’ and Assembly of God’ churches.
For the sake of accuracy:Historical fact.
Now his student, whose name was Seymore I believe, was a poor uneducated African-American had to sit outside Parham’s Bible classroom because he did not believe in race-mixing. Seymore later went on to found his own church and the Azuza Street revival, where it all began.
Many fundamentalists were also, if not actual members, were very sympathetic to the Klan. William Bell Reilly, Bob Jones Sr. (one of the buildings on his campus is named after a Klan grand dragon), Bob Schuler, Frank Norris and others.
There has always been animosity between hard-core fundamentalists and Pentecostals, that is true. But when fundamentalism began as a movement, it was trans-denominational. Jones was a Methodist, Billy Sunday was Presbyterian, Norris was a Baptist. Pentecostals had a shaky relationship with early fundamentalists. Although a Pentecostal did sit on the board of BJU when the college began.Important note here, for the sake of strict accuracy.
While it can be posited that all (or at least, the vast majority) of Pentecostals are also fundamentalists, the reverse is NOT true. NOT all fundamentalists are (or were) Pentecostals by any stretch of the imagination. Bob Jones, Sr. is a classic example. (And yes, he was a racist.)
Indeed it was. Parham denounced the revival BECAUSE it was multi-racial.For the sake of accuracy:
The Azuza Street revival was multi-racial.
Even the term “Pentecostalism” is broad to the point of borderline inaccuracy. There are two major “schools” of Pentecostalism (three, if you want to include the “Oneness” movement).There has always been animosity between hard-core fundamentalists and Pentecostals, that is true. But when fundamentalism began as a movement, it was trans-denominational. Jones was a Methodist, Billy Sunday was Presbyterian, Norris was a Baptist. Pentecostals had a shaky relationship with early fundamentalists. Although a Pentecostal did sit on the board of BJU when the college began.
I’m a Presbyterian (aka the frozen chosen), so the Pentecostal allusion is a might far-fetched, but I’d want to hear the reasoning behind the statement. Maybe there’s a good point being made and maybe I can learn something.“You are under the bondage of SATANIC Pentecostal cults!”
In fact, it goes back further to England and Edward Irving.Even the term “Pentecostalism” is broad to the point of borderline inaccuracy. There are two major “schools” of Pentecostalism (three, if you want to include the “Oneness” movement).
The “Holiness” school of Pentecostalism traces its roots back prior to Azuza, etc., to the Holiness movement of Wesleyan Methodism (which, in its non-Pentecostal manifestations, resulted in the founding of the Wesleyan church and the Church of the Nazarene denominations.) The denominations which formed from the “Holiness” school include the Pentecostal Holiness, the Church of God (Cleveland), the Church of God of Prophecy, and the Church of God in Christ.
“The Baptistic” school of Pentecostalism traces its theological understanding through traditional Baptist thought (frequently at least partially Calvinistic in nature) to which is added the Pentecostal experience. If you imagine that this might make for uncomfortable theological bedfellows, you would be correct!The major denomination which formed from the Baptistic school is the Assemblies of God.
Well, I know a few Calvinist Baptists, so I guess I can imagine it.In fact, it goes back further to England and Edward Irving.
A Calvinistic Pentecostal Baptist? My head is hurting.![]()
Interestingly, during the Azuza Street revival, newspaper accounts called them ‘fanatics’.I’m a Presbyterian (aka the frozen chosen), so the Pentecostal allusion is a might far-fetched, but I’d want to hear the reasoning behind the statement. Maybe there’s a good point being made and maybe I can learn something.
I guess I don’t know my Protestant religions as much as I thought.Well, I know a few Calvinist Baptists, so I guess I can imagine it.
The original “Baptist” movement, believe it or not, came out of English Anglicans. The first “Baptist” church in the Colonies was in Rhode Island, after Roger Williams was “invited” to leave Massachusetts Bay.I guess I don’t know my Protestant religions as much as I thought.
I thought that the Calvinist doctrine led to Presbyterianism which led to Baptists.
Am I all fouled up or what?
Honestly?? You really think this?? We are COMMANDED to preach the Gospel of Christ - not the wishy washy soft and fuzzy version that does not offend. We are COMMANDED to spread the TRUTH that Christ left us through HIS One True Faith in the Catholic Church. How in the world can anyone be TOO Catholic? And why would they ever want to apologize for it or feel bad about it? I am not talking about someone who goes over the heretical cliff and starts twisting Church teaching - I am talking about someone who is on fire with their Faith - and wants everyone to be Catholic and go to heaven - and is not afraid to say it!!It can certainly be problematic when an otherwise orthodox Catholic tries to impose his/her own spirituality or personal preferences or pious practices, etc. on others. It’s the “I’m more Catholic than the Pope” syndrome!![]()
I do not think the comment is laughable either - I commend them for trying to get someone out of a horrific situation that only endangers their soul.I’ve been to hard-core Pentacostal services several times, and have found them to be deeply disturbing. I don’t find your acquaintance’s characterization to be laughable.
Not trying to be combative - can you give me some examples of both categories for clarity?What I AM talking about is those persons who fall into one of two categories:
That’s what I am talking about – and that can be a serious problem.
- Those who insist on trying to make the non-essential out to be essential.
- Those who insist on trying to force others into their idea of the “perfect Catholic” on matters of personal spirituality or piety.