|| Pentecostal Foundation ||

Monday, January 19, 2009

The Dividing Lines

Ask members of the Pentecostals, Charismatics or even the Third Wavers which denomination do they belong to, most of the time, their answer would be an "I don't know" or a wrong answer. The lines that distinguished these denominations have now been smeared that people are uncertain of their own denominations. What exactly distinguishes one from another?

Pentecostal (or known as the 1st wave) is derived from the word Pentecost, which means "fiftieth". In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost,was recorded the day when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples who were gathered in the upper room. The most noticeable feature of that occasion is in verse 4, which reads "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. " (Acts 2:4, ESV) . We see here that when they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, they began to speak in other tongues! This is one of the beliefs of the Pentecostals. They affirm the involvement of the Holy Spirit in everyday life, including divine healing and prophecy and other manifestations of the Spirit's presence. They hold on to the doctrine of the speaking of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Charismatics (also known as the 2nd wave) comes from the Greek word, charisma, which is usually translated in the King James Version as "gift". Paul uses this word in I Corinthians 12 to designate the supernatural gifts made available to individual Christians by the Holy Spirit. Just like as its name implies, Charismatics are a used to indicate an informal international and trans denominational fellowship of Christians who believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as written by Paul, are manifested in modern times.They are often mixed up with the Pentecostals as the Charismatics are related to them. But what differs the Charismatics from the Pentecostals is that the Charismatics do not insist on the speaking of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In other words, to the Charismatics, it is possible to be baptized in the Holy Spirit yet not being able to speak in tongues.

The Third Wave is also known as the Signs and Wonders or Neo-Charismatic Movement. The term "Third Wave" was 1st used by C. Peter Wagner in his book entitled "The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit". They are similar to the 1st and 2nd wave yet they have important differences. In fact, they do not wish to be labeled as Pentecostals or Charismatics. They believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at conversion. They have a low-key acceptance of the gift of tongues as one of the many New Testament spiritual gifts that God gives to some and not to others. Therefore, speaking in tongues is not considered and initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

These are some of the dividing lines that distinguishes each the Pentecostals, Charismatics and Third Wavers. We have got to know our identity to know what we believe in; our heritage. Do you know your denomination?

posted by bryanboo at 7:14 PM

| Permalink |

21 Comments:

At February 3, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Jase Foo

Hi Bryan,
The pentecostals "hold on to the doctrine of the speaking of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.". The Charismatics hold that "it is possible to be baptized in the Holy Spirit yet not being able to speak in tongues." How would you think to reconcile the different beliefs of the pentecostal and charismatic, considering the verse from the bible in 1 Corinthians 12:30 "Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret?"
At February 4, 2009 at 12:00 AM, lionel.lky

Finally it works!!!

I have had a question burning for a long time to ask you. But now when the blog is finally running i for got my question. But here is a simple one. Since each has their dividing lines and distinct characteristics as a denomination, why dividing lines? What good can we bringin from these other denominations, and should we bringing good thing from other denominations? will it betray who we essentially supposed to be as Pentecostals?
At February 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, bryanboo

Thanks Jase for your question!

I think the answer can be found in a book by Rick Walston entitled the "Speaking in Tongues Controversy". In his book, he does deal with 1 Cor 12:30 from the point of a Pentecostal. According to him, in Pentecostal Theology, there are two major distinctions of functions of speaking in tongues. One is called the 'devotional tongue' or 'prayer language'. This is seen throughout the Book of Acts and 1 Corinthians. This sort of 'prayer language' is tho one referred to by Paul in 1Cor 14:14 "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" On the other hand, the one in 1 Cor 12:30 is the other function of speaking in tongues which is manifested in the gathered assembly for the purpose of edifying the church. In other words, this is 'messages in tongues'. Classical Pentecostals do not believe that everyone receives this function of 'gift of tongues' but rather all receives the 'prayer language' upon baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it does not contradict Paul in 1 Cor 12:30 as the speaking in tongues that he refers to is the 'gift of tongues' and not the 'prayer language'

Walston gave a very good parallel to sum up what he said. It goes like this:
_________________________________________________________________
Scriptural Differences in speaking in tongues
as a gift of tongues as a prayer language

1 Cor 12:30 Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 19:6-7
not all spoke in tongues All spoke in tongues

1 Cor 14:27-28 Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 19:6-7
Must interpret No interpretation

1 Cor 14:27 Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 19:6-7
2 or 3 people Number not limited

1 Cor 12:10 Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 1 Cor 14:14-17
Gift of tongues in assembly Tongues as a prayer language
_________________________________________________________________
Hope this answers your question

Lionel,

I think the main thing that distinguishes Pentecostals from the rest is that they hold on to the doctrine of the doctrine of the speaking of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to that of the Charismatics or the Third Wave. My take on that is, if they lose this doctrine of the speaking of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then, we sort of lose our identity as Pentecostals. Because among this three, it is this doctrine that distinguishes the Pentecostals. But thanks for the comments and questions! Sorry, bro, for taking so long in rectifying the problem that your fiery question got extinguished! Haha!
At February 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Kee Ming

Do you consider yourself a Pentecostal? If yes, why are you a Pentecostal?
At February 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM, bryanboo

This comment has been removed by the author.
At February 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM, bryanboo

Scriptural Differences in speaking in tongues
as a gift of tongues | as a prayer language

1 Cor 12:30 Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 19:6-7
not all spoke in tongues All spoke in tongues

1 Cor 14:27-28 | Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 19:6-7
Must interpret | No interpretation

1 Cor 14:27 | Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 19:6-7
2 or 3 people | Number not limited

1 Cor 12:10 | Acts 2:4, 10:24-44, 1 Cor 14:14-17
Gift of tongues in assembly |Tongues as a prayer language
At February 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM, bryanboo

Quote:
______________________________________________________
At February 4, 2009 5:11 PM, Blogger Kee Ming

Do you consider yourself a Pentecostal? If yes, why are you a Pentecostal?
_______________________________________________________

Kee Ming,

Yes, I do consider myself a Pentecostal as opposed to a Charismatic or a Third Waver. I do hold on dearly to the doctrine of speaking of tongues as initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
At February 5, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Angeline

Hey,

appreciate the concise summary of the 3 waves. Just a quick one.. is speaking or not speaking in tongues as initial evidence of the baptism of the HS the only differentiating factor between the Pentecostal and Charismatic?
At February 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Samuel Nesan

Hi Bryan…

It is indeed a well written article about what you believe concerning Pentecostals, Charismatics and even Third Wavers.

Nevertheless this seems to be very much like a textbook definition of these beliefs. One you could find on any Christian dictionary dealing with such topics. In fact you did not even state which of these views you hold to. I would indeed like to hear more about what is your personal conviction concerning these views and which of them do you subscribe to? And more importantly why you subscribe to it? And what is your view on the other views? Do believe that the other views (the ones that you are not subscribing to) are not Biblically coherent?

Other than these things, I must say that I found your article very well written.
Thank you.
At February 5, 2009 at 4:12 PM, bryanboo

Hi Angeline,

Wah... Your question made me do some intense research. I found and read many many articles but most of them make it as if the Charismatic movement is not biblical or is just a heresy. I do not know why but it may be a prejudiced view of things. So, because I do not know the facts of the matter, I shall refrain from putting up the doctrinal differences pointed out by them. But in terms of what I know, the most distinct and one of the very important distinction between the both is the doctrine of speaking in tongues as initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This, we cannot deny.
At February 5, 2009 at 4:23 PM, bryanboo

Hi Samuel,

Thanks for those questions. A definition is a definition whether you agree or not. Is like saying that the definition of air according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "mixture of invisible odorless tasteless gasses that surround the earth" and then asking me what are my views on the definition. Hmm...

But with regards to your other question, as I said in an earlier reply, I align myself to being a Pentecostal as opposed to being a Charismatic or a Third Waver as, according to what I wrote in my post, I do hold on dearly to the doctrine of speaking in tongues as initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Holding on to that view however, would make me bias and say I do not agree with the Charismatics regarding the same doctrine. But again, these are just differences according to ones views and beliefs and nevertheless, I respect their beliefs and doctrines. The same goes for my views regarding the Third Wavers. But my believes will cloud my judgment and cause me not to be objective thus it will be unfair to say my view is the right view (which I STRONGLY believe that no one should say that) but respect their views while not agreeing with them.
At February 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, lionel.lky

Brian,

Thanks for the answer. But I do have one more question. especially since you will be in the ministry and will probably be a pastor in the ministry.

What would your response be to a chruch member that comes and asks why we (being your church) can;t be moe like the other mega churches. They are vibrant and 'charismatic' and their chruch is full of life. what would your response be for someone suggesting that we should be like the Third Wavers or Fourth Wavers after coming back from a conference or seminar conducted by them. they express that other chruches some in the Assemblies of God are doing it and it is a remarkable breakthrough, since they have such great life in their chruch, if we were to do it, then we would get the same life blood as them. Your members go on to express practises like the praying method for healing where there must be three people standing in a triangle praying for the person, each representing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of the God Head. They go on to express that their worship style has impressed them so much and that we have got to emulate them in order to have the life they had, "we need to be Charismatic like them" one of them said.

What would your respond be? How would you react to thier enthusiasm and suddenegerness to see God move?
At February 5, 2009 at 7:46 PM, bryanboo

Hey Lionel,

Wah... Tough question.. But nevertheless, I will give it a shot.

1st, lets see the role of a pastor. Hebrews 13:17 says "Obey your leaders (religious teachers; or in modern day terms, pastors, according to John Gill's Commentary)and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." According to John Gill's Commentary on the verse, he stated that "for they are keeping watch over your souls" meant they watch not for themselves, for their worldly gain and advantage, and for the estates of men; but for the souls of men, to do them good, to comfort and edify them, to feed them with knowledge and understanding, and for the salvation of them. Allow me to stress edify them, to feed them with knowledge and understanding. So my stand is rather than please them, I would want to teach them the right things.

With regards to your question, I would ask, what is the intention of incorporating this? For ourselves to feel good or to give glory to God? Let me answer example by example.

For the praying style of having 3 people. Let's look into the Bible. We see in Acts 6 that Peter and John were sent to Samaria to lay hands and pray for them. At the island of Malta, Paul visited the father of Publius and prayed for him and he got healed. These are only two of the many incidents in the Bible where people prayed for others. What is one similarity that we can notice? When they prayed, they did not need 3 people and God still did wonders through them. No where in the Bible mentions that for God to move, we must pray in threes to represent the Godhead. If we have to do so, then, it becomes ritualistic. So the question remains. Why would we want to incorporate the practice of praying for people in threes? Isn't it the work of God no matter how we do it? Are we trying to say that God will move even mightier in threes than, say one? If so, who, then is the determinant? What we do? Or God's move?

Regarding the worship style, worship is for God and God alone. Isaiah 66:23 reads "From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD." Even John, in Revelation, twice it is recorded that worship is for God and God alone. Once in Rev. 19:10 (Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.) and another in Rev. 22:9 (but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.") See, worship is for God and God alone. No matter how we worship, the main thing that God sees is the heart, as written in 1Sam 16:7 (But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.") . God desires a worship in spirit and truth. John 2:23-24 records this (But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."). God can still move even without music. Who is to say that God will move greater in a hyped worship than one that only sings hymns? Again, we have to ask, what is the motive of incorporating their style or emulating them. To feel good? Self-glory? Hype? Trend? Or God?

I believe that all glory, worship, honor and praise goes to God. I would question their intentions of doing so. Personal preference? Feel nicer? Or is it really because of God? Yes, it will kill their enthusiasm, but if I am their pastor, I would rather teach them this truth rather than satisfy their desire to 'feel good'.

Hope I answered your question. Sorry if it's poorly answered... =p
At February 6, 2009 at 2:52 AM, lionel.lky

Kudos!!! My brother. I would have done the same way, you have shown to me a great heart for what God has called you to. I'm humbled I never thought of the question forit to be cruel or to show intelligence (I must clarify). But I think in all of us there will be a struggle and it is one I am and will struggle with.

I am not the best judge for the answer, but your answer has answered my question. But I see your heart and its really for the ministry.

Thank you for answering it. Thank you
At February 7, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Joshua Yong

I have no disagreement with what you said about how your response would be if a church member were to ask you to be more like the "mega charismatic churches" (as I somewhat hold the same conviction as yours about certain things, great job on answering according to the Bible and focusing on the "heart" issue) but it seems to me that you don't agree with these "mega charismatic churches" and hint that they are for "feel good,self-glory,hype and trendy" only.

Yes, God can be worshiped without music and God doesn't move mightier if the music is with more hype but to indicate that worship with vibrant "feel good" music is for "self-glory" then...popular songs from Hillsongs or PlanetShakers which are often sung in many churches should not be allowed.

In fact, all vibrant modern musics should be banned as it is for "self-glory" and for "feel good" thus not for God. On the other, I worship God when I don't feel good about life as magnifying God via worship makes me feel good. What's is wrong to worship God while feel good about it? Trust me, Lionel himself loves music and play super vibrant drum and it makes him feel good yet I don't think it's for "self glory".

I do not disagree with your answers but only the way you seem to indicate that these charismatic churches are wrong as their ways and style might be a little "over" or even just because they are different. If I am the church member asking you those questions, I would totally agree with you as my pastor and learn from what you have said at the same time thinking at the back of my mind that these charismatics churches have the wrong focus and only for "outward appearance".

Do forgive me if I am too strong with my words as I do feel strongly about it yet with no offense.

Thank you and you have really good Bible based answers with the right focus.
At February 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM, bryanboo

Hi Learner!

Thanks for pointing out that I may clarify.

I in no way am against the "mega charismatic churches". I am not against their style of worship or anything for that matter. Who am I to judge them anyway? And I respect their unique style.

But when I said that, it was a question to the church member, what exactly is their intention? If it really is about God and for God, then I have no problem emulating that because I do not disagree. But if their intentions is because they 'feel good' in these styles but not in a, say, sing chorusus or hymns style, then, my question remains. Are you doing it for God or for yourself? Take Lionel for example. I say, he plays GREAT drums and enjoys it. But he does it as a service unto God and as a form of worship to God. Ultimately, all glory goes to God. But if someone with the same skills and talent but plays it so that people will recognise his talent, then, he has wrong intentions. God is no longer the focus then. The same applies.

I do not believe in the styles being "overboard". In fact, I love that music and style. But I will emulate if it is about God and worship due to God alone. If the member expects me to emulate their style JUST MERELY for the sake of "feel good", then I would not. In other words, my criteria is simple: If its with the right intentions (for God), go ahead. If its for their own (feel good or the hype), then, I would question where their heart actually lies.

Again, I have to reinforce that I have NO PROBLEM with their style and NOT AGAINST it either.

Sorry if I did not express it well in the earlier reply. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. Hope that I conveyed it clearly.
At February 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Jase Foo

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for your answer. it did answer my question and i learned something new. i am glad i ask that question. so the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is tongues as a prayer language right? or the bible does not say anything pertaining this matter?
At February 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, bryanboo

Hey Jase,

As mentioned above, according to some Pentecostal Theologians of scholars that I have read (not many actually), they do note that the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is tongues as a prayer language, as the one mentioned in 1 Cor 14:14.
At February 9, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Joshua Yong

Hey, thanks for the fast reply, really appreciate your mature understanding over my concern and actual intention of my question.

I have to say that I like and am humbled by the way you clarify issues without straying away from the actual point and able to express your thoughts clearly and boldly without being impolite.

It shows the depth of your mental, emotional and spiritual maturity in the Lord. Do forgive me in any way I may have offended you.

God bless bro...Thank you for understanding me once again.
At February 11, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Angeline

haha! gosh.. i'm sorry for the extra extensive research u had to do. hehe. thnks n appreciate it. i shud prob get on with some research myself! hehe! and then perhaps we can talk abt it =p
At February 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Samuel Nesan

Hi Bryan...

Thanks for your answer mann... but I am sorry to say that I quite disagree and am disapointed with your reply that a definition is merely a definition where matters of faith are concerned.

You see when Einstein defines the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, we have got no choice but to agree with him because our brains are nowhere even near the depth of knowledge that his brains contains in these matters. Nevertheless, where faith is concerned, we are not supposed to follow what the great theologians tell us to follow or to adopt their definitions because of the fact that they defined them. No. We are liable to our conscience and our convictions. These two elements are absolutely vital in this respect.

It was because of his conviction that Martin Luther took on the great Catholic debater John Eek (I think his name was) and argued furiously that "the just shall live by faith and faith alone". He defined his belief because he found the dominant beliefs of his time running contradictory to the teachings of scripture. This is where the Latin term "Sola Scriptua" derives its origin.

So I believe that we, students of the Word, must not just blindly adopt other people's definition of belief. If we are actually unable to state our own convictions, beliefs and doctrines in our own simple words, then I believe that the question of whether we are blindly accepting everything that we are taught without scrutinizing them in the light of scripture and with personal conviction arises here.

Anyway, as I kept saying repeatedly, this is my view and I sincerely respect yours even though I do not particularly agree with it. But I'd be happy if you'd carefully consider what I have just said. Please pardon me if I have offended you in any way when stating my conviction on these matters.

Thank You Bryan:)

Post a Comment