Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Christopher Hart | PentecostalTheology.com
Q: What is necessary for a believer to also be pentecostal? What would prevent one from being pentecostal?
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 3:36 AM]
There were no other believers on Pentecost BUT Pentecostal… There were no baptists, methodists or catholics for “they ALL spake in tongues…”
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 3:45 AM]
If you believe in Acts 2, you are Pentecostal Period. It is a freaking feast after all.
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 3:53 AM]
I’ve repeatedly expressed my position through various discussions in this group that there’s no Pentecostalism without doctrine of holiness and Wesleyan sanctification. Therefore, I am greatly surprised when a discussion focuses primarily on signs (like speaking in tongues) and says nothing about sanctification. Is it a rightful presumption that the very problem of neo-Pentecostals is namely the lack of holiness in doctrine and lifestyle?
Christopher Hart [09/25/2015 3:55 AM]
I don’t see or read all your comments brother. No offense.
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 3:57 AM]
Are you joking? Sanctification and holiness have NOTHING to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. No one bit. It is the promise of the Holy Spirit, not the reward for being a good boy and taking your vitamins. It is the gift of the Father. Gifts are not earned.
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 3:59 AM]
So Peter A are you saying (1) sanctification is not a gift from God and (2) the Holy Spirit will enter an unsanctified vessel? #HelloNeoPentecostalism
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:01 AM]
Sanctification is part of salvation. When we are born again, you are declared holy. It is not something you do, it is something you are. We are saved, sanctificated, justified and glorified at salvation. Yes, I am a two works of grace guy.
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 4:03 AM]
No one here argues against that. However, to answer Christopher question: lack of sanctification will “prevent one from being pentecostal?”
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:03 AM]
Plus, I do not believe we can “be holy” with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is the power to live upright. (Part of Dunamis)
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 4:05 AM]
No one here is saying that either. However, the premise that “Sanctification and holiness have NOTHING to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit” will “prevent one from being Pentecostal?” Alan N Carla Smith
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:05 AM]
It will not. That is works. Anyone can be Pentecostal… just go to the Holy Land at the end of May and early June… that’s Pentecost week haha
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:06 AM]
Anyone who believes in the Acts 2:1-4 experience is Pentecostal. Sometimes we are too “hardline” and purist on things.
Christopher Hart [09/25/2015 4:08 AM]
Also, I wasn’t focusing primarily on signs (like speaking in tongues). It was you who brought tongues up brother. I was replying to your comments.
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 4:08 AM]
not sure if what you’re describing is neo-pentecostalism or easy-pentecostalism 🙂
Gerald Creasy [09/25/2015 4:08 AM]
“The Holy Spirit will enter an unsanctified vessel” was said above.
I guess that Jesus guy will go places the Holy Spirit wont?
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:09 AM]
I am talking about what is biblical. Calling someone neo-Pentecostal is an insult and rooted in pride and an ego. Why can’t you just accept people who disagree on little issue?
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 4:10 AM]
sure He’ll go and clean your temple with a whip 🙂
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:10 AM]
While I told tongues to be the initial physical evidence, I welcome people who dont speak in tongues as Spirit filled.
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 4:13 AM]
so Peter A Vandever if you take Holy away from the Holy Spirit is He still the Holy Spirit or just another spirit?
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:16 AM]
We are holy at salvation. Period. The “Holiness movement” was a joke and a mockery of God’s nature.
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 4:17 AM]
I rest my case – hope you dont delete your comment later 🙂
Peter A Vandever [09/25/2015 4:18 AM]
Nothing to delete. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a reward for being a good boy. It is the infilling so we can do move in signs, wonders, and miracles.
David John Maxfield [09/25/2015 5:02 AM]
Mark 16:9-20 and the application of that makes us pentecostal
John Kissinger [09/25/2015 9:43 AM]
David John Maxfield the only here handling snakes is Alan N Carla Smith (and maybe Charles Page in his past) – are you saying the rest of us are not #PENTECOSTAL?
David John Maxfield [09/25/2015 4:46 PM]
I wasn’t talking about going and grabbing snakes that would be silly, however if we are walking in the Power of God and a snake happens to bite us then I believe that it won’t have any effect just as what happened with Paul
Charlie Robin
There were no other believers on Pentecost BUT Pentecostal… There were no baptists, methodists or catholics for “they ALL spake in tongues…”
Varnel Watson
NOT speaking in tongues? Dan Irving
Terri Tippins
As a Traditional Pentecostal believer I was taught that first, you were saved, sanctified and then filled with the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues. But one had to tarry and seek the Baptism. I ( from my own experience) when I received the Baptism knew instantly that I had received something I did not have before. It did not make me ‘more’ of a Christian but I noticed that when I prayed it seemed to be more fervent. I also noticed that I had more of a desire to pray. Instead of being a chore……it became the most important part of my day.
I don’t agree with some of the comments in the original post. I know that Salvation is free but the Baptism will cost you something. The new Pentecostals don’t even speak about sanctification they just want to speak in tongues. My experience has taught me that you can’t have the ‘Holy’ Ghost if you continue to live an unholy life. If you speak in tongues while living like the world then you have a false experience and the tongues you talk are not uttered or initiated by the third person of the Trinity but rather your flesh or the Devil.
Varnel Watson
You were taught well
Dan Irving
I’m starting to read the brand new book by Vinson Synan and Daniel Woods, “Fire Baptized: The Many Lives & Works of Benjamin Hardin Irwin.” I’m only about 40 pages into it, and am NOT disappointed. I would point out one statement I believe to be errant (and which is on-subject here.) They write: “The idea that the baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire is an experience separate from ad subsequent to to both regeneration and sanctification is the most important contribution of Irwin’s movement. This later became the basic foundation of the worldwide Pentecostal movement.” This statement is positively FALSE. While Pentecost was restored among those under the Wesleyan teaching, I would point out:
1) It was most clearly restored in Topeka on 1/1/01, upon the express declaration of the Initial Evidence doctrine (that so many despise today, even within Pentecost!)
2) While those in charge at Azusa made initial efforts to inculcate the Wesleyan “3rd Blessing” teaching into Pentecost, they were roundly rejected by 1911 under the preaching of William Durham, whose Chicago and LA works became (arguably) the most pivotal hub of spreading the Pentecostal baptism worldwide. While most of “Pentecostalism” rejected the “3rd Blessing” teaching of John Fletcher, there was ONE UNIFYING doctrine of Pentecost that was also original at its restoration in 1901, ie. Tongues as Initial Evidence. Somehow Mr. Synan and Mr. Woods missed this, and it is fairly glaring. That being said, I can’t wait to continue reading their fascinating book! I think, clearly, what it means to be a classical “Pentecostal” is to accept the restored teaching of Tongues as Initial Evidence.
Varnel Watson
What does it say about the practice of gifts without baptism?