Why did William Seymour really leave Methodism that led him to Christ?
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:09 PM]
The title is somewhat misleading. To reject Amillennialism is not a rejection Methodist doctrines in toto, such as entire sanctification, which Seymour and many early Pentecostals embraced. The Holiness Movement of the 19th C. actually desired to return to what they deemed as early Methodism. Pentecostalism, in some ways, is the child of the Holiness Movement, and the grandchild of John Wesley. Therefore, Pentecostalism owes some thanks to Wesley and his revival in Britain, the early Methodists, and the later Holiness movement. Although Wesley was A-millennial, he still believed in an end-time outpouring of the Holy Spirit, where the gifts of the Spirit would be poured out, which, again, influenced the early Methodists, the 19 C. Holiness movement, and early Pentecostalism. For more information, see: http://www.amazon.com/John-Wesley-Reader-Eschatology/dp/1932370250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440457694&sr=8-1&keywords=john+wesley%27s+eschatology
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:12 PM]
Seymour left the AME Church over the end time position and the prophetic. Nothing misleading there. That is factual. He would get messed up in Holiness legalism later in Ohio 🙂
John Kissinger [08/24/2015 7:15 PM]
The post is over reaching. The primary source for determining John Wesley’s understanding of the second coming of Jesus Christ is his sermon called “The Great Assize.” In that sermon John Wesley looked for: (1) great physical phenomenon in the shaking of the earth and heavens; (2) the physical appearance of Christ in glory; (3) a general resurrection of the dead; and (4), the universal judgment of all mankind before the Great White, with consignment to their eternal destinations in the new heaven and new earth, or in the lake of fire, thereafter. Today this viewpoint would be classified by scholars in the field of Biblical prophetic studies as post-tribulational amillennialism.
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:16 PM]
“Methodism” is such a broad term. Perhaps rename the title. The most important doctrine of Methodism (entire sanctification) was kept by Seymour and most early Pentecostals. Maybe a better title would have been: “Seymour Rejects the Eschatology of the AME of the Early 20th C.”
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:18 PM]
Interestingly, although he was “posttrib” “Amill,” he believed in a great outpouring of the Spirit and his gifts right before the end.
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:19 PM]
Robert Rogers, in my reading of our history, it was closer to entire legalism than entire sancification.
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:20 PM]
Perhaps, but I’m discussing the doctrine of Entire Sanctification as believed by the early Pentecostals, which, to their credit, was about Christ ruling in the heart without a rival, that one could love God and neighbor with perfect love.
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:22 PM]
Yea, we are reading different books…. Pentecostals back then was too busy condemning the neighboring for having a television in his home and playing basketball at the YMCA 🙂
Charles Page [08/24/2015 7:23 PM]
guessing…was it over race?
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:25 PM]
There is questions about that but the AME was open to races at the time. Could be on paper. The End Time view and the prophetic was huge issues on why he left.
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:26 PM]
Peter, some were very legalistic, but one shouldn’t ignore the loving missions to the poor, the outcast, the sick, and the broken. Perfect love does not mean one has perfect theology. A broad generalization (“pentecostals back then…”) is still a logical fallacy…the last time I checked. 🙂
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:28 PM]
Charles Page, a little on Seymour and racism early on Indianapolis
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:30 PM]
Anyway, I just thought your title was somewhat misleading, since he did not reject what Wesley called “darling doctrine of Methodism,” but the eschatology of his own AME church. grace and peace…
Charles Page [08/24/2015 7:32 PM]
The COG was never racist they allowed the coloreds to have their own separate General Assemblies and State conventions as long as they sent in their tithes to the General offices.
John Kissinger [08/24/2015 7:35 PM]
Peter A Vandever TV during Wesley’s time? You’re reaching…
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:35 PM]
Television in the Pentecostal time….. It was called the one eyed devil.
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:36 PM]
I find it odd people are defending Methodism that is seriously flawed.
John Kissinger [08/24/2015 7:37 PM]
in the 60s NOT in the time period you’re discussing in the post. What’s ORU statue of limitation on history class refunds?
Charles Page [08/24/2015 7:39 PM]
are Wesleyans brothers or a cult?
John Kissinger [08/24/2015 7:39 PM]
10,000 Roman Lions can’t be wrong… Christians just taste better!
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:40 PM]
The TV comments were to the comments about Pentecostal believing in the heresy of the holiness movement…. it was entire legalism, not entire sanctification.
John Kissinger [08/24/2015 7:40 PM]
“heresy of the holiness movement”? 333: I’m only half evil.
Robert Rogers [08/24/2015 7:44 PM]
Peter, you throw that word “heresy” out like free candy at a parade. I don’t think you know what it means. I was discussing the early Pentecostals, while you are discussing 1950s-1970s Pentecostals. If you think that Entire Sanctification is heresy, then you believe that most Pentecostals, including Seymour, were heretics. Your reasoning is fallacious. You may not agree with Entire Sanctification, and that is fine, but it is not heresy.
Peter A Vandever [08/24/2015 7:46 PM]
There was several heresies that were in the early Pentecostal movement. Oddly, Sanctification was one that Seymour locked the Azusa Street Mission over.
John Kissinger [08/24/2015 7:46 PM]
Modified Rapture? #bumpersticker