To all of my Pentecostal/Charismatic friends out there, especially pastors. Have you read anything substantial documenting the history of the modern Pentecostal movement? Is there any required readings in seminary? Specifically, what is the standard representation of Azusa Street? My old IPHC manual seems to paint Azusa with a very positive brush. However it seems well substantiated that Parham denounced the revival upon visiting Seymour! If Seymour was denounced by the very teacher and ‘shaker’ and ‘mover’ in the initial teachings then would this call into question the version that we are reading in our modern Pentecostal manuals? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a very generous supporter of the gifts of the Spirit and especially the gift of tongues. This is a topic that I would be eager to publicly debate with a cessationist if the opportunity would arise and was needed. But it seems that the Pentecostal closet should come clean with the negatives that surround the actual revival that is said to be the catalyst of the modern Pentecostal phenomena. Any questions or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Category Archives: Gifts of the Spirit
Pentecostalism
I have only met one Pentecostal person with a thorough working knowledge of the movements history. This person was a kind lady that was a customer of mine in Eastpoint. She was well aware of the fact that the beginnings of the movement was not as glamorous as it would seem to be. She was well aware of Parham’s sharp rebuke and denunciation of Seymour and his Revival at Azusa street. Nevertheless many Pentecostal denominations today repeat the Azusa street revival story as nothing but orthodoxy. At any rate the lady agreed with me despite Pentecostalism’s shaky history in its infancy (which included a harsh split within the Assemblies of God over the Trinity which resulted in many off shoot Oneness heretics leading up to the ultimate organizing of the largest Oneness cult the UPCI) Pentecostalism has offered many positive contributions to the Christian Church here in the West, not mentioning its contribution worldwide. Pentecostalism has added the necessary feature that any Christian must need. viz. the flow of theological study into a Spirit of worship. One of the greatest Pentecostal scholars in my estimation, Gordon D. Fee comments,
“I begin with a singular and passionate conviction: that the proper aim of all true theology is doxology. Theology that does not begin and end in worship is not biblical at all, but is rather the product of western philosophy. In the same way, I want to insist that the ultimate aim of all true exegesis is spirituality, in some form or another. And I insist on this because of my conviction that only when exegesis is so understood has the exegetical task been done in a way that is faithful to the intent of the text itself.” (Listening To The Spirit In The Text p.5)
It is this form of Pentecostalism that I am so attracted to. A Pentecostalism that embraces the true ‘worship in the Spirit’ while maintaining integrity when approaching the Scripture. All study of scripture and pursuit of sound theology should be born from a desire to worship Him in complete truth and empowerment. Yet today Pentecostalism suffers from anti-intellectualism and many opponents of Pentecostalism have encapsulated themselves in a tube of wooden academics which has led to a neo-deism theology. Both extremes should be abandoned!
With all of this said, I recommend students for or against Pentecostalism to read Pentecostal historian Vinson Synan’s book for a balanced and well written work on Pentecostalism in both it’s infancy and growth to what it is today.
Tom Wynn’s Proof Of Tongue Cessation
Tom Wynn is a dear brother in the Lord ladies and gentlemen and we attend the same fellowship together. We have many things in common but one thing that we have a major difference on is the topic of “the gift of tongues”. This disagreement has been occurring for about nine years now and I believe it is time to settle it once and for all. I hereby challenge Tom Wynn to an equally timed publicly moderated debate. Resolved: The gift of tongues are available today for christian believers. Drew Ayers affirmative, Tom Wynn negative. I believe that Tom, being the studious Bible student that he is, and his writing and speaking gift, and also the fact that he is a christian brother, would qualify him for a good representation for the cessation position. I know the discussion would prove to be fruitful in years to come as seekers seek out the truth on this important subject and view our DVD production. So Tom, I extend to you a brotherly invitation for discussion.
Below is the video that Tom mentioned in his comment to my last post. I challenge you to watch it and see if the good Doctor believes decreased activity on the frontal lobe during tongue speaking is consistent or inconsistent with the truth claim of tongue speakers. Enjoy!
Exhausted
I’m absolutely exhausted. I had a 13 hour day today and I’ve got to go at it again in the morning. Looking forward to some good study this weekend and a time to reflect. I did have a thought today:
If continuationist are Christians that believe the gifts of the spirit, especially the gift of tongues, are for today and these Christians are primarily Pentecostals then are they appropriately labeled continuationist? Let me try this way……..Cessationist believe the gifts of the Spirit have ceased. Continuationist believe the gifts continue. Got me? Okay, but the problem is that I believe Pentecostals should instead be called restorationist since they believe that the gifts were restored here in these latter times. Consider the following,
“Once again the gifts of the Spirit were experienced by the church. The atmosphere of the book of Acts became the norm for the thousands of pentecostal churches and missions that appeared throughout the world. Everywhere, the restoration of the charismata was understood as proof positive that the second advent of Christ was near.” 1993-1997 International Pentecostal Holiness Church Manual pp. 12-13
So doesn’t this imply some sort of cessation of the gifts at some point in church history? Why use the word restoration when the gifts are demonstrably a continuing fact throughout church history? Please, someone help me out?
Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church
Did the gifts of the Spirit cease with the death of the last living Apostle? Some say that there is zero evidence of the gifts of the Spirit, specifically the gift of tongues, that remained during the early church. Consider the following from Irenaeus’ ‘Against Heresies’, 5, 6:1,
“Just as also we hear many brethren in the church who have gifts of prophecy, and who speak through the Spirit with all manner of tongues, and who bring the hidden things of men into the clearness for the common good and expound the mysteries of God.”
We can at least conclude that the gifts of the Spirit were clearly present during Irenaeus’ time.
Maniac MacArthur
In his book Charismatic Chaos, page 289, John MacArthur poses the question, “What kink of tongues are being spoken today?” The following is a portion of his attempt to answer that question over the next few pages of his book. For instance he says on pages 290-91
“Without question, many people who speak in tongues say they find the practice beneficial to one degree or another.”
He goes on to state,
“It is significant to note that Pentecostals and charismatics cannot substantiate their claim that what they are doing is the biblical gift of tongues. We know of no authentic, proven cases where any Pentecostal or charismatic has actually spoken in an identifiable, translatable language.”………………..So how can the phenomenon be explained?”…………………………… A number of possibilities arise. First, tongues may be satanic or demonic. …………………Another possibility is that tongues is a learned behavior……………….tongues can be psychologically induced.”
I do believe that there is yet another explanation. Could it be that tongues are what we read about in 1 Corinthians 14? It seems that if you define tongues as an identifiable language then you may be destined to collide with an iceberg of scripture thus sinking your tidy theological ship. Consider the following verse,
“For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.” 1 Corinthians 14;2
Now lets translate that MacArthur style,
“For he who speaks in an identifiable language does not speak to men but to God for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks a known translatable and identifiable language.”
Can you discern the problem here? If tongues=indentifiable language shouldn’t it be spoken to men since God already knows all languages? Of course the text here says that tongues are for the person speaking in them and it is towards God. Verse 3 indicates that the one speaking in the tongue is the only one edified and verse 5 indicates that the church is edified when the tongue is interpreted thus placing tongues, when interpreted, on the same par as prophecy. Yet another problem exists for MacArthur. Consider the following verses,
“Therefore, let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.” verse 13
“I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; ” verse 18
“yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” verse 19
If this is an identifiable language then what is the purpose of the tongue in verse 13?
Next, what is Paul’s point in stating that he speaks in more identifiable languages than the rest?
Finally, we are forced to conclude that Paul is hiking all through Palestine speaking in identifiable languages that he has no understanding of. If this is true, what is the significance? And why does Paul cease this identifiable language when he comes to the church? Isn’t it here that possibly someone could understand one of these identifiable languages. Shouldn’t it be here that he speaks in this identifiable language in hopes of finding out just what in the world he has been saying? It should be clear that MacArthur’s narrow definition of a ‘tongue’ actually turns the text upside down and confusing. It is MacArthur that ends up being the one that is questionably Biblical when we come to verse 39 which says,
“Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.”
Friends take heed if your Church forbids the speaking with tongues!
Persecution
I was thinking today of a time during my Christian walk that I felt truly persecuted. No, no, not physically but it was persecution nonetheless. This particular time I was attending a Church that was not traditionally known as having or practicing the gift of tongues nor were they cessationist. Given that, you could say that they were open but cautious. This created quite the diverse congregation. One could easily pick out people with Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds. Well once upon a time this Baptist dude who was highly respected by all started bullying me, seeing that I was fresh out of a Pentecostal Church. This bullying would consist of him approaching me in front of other brothers and asking me if I had babbled that day. He would even make this weird gibberish sound mocking me. Of course this led to quite the theological conversation. We had many round and round arguments that left me disgusted with not only his inability to be honest with specific texts (Specifically 1 COR 14 ) but his down right nasty attitude. I have plenty of Baptist friends that are cessationist and I have never been treated like this from them. I have always wondered why bully man singled me out ( there were other former Pentecostals at this Church ) to blast me! I had a hard time then and even now have a hard time seeing Christ in his attitude. It’s funny though, this bully man’s daughter married a guy that has Pentecostal background. I wonder if bully dude has changed his views? Or perhaps his approach towards others that he disagrees with has had a healthy dose of maturity added to him.
“But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.” (Galatians 4;29)
