Should SBC Churches adopt Neo Pentecostalism

My church is not perfect because I'm a member. But we hold correctly to a large number of doctrines and practices. And we are quite able, actually commanded, to defend the faith. Paul and John both bashed others, even their brothers and sisters, when they were wrong. Paul's letter to the church at Corinth is a perfect example.

Much of what I've seen in this thread is not bashing. It's pointing out what the Pentecostals believe and why it's wrong.

 

They can adopt pentecostal practices, but the change that should happen is the change of name on the outside.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What are you referring to as false teaching?

What false teachings did Paul correct at Corinth and John to those he addressed?

 

No, I do not surmise this is what it means, this is what they teach, if you read pentecostal writtings and listen to teachers this is what they directly say. I am not making it up, and yet you have found it necessary to accuse me of it.

 

If you all want to accept error as truth then go ahead, but if what they teach si true then what you beleive and what your church teraches is not true, and it is you who is in a false teaching church.

 

Actually, I was referring to Paul's criticism of the Corinthians in how they observed the Lord's Supper (I Cor 11), and their failure to deal with a member who was involved in an illicit relationship (Chapter 5).

He also dealt with the abuse of tongues (Ch. 14)

John dealt with the Judaizers in his writings.

 

Abuse spiritual gifts, the Lord's Table, etc, are not the same as false teachings.

There's a difference.

 

So are we not to show whats false and why? Or are we to do nothing and let false teachers have the freedom to teach lies, with us saying nothing, just allowing it?

 

So what's false about what they do?

 

Abuse comes from misconseptions which is why Paul explained why it was wrong. Misconseptions are the same as inadiquate teaching.

 

Take speaking in tongues for example at Corinth: apparently some were doing so without an interpreter in the public assembly.

What's the false teaching about that?

Abuse, yes. False teaching, no.

 

I've just shown my experiences at Lee College (now Lee University and how their teaching applies in practical application.) One more item that occured but this was before I went to Lee.

While I was in the Air Force there was this guy I know who just accepted the Lord as his savior. He was excited about his new faith and wanted to participate in fellowship. Initially he went to my baptist church and was doing well. However, his job required him to work on days that my church had services. He then went to an available service which was pentecostal. He then started speaking in tongues and he told me about it. I didn't say anything at the time because honestly tongues seemed to me to be scriptural. However, his schedule changed again and he went back to my church and after awhile stopped speaking in tongues because he wasn't quite sure of its use and wouldn't use it in church but may have continued privately during his quiet time. Once again (as is the case in the military) his schedule changed and he went back to the pentecostal church. he heard a sermon saying that if he denied speaking in tongues once he started that it was the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which we all know is the unforgivable sin. He broke down mentally and had to go to a base with a psychiatric facility. Eventually, he was medically discharged. I tried explaining to him that he never denied the Lord but he insisted he was destined for hell. These things happen I've witnessed them and frankly have serious conserns over pentacostalism. Though there are many that do not go to these extreems I believe there is serious error here. How many charasmatic churches come out of Pentacostalism? How many health and wealth gospel based faiths that come from just these pentecostals? There are serious issues here.

 

specifically, with Corinth the church had self control issues. Abuse of speaking in tongues was a symptom of it. Gorging themselves at communion was another. It seems to me the aspect isn't with the speaking in tongues (which there are debates as to what that really means because some believe that it involves people hearing their own langurages others say babbeling is the groaning of the HS) but emotionalism. Paul says that this personal speaking in tongues should be done privately not in the body during service where things can become chaotic. Which is why that if conducted in service it should be interpreted. Though I don't equate that with just quoting psalms as I've seen in many Pentecostal churches. (BTW why in most, though not all, interpretations of tongues start with this phrase "thus sayith the Lord?" What the HS only speaks in KJ english?) I think the corinithians wanted to "have church" (as pentecostals say when they get to an emotional fervor). Reliant on emotional release as a basis of teaching about the HS is error.

 

TC, I think the tone and language we use here in discussing the errors of Pentecostalism arise from the fact that this is a debate forum. I suspect that if we were face to face with a Pentecostal brother, our tone and language would be less confrontational in our disagreements with them.

I doubt if we would "bash" them face to face.

 

I can't believe some of the garbage I have just went through on this post. You blame Pentacostals for someone branching off from them like TD Jakes and Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyers, sorry, that is not true PC.

Some of the comments made about fellow believers in Christ is sickening.

 

I do not doubt that some false teachings are among some Pentecostal groups. I believe the same about some Baptist groups.

Yes, that form of Pentecostalism is indeed extremism.

I'm not a fan of the health and wealth guys either.

Some are abusive and false teachings.

 

I've been in blogging experience with Pentecostal brothers and sisters around some of these issues.

They are very convinced that these things are for real in their lives and others, while admitting abuses and so on.

 

Since we still haven't defined Neo-Pentecostalism, here is what a quick goole turned up..

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cmovement.htm

If this is what the OP is reffering to we can leave the arguments for and against Pentecostals for another thread. There is actually quite a differance between pentecostals and Charismatics. I have been in charismatic services and know charismatic believers. While stopping short of declaring them unsaved (as I would JWs, Mormans, etc.) I will say that Christ is rarely the focus of this type of ministry. I've seen several ministers promise people that if you come to our church we preach the gosel of Christ, but once in attendance you will rarely hear anything that is not a "Prophesy", a "Word of Knowledge", or a "Healing Service". Over the past couple of years the focus has shifted from the Holy Spirit to "Faith". Christ isn't worshiped, taught, or preached. The "Faith" of the "Beliver" is woshiped as an idol. Constantly praised, and lifted up.

Many Pentecostal Churches are trying to disquish themselves from this movement, so If you attend a pentecostal church that or know others who do, this is not directed at you my brother or sister. If this is the Neo-Pentecostalism that the OP is refferring to then the answer would be no. I do not want anything to replace Christ as the center of worship in my denomination. Adopting Neo-Pentecostaism is a dangerous road.

 

Shotgun Willie,

It sure is.

Christ...

Some here must think that reads "by your condemnation toward those you disagree with."

Disagreeing is one thing, but vitriolic hate being spewed at your brothers and sisters is exceedingly problematic.


:godisgood:

 

Sorry, that is not pentacostal.

That is expressionistic worship--which is neither good nor bad in itself, and has nothing to do with pentecostal beliefs.

The fact that there are churches who would fight over such is sad.