What are the major pentecostal denominations and how they differ?

[John Bunyan]

What are the major pentecostal denominations in the world and how they differ between one another? Does anyone knows their defining characteristics in relation to ecclesiology, church offices, salvation and such?

 

[thbslawson]

I don't know a whole lot, but I do know that there are two basic groups; those that believe in the Trinity, such as the Assemblies of God, and those that are "oneness" such as the United Pentecostal Church and the Apostolic Church. Within these groups there appear to be those that insist upon speaking in tongues for salvation, but most fall into the oneness camp who believe this way.

I haven't met a Pentecostal yet from either of the two camps that didn't strongly believe in a pre-trib rapture.

I do believe the Assemblies of God preach the gospel, at least some churches do. They hold to a lot of other things I don't agree with. But the few that I've known firmly believe that it's faith alone, by grace alone in Christ alone for salvation.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[Pilgrim]

All denominations that I know of related to historic Pentecostalism also believe in conditional security i.e. that you can lose your salvation. Some of them have a modified Presbyterian form of government, perhaps with some Episcopal characteristics as well. I know that is the case with the Assembly of God. However, the term Bishop is not used, or at least not with some of the groups. But I think the COGIC (see below) has bishops.

I am only familiar with groups in the USA and even then am no expert. There are a lot of Pentecostal type groups in Central and South America, I have no idea about specifics. Wiki would probably be helpful with international pentecostalism as well as the history of the movement as a whole.

Other major trinitarian groups that come to mind include the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) Church of God of Prophecy and the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) a historically black pentecostal denomination. The Church of God (Anderson, IN) has its roots in the holiness tradition but is not considered pentecostal, at least not today.

Charismatics, as opposed to Pentecostals are generally not confined to particular denominations. The former movement started in "mainline" denominations in the late 1950's whereas the Pentecostal movement started in the early 1900's. The latter historically taught a second work of grace subsequent to salvation--Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Charismatics do not necessarily teach this and some repudiate it. Then you have "Third Wave" led by John Wimber, (The Vineyard) C. Peter Wagner and others that if memory serves has had more of a focus upon prophecy.

 

[Scott1]

A very broad question that would take a lot more detail than can be had in this format. You will want to do some research.

Here are some of the notable major errors of what is called "pentecostalism" in our generation:

"Broadly evangelical" general errors:

1) Arminian influenced soteriology
2) dispensational framework
3) no accountable confession

Particular error:

4) special revelation ordinarily comes outside of Scripture through I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts, communion is centered on this error
5) "second work of grace," is a separate coming of the Holy Spirit outside of salvation

Other error:

6) low view of the church
7) low view of the sacraments

A couple of these communions are dangerously wrong on the Trinity

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I have noticed the AoG to be very hit and miss. The AoG in our town is very standoffish to the other churches in town. Our ministerial association contacted the minister at the AoG (which is easily the second largest church) and he noted his belief in separationism and his unwillingness to do any kind of community wide things. However we also have more than a couple different flavors of Pentecostal, including something called a "Jesus Name" church, which from what I can tell seems a strange mixture of name it and claim it and holiness. We do have a UPC church that is of unknown size to me, their building is decent size.

 

[John Bunyan]

It seems to me that some of you are focusing on the minimal group so-called "oneness pentecostal". I would like that this thread be focused on major pentecostal denominations, which are trinitarian.

It seems to me that they're broadly evangelical, believe in the continuation of the gifts of the spirit and glossolalia and baptism in the Holy Spirit. That much I know.

I would like to know if there is any major difference between pentecostals and if pentecostals have other distinctive theological beliefs (most of they, seems to me, agree with baptists on the sacrament/ordinance topic, and in the method of baptism, but with which denominations they agree in relation to other subjects?). Also I would like to know about their ecclesiology, which seems to mix different systems (I've seem some wich look presbyterian but have bishops).

Also, why are there so many pentecostal churches if they all seem to believe in basically the same things?

 

[Ed B]

All the classic Pentecostal churches I have come in contact with recognize themselves as off-shoots of the 19th century Wesleyan holiness movements. As mentioned above their church polity varies depending on denomination. The Church of God Cleveland has a hierarchy very similar to the Methodist church. The "Overseer" can assign or remove ministers from a Church but he will normally honor the wishes of the local congregation. The Assemblies of God has a hierarchy but it doesn't have as much authority. The Assemblies of God comes close to looking like the SBC in that they will accept independent churches as affiliated or cooperative members while maintaining local autonomy.

The denominational hierarchy of the United Pentecostal Church is not as clear to me. There is one but I have no direct knowledge of it. The Apostolic congregations are doctrinal kin to UPC churches but the ones I know are autonomous.

Doctrinally the Church of God Cleveland and the Assemblies of God are very similar. They are both credobaptist by immersion and neither believes in baptismal regeneration. Communion is a memorial. The AoG and CoG Cleveland are Trinitarians. The UPC and Apostolic churches are modalists, “oneness”, “Jesus Only” and most see this doctrine as a condition of salvation. The UPC and Apostolic churches believe in baptismal regeneration by immersion in Jesus name only. All four have personal holiness and pietism as part of their heritage. This is most evident today among the UPC and some apostolic churches where “be ye holy as I am holy” is taken as a command with salvation dependent on it. Some of the older Church of God Cleveland members will still hold to this, and you will see the older sisters observing clothesline doctrines just as the UPC do. But the vast majority of CoG Cleveland no longer hold to this.

The Assembly of God and Church of God Cleveland soteriology would closely resemble that of free-will Baptists. However, they believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second act of grace and the evidence is speaking in other tongues. They do not believe that salvation is dependent on this. The UPC and Apostolic churches are all by themselves with perhaps the most works-based soteriology I am aware of. They do believe that salvation is partly dependent of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Some, but not all, believe that is should occur when one is baptized in Jesus name in accordance with Acts 2:38

 

[Scott1]

It seems to me that they're broadly evangelical, believe in the continuation of the gifts of the spirit and glossolalia and baptism in the Holy Spirit. That much I know.

What that means, theologically is:

communion centered on extrabiblical revelation, e.g. special revelation outside of Scripture, i.e. "tongues" and "interpretation" as an ordinary means of grace

[By comparison, reformed theology is based on sola scriptura.]

and

that the Holy Spirit is insufficient or incomplete (somehow) at the time of salvation and later comes in some sort of superior form that MUST be evidenced by speaking in an unknown tongue. [Charismatics believe it MUST be evidenced by any one of the I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts, not necessarily tongues].

[By comparison, reformed theology is based on the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" being one event that happens, in all its sufficiency, at God's appointed time, the moment of regeneration].

Their communions do not have an accountable confession (doctrine) so many in them do not have much, if any, systematic biblical teaching, and do not know the basic tenets their practice assumes.

 

[Rich Koster]

One thing that really bothers me is the caste system that gets created in "second blessing" congregations. Their dogma creates the haves (tongue speaking) and have nots (non-tongue speaking). They claim that you are disqualified for ministry unless you speak in tongues ( it is printed in the official AoG pamphlets in the rack, in most lobbies). This is totally against one of the main works of the Holy Spirit: making us one, in Christ. It brews division with the caste system.

 

[jwithnell]

At least in the rural south, it appears that unaffiliated pentecostal churches would out number those in a denomination.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

At least in the rural south, it appears that unaffiliated pentecostal churches would out number those in a denomination.

Totally agree. On the way to our duck club, there is the "Free-Will Fire Baptized Holiness Church." I always say I am going to venture in some Wed night, but I think my ESV would get me thrown out before my rear hit the pew.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

At least in the rural south, it appears that unaffiliated pentecostal churches would out number those in a denomination.

Totally agree. On the way to our duck club, there is the "Free-Will Fire Baptized Holiness Church." I always say I am going to venture in some Wed night, but I think my ESV would get me thrown out before my rear hit the pew.

There is actually a church here in North Carolina that is called King James Only Baptist Church. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[J. Dean]

One thing that really bothers me is the caste system that gets created in "second blessing" congregations. Their dogma creates the haves (tongue speaking) and have nots (non-tongue speaking). They claim that you are disqualified for ministry unless you speak in tongues ( it is printed in the official AoG pamphlets in the rack, in most lobbies). This is totally against one of the main works of the Holy Spirit: making us one, in Christ. It brews division with the caste system.

Ultimately we have John Wesley to thank for this, and it's one of the crossover doctrines from Methodism into pentecostalism.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------

By the way, I mentioned this before, but one of the most troubling aspects of the "signs and wonders" movement associated with pentecostalism is that cults like the Mormons have laid claims to such phenomena as well. When you read about Joseph Smith's dedication of the Mormon temple in Ohio, the service has behavior that sounds almost exactly like that of a pentecostal church-tongues, visions, even reports of Smith healing people.

When you start saying "God told me..." you're following a dangerous path toward subjectivity and emotionalism.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

If you Google the film "Holy Ghost People" you can view it free on the internet movie archive. This is a university documentary from the 1960's concerning snake handling Pentacostals. This really opened my eyes to the extremes that some in the charasmatic movement can embrace. It is the most bewildering thing I have ever watched, replete with prophesy, speaking in tounges, accounts of direct, verbal conversations with God, convulsions, dancing in the spirit, and snake handing in the second portion. The preacher ends up getting bitten during his sermon. It is along the lines of Scottsboro, Alabama "signs following" pentacostalism, like in the book "Salvation on Sand Mountain." Watching this did more to convince me of the RPW than most things I have read.

 

[ch0zen]

The great thing about the Pentecostal movement is their churches within their denominations are so diverse that occasionally you get a good one!

I've found that as a result of quit poor teaching that often even their teachers are unclear as to what they believe, or are supposed to believe.

As mentioned by other replies they are typically Arminian. Sorry for the cut and paste, but here re the five articles of the Remonstrants. A well educated and thought throu Pentacostal would typically hold to doctrine pretty close to this.

Of interesting note is the grace and eschatology. Essentially they teach that prior to the worlds creation, God saw who was going to be faithful, and by His grace elected them. Works based salvation right there.

Anyway, have a read

Article I — That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Article II — That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.[1]

 

[kelvin]

i grew up assembly of God and did my undergrad at one of their colleges (where i learned reformed theology, go figure). this is what i can remember from my pentecostal history class,

1 they are a branch of the weslyan/holiness movement of the late 1800s. that group emphasized a second blessing that they associated with sanctification. the idea was God offered you salvation, then he offered you sanctification.
2 around 1900 a group of students associated with a small school run by charles parhman decided that the second blessing had some sort of visible sign associated with it. in their 'study' they decided it speaking in tongues
3 most mainline denominations (rightly) agreed with this and promptly booted out anyone who claimed to speak in tongues
4 at first they banded together rather loosely, but then the assemblies of God was formed in 1917 in hot springs, arkansas.
5 a few years later at one of their general councils some preachers had a 'revelation' and started to rehash centuries old anti-trinitarian thought
6 the ag denounced those men so they went off and started the upc churches
7 there were also some other off shoots from the ag over racial or doctrinal issues thus you have the church of God in Christ, the church of God, etc many of those remain trinitarian
8 then some years later, late 60s early 70s there was the charasmatic movement. this went through the main denominations again but was greeted a little more kindly. from this movement you get a lot of things like vineyard, foursquare, and the non denominationals.

as to theology,
1 since they are an off shoot of the weslyan church they share their soteriology.
2 they hold that the baptism in the Spirit is not a give received at salvation but a second blessing. they also hold a whole different idea as to what baptism in the Spirit is. they do not see it as a washing from sin and indwelling but as some sort of charasmatic event that must happen over and over.
3 most believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism (the ag has actually backed off on this. so have most of the groups that want to appear more 'respectable.').
4 only the anti-trinitarians believe that you have to speak in tongues to be saved.
5 the ag calls their government congregational/presbyterial, which is very confused. local churches are completely autonomous but they have national presbyters that have authority over otherwise sovereign churches.
6 all are credo baptist
7 all are dispensationalists, big big dispensationalists. to suggest anything else is heresy. pick up a dake bible sometime.
8 they are slightly anti-intellectual. it is not as bad as it was when i grew up, but for the most part their pastors have little to no educational requirements.

interesting side note: there is one pentecostal group that IS reformed. sovereign grace ministries is a loose organiztion of churches that emphasize the doctrines of grace.

kelvin
deacon, pca
westminster standards

 

[Scott1]

there is one pentecostal group that IS reformed. sovereign grace ministries is a loose organiztion of churches that emphasize the doctrines of grace.

We could say a communion whose present leadership is intentionally "Calvinist," but leans or is unclear dispensationalist- and has no confession. That does not meet even the most basic definition of reformed.

Charitably, we could say heading there, not there yet.

 

[Jake]

there is one pentecostal group that IS reformed. sovereign grace ministries is a loose organiztion of churches that emphasize the doctrines of grace.

We could say a communion whose present leadership is intentionally "Calvinist," but leans or is unclear dispensationalist- and has no confession. That does not meet even the most basic definition of reformed.

Charitably, we could say heading there, not there yet.

To be fair, reformed was qualified as believing in the Doctrines of Grace in how he used it, which for better or worse, is a common definition.

---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

I have attended many Assemblies of God churches and have found many solid individual church bodies, and despite the statement of faith, there exist pastors who discourage speaking in tongues without an interpreter and I have been to one whose pastor went to the Master's Seminary and had beliefs similar to John MacArthur.

That said, I suppose the denominational structure is very lose and this allows for the diversity, even sometimes not matching the statement of faith. However, I have found that the Assemblies of God churches around my area tend to have many great Christian folks, though more than a bit confused on doctrines sometimes.

I cannot comment on other branches.

 

[Scott1]

To be fair, reformed was qualified as believing in the Doctrines of Grace in how he used it, which for better or worse, is a common definition.

But the term "reformed," for reformed theology, from the Protestant Reformation, which sought to return the church back to the Christianity of the Apostles in Scripture, is more than the doctrines of grace.

To lean "Calvinist" and not even see the connection with covenant theology and the systematic biblical theology of a binding confession of faith is not "reformed."

So, it is not correct to say a communion that leans Calvinist (without confessional accountability even for that) is "reformed." It is "Calvinist," or "Calvinist leaning," or has a "Calvinist soteriology," etc.

And even that charitable basis for the "reformed" faith leaves out a lot many others would add to a basic definition of it- e.g. a "high view of the church," (church discipline), "spiritual view of the Lord's Supper," etc.

But it's not "reformed" any more than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is that without the jelly and the bread.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

I have attended many Assemblies of God churches and have found many solid individual church bodies,

Depends on the definition of "solid."

But this illustrates part of the problem. Without a binding, accountable biblical theology (Confession), it depends upon the thinking of the church leaders at a particular point in time....

And even that is perception, because it cannot really be tested.

who discourage speaking in tongues without an interpreter and I have been to one whose pastor went to the Master's Seminary and had beliefs similar to John MacArthur.

And while Dr MacArthur is commendable in many ways, he's not reformed (he describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist", and does not subscribe to a binding confession).

And it's not the relative frequency of centering corporate worship on speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation as a means of extra-biblical revelation, it's about seeking that at all [in light of the role of Scripture].

Understand, that's not to say there are not Christians, sincere believers in other communions, even in some charismatic/pentecostal ones.

They are just in biblical error, some serious biblical error.

And the more you know of God's Word, the more you are accountable to worship Him in Spirit and Truth, and not misrepresent him or show weakness that it is "okay" because it's not really important. It is, to a Holy God!

And the theology of Scripture is not man centered, or two separate plans of redemption based on ethnicity, or denying the present reality of the Kingdom of God, etc.

 

[John Bunyan]

Is there any specific problem with pentecostals besides "speaking in tongues" (it seems that they are putting less emphasis on this by now) and their unorganized nature? Most problems pointed here are common in other denominations (like methodism).

Also, isn't there anything good in pentecostalism? Seems to me that they're by large the most succesful missionaries out there (in less then a century they're almost as large in numbers as hitoric churches, and a good percentage of new christians appearing out there are pentecostals; also, I can see that they've been better at sharing the gospel in countries in Africa and Asia, for example, and here in latin america as well - in my country, for example, some 70% of all protestants are pentecostal, and before the swedish missionaries from the Assemblies of God arrived here we were only 5% of the population -being some 25-30% now.). Even the historic churches are growing where pentecostals preach.

 

[Zach]

I believe that's because many Pentecostals also are more open to the Prosperity Gospel and other distortions of the truth of the Gospel due to the fact that they rely upon "special revelation" rather than revealed truth in the scriptures. That isn't to say that's the truth for all Pentecostals though and I hope that I am not painting with too broad of a brush.

 

[kelvin]

scott1, yes i suppose that i did use the term reformed charitably, because i am trying to be a bit charitable. perhaps it would have been better to say that they are reform-ing.

mr bunyan, as to your question as to whether or not there is anything good in them: of course there is. there is something good in most churches (sometimes you have to look hard...), but the question is whether or not it can be better. is it better to hold fast to the scriptures or to adhere to some psuedo scriptural doctrine of charismata? and i think that is the best way for you to judge between the diferent pentecostal groups in your country. are they interested in the scriptures or in some kind of showy religion? i think there is room to have good christian fellowship with other groups so long as they do not have destructive doctrines/attitudes. and that is where you are going to have to search the scriptures and pray to see if your local groups are healthy or not.

kelvin
deacon pca
westminster standards

 

[Scott1]

i suppose that i did use the term reformed charitably, because i am trying to be a bit charitable. perhaps it would have been better to say that they are reform-ing.

Communions that are dispensational and have no Confession are not "reformed," even by the least qualified definition.

They may be Calvinist or Calvinist leaning, or have some "reformed" influence.

Charitably, they are brothers in the Lord, broadly evangelical, even "Calvinist," but are not "reformed."

 

[Mushroom]

My experience with pentecostalism would point to the autonomy common to most of their soteriologies that pervades other areas of theology and practice as the key error. Tongues, prophecies, miraculous gifts, etc. all pander to the fallen nature's desire to be in control - to be a god unto themselves. We want power, pentecostalism offers it with a patina of christianity. Really not much different from voodoo or santeria; the taking of a nominally christian (RC) exterior and blending it with notions of ritual magic and the casting of spells to exercise control over one's environment. Say the right prayer and hold the right attitude and you will be embued with power from on high. The real tragedy of it is that many of our brethren get roped into it and walk around in fear rather than the peace that comes from knowing our salvation is not contingent upon our ability to keep it. Yes, they are very successful in their proselytizing, because that autonomy is attractive to fallen man.

 

[Scott1]

Good questions. A few comments below.

Is there any specific problem with pentecostals besides "speaking in tongues" (it seems that they are putting less emphasis on this by now) and their unorganized nature?

Major problems include a man centered view of salvation, dispensationalism, no accountable theology (confession), a low view of the sacraments, a low view of the church, and no church discipline. And there are others before you get to seeking extrabiblical special revelation outside of Scripture, and bifurcating the work of the (infinite) Holy Spirit (were that even possible).

Most problems pointed here are common in other denominations (like methodism).

Yes, they share many errors with other non-reformed denominations, but compound them with things like seeking extra-biblical special revelation. It's why there is such disorder in their communions.

Also, isn't there anything good in pentecostalism?

Yes, it seems certain to me there are some believers in them.

But that isn't the whole story- the question for the believer is are they worshipping God in spirit and in truth- the way a Holy God has revealed through His Word that He will have His creatures worship Him. It's not up to the vanity of man's imagination to determine God. That is offensive to a Holy God.

Seems to me that they're by large the most succesful missionaries out there (in less then a century they're almost as large in numbers as hitoric churches, and a good percentage of new christians appearing out there are pentecostals; also, I can see that they've been better at sharing the gospel in countries in Africa and Asia, for example, and here in latin america as well - in my country, for example, some 70% of all protestants are pentecostal, and before the swedish missionaries from the Assemblies of God arrived here we were only 5% of the population -being some 25-30% now.). Even the historic churches are growing where pentecostals preach.

It's hard to know what the fruits will be. On one level, here in the United States, the charismatic/pentecostal churches swept across the country in the 1970's and 1980's, divided many churches, reduced their numbers, and did not leave them any more "spiritual." Many of the charismatic/pentecostal communions have disappeared.

While some may not agree, I don't think many of us would say the church in the United States is any more spiritual, or stronger than it was a generation ago (before the "charismatic/pentecostal" explosion).

That's not say it was the cause, only a symptom of declining fidelity to the word of God as the basis for faith and practice.

By objective measures there are fewer people going to church, and unheard of immorality (abortion and sexual immorality) being instituted officially by government without much response from the church.

The waves of people who were attracted to great ecstatic experiences and promises seem to have mostly disappeared. The church broadly speaking seems to be less mature, not more spiritual.

Granted, we can't know definitively, but we can know something of the fruits (see Matthew 7).

The Parable of the Sower comes to mind.

 

[John Bunyan]

scott1, yes i suppose that i did use the term reformed charitably, because i am trying to be a bit charitable. perhaps it would have been better to say that they are reform-ing.

mr bunyan, as to your question as to whether or not there is anything good in them: of course there is. there is something good in most churches (sometimes you have to look hard...), but the question is whether or not it can be better. is it better to hold fast to the scriptures or to adhere to some psuedo scriptural doctrine of charismata? and i think that is the best way for you to judge between the diferent pentecostal groups in your country. are they interested in the scriptures or in some kind of showy religion? i think there is room to have good christian fellowship with other groups so long as they do not have destructive doctrines/attitudes. and that is where you are going to have to search the scriptures and pray to see if your local groups are healthy or not.

kelvin
deacon pca
westminster standards

seems to me that most pentecostals here are not foccusing to much on this "speaking in tongues thing". That's probably a major issue when pentecostals are the minority, but since almost everyone here is a pentecostal (between the protestants) they seem to care less and to affirm the belief in "tongues" less (although some minor churches "speak in tongues" a lot, even on their TV programs - there's a lot of those here, in major television networks, not only church ones), although they occasionally preach on this topic (they seem like congregational charismatic methodist churches, actually). There are some weird churches though (one of which is despised by almost all brazilians for it's scandals and syncretism - good to say their membership is of only 2 million, though).

Originally Posted by kelvin View Post
i suppose that i did use the term reformed charitably, because i am trying to be a bit charitable. perhaps it would have been better to say that they are reform-ing.
Communions that are dispensational and have no Confession are not "reformed," even by the least qualified definition.

They may be Calvinist or Calvinist leaning, or have some "reformed" influence.

Charitably, they are brothers in the Lord, broadly evangelical, even "Calvinist," but are not "reformed."

Seems to me that you're using the term reformed in only one of it's meanings, since it's well attested that several churches use this word in their titles, meaning only that they're calvinists - reformed baptists, for example, are reformed for being calvinists, and baptists for, among other things, not acknowledging the authority of confessions, which is a major thing in the history of our denomination.

My experience with pentecostalism would point to the autonomy common to most of their soteriologies that pervades other areas of theology and practice as the key error. Tongues, prophecies, miraculous gifts, etc. all pander to the fallen nature's desire to be in control - to be a god unto themselves. We want power, pentecostalism offers it with a patina of christianity. Really not much different from voodoo or santeria; the taking of a nominally christian (RC) exterior and blending it with notions of ritual magic and the casting of spells to exercise control over one's environment. Say the right prayer and hold the right attitude and you will be embued with power from on high. The real tragedy of it is that many of our brethren get roped into it and walk around in fear rather than the peace that comes from knowing our salvation is not contingent upon our ability to keep it. Yes, they are very successful in their proselytizing, because that autonomy is attractive to fallen man.

Some (a minority) of churches here really look like some of these american-african religions in some of their practices, having the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God been accused of plagiarizing some practices of one of these religions by one of their 'priests'.
The totality of pentecostals here, however, are very active in their practice against the 'demons of this-and-that' (the spirit of avarice, the spirit of indolence, the spirit of gambling and so forth, and they actually call some of these "spirits" by the name of some african-brazilian "deities".


@Scott (to much letters for me to quote): well, I've been thinking of this too, but latter polls have showed that pentecostals have started to grow slower, while the historic churches' membership has grown by 100% in the last 10 years (from about 4 to about 8%). And I'm actually happy that the vast majority (over 85%) of all protestants here are militantly against abortion (some of the leading pro-life voices around here are pastors in the Assemblies of God). We even have a "evangelical parlamentar front" here which fights against abortion, homosexual doctrination in schools and so forth.

 

[Scott1]

Which shows that the Church of Jesus Christ is indeed a catholic (universal) one, and that He will have a people to worship Him according to the way He has commanded in His Word.