Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Bourbon County Historical Markers: Cane Ridge Meeting House
Historical Marker #51 in Bourbon County highlights the history of the Cane Ridge Meeting House and the famous revival of 1801 and its results. Six miles east of Paris on KY 537.
Cane Ridge Meeting House, built in 1791, is a very special place for many reasons. Hardy pioneers, following the advice of Daniel Bone, came to this ridge of cane between two creeks to make their homes and build their church in the county of Kentucky in the state of Virginia. From the surrounding virgin forest, these pioneers cut blue ash logs and built their church 50’ x 30’ without heat or chinking between the logs. There were doors on the east end and the west end with the pulpit and communion table on the north side. The pulpit was approached by several steps so that the preacher looked down on the congregation. He looked up, however, to the gallery where the slaves sat. They entered a high opening on the west end by an outside ladder, which was removed in 1829 with the gallery during a modernizing so that the slaves then sat downstairs with their masters and enjoyed full membership.
During the Great Revival years, beginning in 1799, many revivals took place, but the largest was at Cane Ridge August 7 – 12, 1801. Estimates claimed that 20-30,000 people attended this revival, interested in salvation and socializing. There was a great spirit of freedom left over from the Revolutionary War, and the worshipers threw off their fear of the wrath of God and rejoiced in the love of a forgiving Lord. This freedom of belief, especially in the New Testament, eventually led to the establishment of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Christian Church and the United Church of Christ.
Under the leadership of Barton Warren Stone, the Presbyterian minister at Cane Ridge, the members agreed to pull away from the Presbyterian Church in 1804 and create their church on the Bible alone – no creeds, no Calvinistic doctrine. The denomination grew and joined with a similar movement led by Thomas and Alexander Campbell in 1832.
Revival at Cane Ridge
Friday, August 6, 1801—wagons and carriages bounced along narrow Kentucky roads, kicking up dust and excitement as hundreds of men, women, and children pressed toward Cane Ridge, a church about 20 miles east of Lexington. They hungered to partake in what everyone felt was sure to be an extraordinary “Communion.”
By Saturday, things were extraordinary, and the news electrified this most populous region of the state; people poured in by the thousands. One traveler wrote a Baltimore friend that he was on his way to the “greatest meeting of its kind ever known” and that “religion has got to such a height here that people attend from a great distance; on this occasion I doubt not but there will be 10,000 people.”
He underestimated, but his miscalculation is understandable. Communions (annual three-to-five-day meetings climaxed with the Lord’s Supper) gathered people in the dozens, maybe the hundreds. At this Cane Ridge Communion, though, sometimes 20,000 people swirled about the grounds—watching, praying, preaching, weeping, groaning, falling. Though some stood at the edges and mocked, most left marveling at the wondrous hand of God.
“The Great Revival” lasted about five to seven years, depending on what year you count as its beginning. It is generally held to have begun in the year of our Lord 1800, but some of the local people placed its beginnings even earlier, some placing its origins as far back as 1797. (Early Times In Middle Tennessee, Carr.) As early as 1797, grown men, members of one or another of James McGready’s three little churches, were spending days at a time in the woods, under deep conviction, praying, crying, weeping, and seeking God for an assurance of their personal salvation. In some writings of James McGready’s published in 1837, some twenty years after his death, and appropriately titled The Posthumous Works of James McGready, McGready spoke of an “awakening” among his congregations beginning in 1797, during the Spring following his arrival in Logan County. He goes on to say, “But the year 1800 exceeds all that my eyes ever beheld on earth.” (The Posthumous Works of James McGready, Vol. I. p.ix).
When the revival began, it began without warning. At a meeting at Red River Meeting House in June of 1800, tho some attendees cried and wept, and others fell to the floor under conviction of their sinfulness, and tho there were conversions, it seemed, as the last day of the meetings closed, that there would be no great move of God at that time. Disappointed, James McGready and two ministers who had been assisting him left the building.
A visiting minister from nearby Sumner County, Tennessee, William McGee, looking sorrowfully around, suddenly felt impressed to shout to the people, “Let the Lord God Omnipotent reign in your hearts!” At this, pandemonium broke forth among the congregation. Some of the lost began to scream, others fell to the floor, sometimes writhing, sometimes perfectly still, having swooned, as fainting was called in that day. In modern religious terminology, they had been “slain in the spirit”. (Describing the event years later, McGee said that he felt as if one greater than himself was speaking.) Several members went to McGee and urged him to try to stop what was happening, saying that Presbyterians (this was a Presbyterian congregation) could not allow such goings on. Instead, William McGee went throughout the building, shouting praises to God and encouraging the people to yield themselves wholly to God. Many were changed forever that night. In the words of James McGready, “a mighty effusion of [God’s] Spirit” came upon the people, “and the floor was soon covered with the slain; their screams for mercy pierced the heavens.”
The revivalists of the early 19th Century, men such as Presbyterian Charles Finney, used the “mourner’s bench” or “anxious seat” to encourage members of the audience to truly repent.
History of the Spirit in the Restoration Movement
The Restoration Movement has a surprisingly mixed history in its teachings on the Spirit. There’s Alexander Campbell’s view — and then there’s Barton W. Stone’s view. And they are not the same…
Stone’s view is likely best seen through the lens of the Cane Ridge Revival of 1801. The Revival was a communion meeting. In those days, Kentucky was sparsely settled frontier territory, and there were very few churches and even fewer preachers ordained to offer communion. Many people had gone years without taking communion. According to Peter Cartwright, a minister who was present,
Ministers of almost all denominations flocked in from far and near. The meeting was kept up by night and day. Thousands heard of the mighty work, and came on foot, on horseback, in carriages and wagons. It was supposed that there were in attendance at times during the meeting from twelve to twenty-five thousand people. Hundreds fell prostrate under the mighty power of God, as men slain in battle. It was not unusual for one, two, three, and four to seven preachers to be addressing the listening thousands at the same time from the different stands erected for the purpose. The heavenly fire spread in almost every direction. It was said, by truthful witnesses, that at times more than one thousand persons broke into loud shouting all at once, and that the shouts could be heard for miles around. …
Ten, twenty, and sometimes thirty ministers, of different denominations, would come together and preach night and day, four or five days together; and, indeed, I have known these camp-meetings to last three or four weeks, and great good resulted from them. I have seen more than a hundred sinners fall like dead men under one powerful sermon, and I have seen and heard more than five hundred Christians all shouting aloud the high praises of God at once;
Two astonishing things happened. First, the meeting was simultaneously conducted by Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. Many were impressed with the power of giving up denominational ties and the power of God to save in a setting that many would condemn. Indeed, this caused Stone to doubt the doctrine of election as he’d been taught it.
Second, the “exercises” of passing out and shouting led some to seek a more obvious manifestation of the Spirit. Stone describes the exercises in more detail in his autobiography —
The scene to me was new, and passing strange. It baffled description. Many, very many fell down, as men slain in battle, and continued for hours together in an apparently breathless and motionless state–sometimes for a few moments reviving, and exhibiting symptoms of life by a deep groan, or piercing shriek, or by a prayer for mercy most fervently uttered. After lying thus for hours, they obtained deliverance. The gloomy cloud, which had covered their faces, seemed gradually and visibly to disappear, and hope in smiles brightened into joy–they would rise shouting deliverance, and then would address the surrounding multitude in language truly eloquent and impressive.
After attending to many such cases, my conviction was complete that it was a good work–the work of God; nor has my mind wavered since on the subject. Much did I then see, and much have I since seen, that I considered to be fanaticism; but this should not condemn the work. The Devil has always tried to ape the works of God, to bring them into disrepute. But that cannot be a Satanic work, which brings men to humble confession and forsaking of sin–to solemn prayer–fervent praise and thanksgiving, and to sincere and affectionate exhortations to sinners to repent and go to Jesus the Savior.
Stone describes the “exercises” in some detail —
Sometimes the subject of the jerks would be affected in some one member of the body, and sometimes in the whole system. When the head alone was affected, it would be jerked backward and forward, or from side to side, so quickly that the features of the face could not be distinguished. When the whole system was affected, I have seen the person stand in one place, and jerk backward and forward in quick succession, their head nearly touching the floor behind and before. I have seen some wicked persons thus affected, and all the time cursing the jerks, while they were thrown to the earth with violence. Though so awful to behold, I do not remember than any one of the thousands I have seen ever sustained an injury in body. This was as strange as the exercise itself.
The dancing exercise. This generally began with the jerks, and was peculiar to professors of religion. The subject, after jerking awhile, began to dance, and then the jerks would cease. such dancing was indeed heavenly to the spectators; there was nothing in it like levity, nor calculated to excite levity in the beholders. The smile of heaven shone on the countenance of the subject, and assimilated to angels appeared the whole person. Sometimes the motion was quick and sometimes slow. Thus they continued to move forward and backward in the same track or alley till nature seemed exhausted, and they would fall prostrate on the floor or earth, unless caught by those standing by. While thus exercised, I have heard their solemn praises and prayers ascending to God….
I shall close this chapter with the singing exercise. This is more unaccountable than any thing else I ever saw. The subject in a very happy state of mind would sing most melodiously, not from the mouth or nose, but entirely in the breast, the sounds issuing thence. Such music silenced every thing, and attracted the attention of all. It was most heavenly. None could ever be tired of hearing it. Doctor J. P. Campbell and myself were together at a meeting, and were attending to a pious lady thus exercised, and concluded it to be something surpassing any thing we had known in nature.
Convinced that these exercises were the work of God, Stone continued to follow this pattern of revival preaching —
At our night meeting at Concord, two little girls were struck down under the preaching of the word, and in every respect were exercised as those were in the south of Kentucky, as already described. Their addresses made deep impressions on the congregation. On the next day I returned to Caneridge, and attended my appointment at William Maxwell’s. I soon heard of the good effects of the meeting on the Sunday before. Many were solemnly engaged in seeking salvation, and some had found the Lord, and were rejoicing in him. … The crowd left the house, and hurried to this novel scene. In less than twenty minutes, scores had fallen to the ground–paleness, trembling, and anxiety appeared in all–some attempted to fly from the scene panic stricken, but they either fell, or returned immediately to the crowd, as unable to get away. In the midst of this exercise, an intelligent deist in the neighborhood, stepped up to me, and said, Mr. Stone, I always thought before that you were an honest man; but now I am convinced you are deceiving the people. I viewed him with pity, and mildly spoke a few words to him–immediately he fell as a dead man, and rose no more till he confessed the Savior. The meeting continued on that spot in the open air, till late at night, and many found peace in the Lord.
Stone clearly considered these “exercises” to be from God and to have been effective in bringing many people to Jesus. However, the practice did not continue long after the famous revival. Rather, in Stone’s own preaching, the biggest impact was to cause him to leave both Calvinism and denominationalism, as he saw with his own eyes that people could be saved by the faithful preaching of the gospel and receive the Spirit on the spot.
Robert Borders
They had some wild meetings there!
Varnel Watson
Stephen Williams We’ve discussed Cane Ridge with Jason Strickland before but lets see if we can connect it to Pentecostalism. It was most definitely not Wesleyan
1801 Cane Ridge, KY revival – a true Appalachian religion much alike the early Church of God; many in trans on the floors, some even barking like dogs
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/?p=16124
Stephen Williams
The question is what constitutes Pentecostalism? According to Keith Warrington, many scholars claim that there is such diversity in global Pentecostalism that to try to tie it down doctrinally is difficult to do. He cites Anderson, Hollenweger, Karkkainen, Chan and others who tend to define Pentecostalism in terms of experience, encounter, or spirituality as its essence. So if that broader definition is applied to Cane Ridge, I think is is possible to at least say it was a “pentecostal type” of revival.
Dan Irving
I hold to the hard definition established at the renewal of Tongues as Initial Evidence, as it is both Biblical and was so profoundly communicated at the turn of the century both circumstantially in its miracle of coming and by the mouth of its leaders. For consider this, in every place the classical Pentecostal doctrine is laid aside, there seems to arise confusion, a blending with things worldly/profane, heresy, and delusion.
Robert Borders
I have seen all of these problems among classical Pentecostals as well.
Dan Irving
Even a sound footing can go wrong if it is improperly builded upon. But to start with a poor footing, does not give much hope for the house.
Stephen Williams
Hi Dan, i don’t debate evidential tongues, esp from a classical experience and tradition. My point is that if we take into account global Pentecostalism, not all segments adhere to that strict doctrinal position. Of course, one could then argue that the various expressions globally are not strictly Pentecostal. From reading Allan Anderson’s ” An Introduction to Pentecostalism”, Chilean nor Indian Pentecostals hold strictly to evidential tongues but make room for other manifestations of the Spirit as evidence. And if tongues as evidence of Spirit Baptism is the ONLY thing that defines us, then we ignore other factors such as a unique hermeneutic, understanding and practice of worship, spirituality, or preaching!,
Dan Irving
Stephen Williams I agree there is a danger of making a doctrine (or rather the HOLDING of a doctrine) the issue in the legitimacy of God’s work; that would be error, as well. On the other hand, we have i Tim 4:16 to be mindful of, and which suggests that able ministers have been given protractor and compass as a means of co-laboring with God (i Cor. 3:9) in the interest of a sound spiritual work that does not expose mankind to the grave perils inherent to spiritual malpractice (as is so prevalent today.) I think we can agree that absent the classical Pentecostal teaching our slope becomes very slippery as the winds blow upon us. God poured His Spirit upon Catholics during the 1960s in spite of terribly unsound doctrine and practice, so I can only conclude the principle of election was present and that God made a way for the many. And yet, we have the warning of Isaiah’s prophecy that despite the blessings of God being poured out, “many great houses shall come to ruin.” Protractor and compass!!
Dan Irving
Of course, that is not to say that the pouring forth of God’s Spirit, necessarily requires the manifestation of tongues. THAT, would be a different issue.
Varnel Watson
If I may state my view briefly: ( David Lewayne Porter may go along )
1. Salvation has to be accepted via free will in order for sanctification to even occur
2. Sanctification has to be complete and entire in order of Holy Spirit baptism to even occur in the human vessel
3. Holy Spirit has to occur with the initial evidence in order for any gifts of the Spirit to work later on
4. The gifts must work as a part of God’s plan for restoration of the Creation and human kind. They cannot be used for establishing one’s own kingdom but the Kingdom of God
5. And finally all of the above must be in place within the eschatological hope and expectation of the optimistic paurosia of the Lord for the reason of which each one of the above even begins to occur in the world
Dan Irving
We may receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the mere event of Believing. (Acts 10:44, Gal. 3:2) There is nothing in scripture to suggest “entire” or “full” sanctification (ie. a perfecting) as condition precedent to Pentecost. While I wholeheartedly concur with the Wesleyan doctrine that a future work is promised (as supported in type, in prophecy, and in the apostolic Gospel,) we run amiss when we add conditions to a work of God not established by God’s word.
David Lewayne Porter
Agree with one exception,
#2
Sanctification according to God and His standard, not man’s.
Varnel Watson
Well now Dan there were 10 days of waiting in Jerusalem as well as modern day Pentecost was not restored until the holiness movement and entire sanctification was believed and practiced in the church again
Stephen Williams
Sorry, I received Spirit Baptism apart from Wesleyan entire sanctification.
Varnel Watson
But was it historically present in the church / movement where you got saved?
Stephen Williams
Basically PAOC is AG.
Varnel Watson
Well now AG did not come to the Holy Ghost Baptism without going through holiness revival first. And only in this way it has reached us. The KY revival though puzzles me as I’ve read today some Presbyterians did speak in tongues there 🙂 Guess there’s hope for ol Trump Charles Page Lennie Marx
Stephen Williams
Pentecostalism in Canada began in Toronto. Ellen Hebden was the first to receive Spirit Baptism. Her background was Keswick Holiness as she was mentored by Elizabeth Baxter who had a healing ministry. At the Hebden Mission in Toronto in 1906, she prayed for more power in their ministry for healing and received the baptism with tongues. Interestingly enough, a close reading of their early newsletters suggest that it was believed that sanctification was a prerequisite for SB. In fact, though I grew up in the PAOC, it was common to hear people say that God not fill an unclean vessel!
Charles Page
Not According to Dr Donald Bowdle. He was Keswick Reformed and was informed by the Shorter Westminster Catechism.
Stephen Williams
Charles Page what was not according to Bowdle?
Charles Page
Keswick Reformed theology
Charles Page
According to Bowdle second work was not
Stephen Williams
Charles Page second work of grace didn’t exist or second work was not…??? Not sure I follow.
Charles Page
Bowdle didn’t believe in COG sanctification subsequent to the new birth
Charles Page
He told me personally he preferred AOG salvation bbelief
Stephen Williams
Charles Page sure, of course, he came from a Reformed view. William Durham who taught the Finished Work was Baptist in background not Wesleyan. So it makes sense that a Reformed Keswick would prefer the AG position.
Charles Page
Troy, you assume all that is Spirit filled is Bible based however most if not almost all is experientially based.
Dan Irving
When the Gentiles first received the Holy Spirit, Peter remarked God had “cleansed their hearts through faith” (ie. a sanctifying work preceding the BHS) This is entirely consistent with traditional holiness teaching which acknowledges this principle of Initial Regeneration as a separate principle to that of the “Second Definite Work.” Many holiness Pentecostals seem to have forgotten this distinction and presumed they had to experience the “Second Definite Work” in order to receive the Holy Spirit as a “Third Blessing.” Oddly, this mis-assumption was not even necessary pursuant traditional teaching (ie. given Peter’s words, above.) Even many reknown (non-Penteocostal) holiness teachers (such as Oswald Chambers) were teaching this erroneous view of the baptism. Living in California, where the Foursquare and AOG dominate, I wasn’t even aware it was still common for modern Pentecostals to adhere to the Pentecostal version of the Second Work. (out here, the doctrine is rare, held, as far as I know, only by the Apostolic Faith sect founded by Ms. Crawford.)
Varnel Watson
Stephen Williams The Pentecostal movement is a charismatic faith characterized by expressions of the Holy Spirit through its members. The Canadian movement does, however, have some unique features. It began with EVANGELICAL Christians who believed that the world was ripe for a spiritual revival and organized prayer services. Many early Pentecostals were from HOLINESS CHURCHES and held that the faithful must be sanctified by the Holy Spirit after they had been saved. After learning that a revival had begun under W.J. Seymour in Los Angeles, some Canadian evangelicals travelled there to participate. The first report on 9 April 1906 emphasized the signs of the revival, especially the initial sign of speaking in other languages when the believer had been filled with the Spirit. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pentecostal-movement/
This account here too seems about right eh?
https://books.google.com/books?id=N1c_3TggbrcC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=who+first+preached+pentecost+in+canada&source=bl&ots=Xm4JPwVLFG&sig=CSJDmhZuJG_eSwEjAzBPzeI_EP0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg3-j7rNnQAhVCSyYKHdzmDnsQ6AEIQzAI#v=onepage&q=who%20first%20preached%20pentecost%20in%20canada&f=false
Stephen Williams
William Sloos’ paper on in Pneuma on James and Ellen Hebden, plus reading her testimony in the first edition of The Promise would give a much better account of Pentecostal beginnings in Canada.
Charles Page
Is faithfulness acquired through sanctification or regeneration?
Street Preacherz
Is “acquired” the right word? Seems odd that’s all. But I suppose it works. Became faithful to God as a result of… His direct intervention His personal favor and kind disposition to me? Therefore we are loyal and faithful to him and his cause? As He gives us light to walk in light? Does that help? Regeneration and sanctification aren’t they different matters? I’m a little simple so be patient.
Charles Page
My implied answer is sanctification and not regeneration
Yes they are different and separate
Varnel Watson
Dont Keswick theology teach that the Christian life consists of justification and sanctification, both of which happen at different times in the life of the believer. After salvation one must have another encounter with the Spirit; otherwise, he or she will not progress into holiness or the “deeper” things of God. This second encounter with the Spirit, in Keswick terminology, is called “entire sanctification,” “the second blessing,” or “the second touch.” This emphasis on a second, post-salvation experience corresponds with the Pentecostal idea of the “baptism” of the Spirit. Some Keswick teachers would even say that sinless perfection is possible after one receives the “second blessing.” Charles Page Stephen Williams
Stephen Williams
Keswick entire sanctification was not so much an eradication of sinful desire, but power for service.
Dan Irving
While I’m not entirely clear on the Keswick theology generally, I am a deep admirer of Andrew Murray, who was part of that movement. He corrected the common holiness miss-assumption that the 2nd Work involved an “Eradication” of sinful desire, teaching rather, that its purpose was to give the believer the victory over that desire through a greater presence of the Spirit of Christ in the man, rather, MORTIFYING, the flesh’s power to rule. I found his teachings vital during my own spiritual crisis, and I still do.
Stephen Williams
For Wesleyan perfectionism, exercise of will is critical for achieving perfection; Keswick, surrender of one’s self and will, but holiness comes through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, not the work of the individual.
Dan Irving
Stephen Williams The individual certainly has no power to go it alone. But the individual is not passive. Or, How do you interpret Paul’s command that we are to mortify our members from sin? (Col. 3:5, Rom. 8:13)?
Stephen Williams
Dan Irving perhaps it is not Wesleyan vs Keswick but a synthesis if we appeal to the Scriptures!
Dan Irving
Indeed, the sword of the Lord, and of Gideon.
Stephen Williams
Oberlin Perfectionists (Reformed) saw a second Work of consecration in service to Christ.
Charles Page
My College professor was a firm Keswick Reformed following the Shorter Westminster Catechism
His words to me were If you follow SWC you won’t go wrong
He was not Wesleyan
Varnel Watson
Charles Page That was long time ago right? Things may have changed since then a bit Timothy Carter
Varnel Watson
Dan Irving Stephen Williams Robert Borders Can we then say that namely because Cain Ridge revival was reformed and not Wesleyan holiness, they did not experience the baptism with the Holy Ghost?
Dan Irving
There seems little factual distinction between Cain Ridge and the first Great Awakening in the colonies and in Europe (which preceded any reformed vs. Wesleyan distinction.) From the historical record, the 1st & 2nd Awakenings and their phenomenon seemed distinctive only as to intensity rather than type. I know of no revelation or peculiar doctrinal thrust at Cain Ridge (as occurred within other moves of God,) therefore, I perceive Cain Ridge (in terms of its relevance to restorative truth/experience) as a carrying forth of those evangelical truths arising from the Great Awakening, several decades earlier. God performed His circumcision upon men’s hearts prior to the day of Pentecost, and he seems to have been performing this operation prior to the Pentecostal renewal of the 20th Century.
Varnel Watson
And I’ve read before that it was the Cain Ridge unexplanatory experiences of 1796 and forward were influenced by the legacy of John Wesley who has just passed in London in 1791. And much similarly the revival awakening was the concept that lay at the heart of Irving’s yearnings for primitive simplicity as detects in the life of his church in the late I820s
Dan Irving
Wesleyan holiness was the providential cradle for the restoration of Pentecost. We should understand why that was . . . . and, consider why (rightly or wrongly) it was set aside.
Stephen Williams
Dan Irving when you say the restoration of “Pentecost”, how do you define it?
Varnel Watson
Well Stephen Williams great discussion anyway. Thanks for bringing it to attention. And it is also some sort of anniversary too since 1796
Dan Irving
Stephen Williams Classically. ie. wherein a definite baptism was identifiable in the same way it was identifiable in the primitive church.
Stephen Williams
Dan Irving ok, so if Wesleyan Holiness was the providential cradle, what do we do with the Moravian revival under Count Zinzendorf in 1727 where there were people who spoke in tongues, or the the Irvingite movement in the 1830’s? Though Irving may have had a wonky Christology on one hand, he did see tongues as the “standing sign” one has received the Spirit and understood Jesus as anointed by the Spirit from a Lucan perspective. Where is the Wesleyan connection in these two instances? Please note, this does not mean that Western Pentecostalism did not emerge from the late 19th c Holiness movement- that is fact, but what I am suggesting is that tongues and other charismata is not exclusive to the period turn of the 20th c in North America. I believe when it comes to classical Pentecostalism, the significance of Spirit Baptism can only be rightly understood in the context of its eschatological beliefs and expectations.
Dan Irving
Stephen Williams Indeed, Pentecost did come to the Moravians. But consider this: Wesley took his defining doctrine from the Moravians, as I recall. So then, that might not be a meaningful distinction. As to the Irvingites, Pentecost did not come to them, they went to where Pentecost was. They represent no originating place of God’s work. But I do see a dire point of clarification is needed, as “Wesleyanism” is nothing more than men and doctrine. Better stated, “The providential cradle of Pentecost is the Circumcision of the Spirit.” (ie. the doctrine and experience Wesley taught, and that substantiated by the prophets.) (see Prov. 1:23)
Varnel Watson
So why did they not get to speaking in tongues? Charles Page Easy Dan Irving Terry Wiles They never looked for / experienced entire sanctification http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/a-motion-for-a-pentecostal-emotion/
Dan Irving
Yet, the vast majority of the Spirit-baptized of the 20th century (from everything I’ve read) were not looking for “entire sanctification,” or claimed to any such experience.
Varnel Watson
Were they looking for holiness and perfection? It’s the same
Dan Irving
I have observed the truer the Gospel message and the lifting up of the Cross, the more likelihood of seeing the BHS with evidence of tongues. As the message is more devoid of the Cross, or tainted by false teaching, you tend to get manifestations other-than what is traditionally Pentecostal. I think the issue is more-so, The CROSS, than a particular expectation, even if rightly held.
Dan Irving
In stating this, I might seem to contradict the discussion I’m having with Stephen (above). But there is a mystery therein, which I believe is demonstrated in the two sticks of Ezekiel 37.
Varnel Watson
Dan perhaps we’ve been looking at the wrong majority?
Dan Irving
How do you mean?
Varnel Watson
Pentecostalism is much more than Western / American phenomenon. So when you say majority, which majority? The majority modern day Pentecostals live far away from the West
Dan Irving
And what experience are THEY having?
Stephen Williams
Troy Day very true. Some say 90% live outside of North America.
Lennie Marx
Troy because when Acts 2:38 is altered the repented sinner is robed from the promise Jesus gave that should follow those who are immersed in the unaltered form of Acts 2:38 so they end up bugging G-d to correct the error of the preacher who baptized them in properly! Any questions?
David Lewayne Porter
Lennie
Do you follow Peter’s example only or the one he was following, Jesus?
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
By the way, Acts 2:38;
We do not see where those baptized by Peter and the disciples in Acts 2 after verse 38 received the Holy Ghost baptism as referenced at the beginning of the chapter.
The wonders and signs were done by the apostles, not the new converts (according to the text).
Charles Page
baptism in order to receive forgiveness or because one has been forgiven. I believe the former!
Lennie Marx
Jesus sent the Apostles with instructions and sent them to Jerusalem to preach the remission of sin for individuals this lead to the application of the unaltered form of Acts 2:38! Matthew 28:19 is to be preached to the nations which will not be applied until after The translation of the Saints! Matthew in no way can be applied for the remission of sins! See chart
Charles Page
You believe in regeneration by adult immersion? baptismal regeneration?
Lennie Marx
Charles I believe in the remission of sin through the application of Acts 2:38 in the unaltered form as Jesus instructed the Apostle’s!
David Lewayne Porter
So Lennie Marx What is
your
unaltered form of Acts 2:38?
Lennie Marx
David the unaltered form must be pronounced exactly as it is written if altered in anyway or taken out even one word It is a altered form!
David Lewayne Porter
Lennie Marx
Acts 2:38;
We do not see where those baptized by Peter and the disciples in Acts 2 after verse 38 received the Holy Ghost baptism as referenced at the beginning of the chapter with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
(according to the text).
You sound like Jesus only (United Pentecostal).
Where did Jesus say it was His name only?
Paul must have missed it and gotten confused..
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
But so it is in context,
1 Corinthians 1:12-16
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Varnel Watson
David Lewayne Porter Dont about Lennie but all examples of Spirit baptisms in Acts seems to have bugged God for a few days until entire sanctification took place and they could receive the Holy Ghost without measure
Lennie Marx
Troy ?!
David Lewayne Porter
I agree that some new converts need time to come to grips with the fact that the Holy Ghost baptism is for them (and maybe clear some personal things up).
But I have known many that were saved and Holy Ghost baptized almost instantly, almost at the same time.
Varnel Watson
No such example in the Bible. There was always time between Stephen Williams Dan Irving Terry Wiles RT Kenneth Tanner Western theologians can no longer do theology for the whole church—and so for their respective churches also—if they are not willing to do the meditative work to know the Eastern fathers as Christian teachers on whom they depend to experience God and not as comparative religion. Henry Volk
Dan Irving
The testimony of the many (myself included) is that the baptism was received merely by the asking in faith. Or, are you saying mere “believing” is insufficient? Troy, what I think you’re asserting, is, in practicality, a denial of the Wesleyan doctrine, although you might not perceive it so.
Varnel Watson
No I am not saying that. I am simply pointing to each HS baptism in Acts seeing the pattern of waiting for the Spirit http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-holy-spirit-moves-among-his-children-regardless-of-doctrine/
Dan Irving
It appears to me both sides in the great 1911 debate (2nd Workers and Finished Workers) cut the Wesleyan teaching (ie. of a “Second Definite Work”) off at the ankles. The FWC crowed (in rightly rejecting the Pentecostal version of the 2nd Work) went too far, rejecting holiness teaching altogether (not limiting their objection to the faulty Pentecostal “3rd Blessing” dogma.) But the Second Workers, by insisting the “2nd Work” must precede the BHS, placed their followers in presumption they must have already received the experience (ie. if they had received the Holy Spirit.) So then, which is the greater error? Wesley’s detractors? or, Wesley’s “helpers?”
Varnel Watson
Tony Conger I got a 1911 that stops lots of debating too 🙂