Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Библията Тв | PentecostalTheology.com
Abandoning your roots VS rethinking your theology
If you are going to come against one’s ecclesial convictions like
Link does against Speaking in tongues (vs Baptist)
Henry does against Pentecostal theology (vs Reforfmed)
Peter against Church leadership
and Charles against Church’s historical merits
or others against the #Trinity…
you best be ready to enter into some heated discussions on the topic of your choice. Especially when you yourself once supported the views you are now denying. Is this simply rethinking your theology or abandoning your roots Christopher? And if so, where do we draw the line to entertain or to ignore such personal quests in this group? Alan John
Peter A Vandever [10/19/2015 6:57 PM]
I never supported….dicators in the name of Jesus 🙂
Charles Page [10/19/2015 6:58 PM]
I did when I was an ordained minister in the cOg!!!
Henry Volk [10/19/2015 6:59 PM]
So, you’re wanting to spark some debates eh? I’m game. I’ll think of something to ignite some discussion.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 7:02 PM]
Peter A Vandever you supported MANY if not MOST you gave offerings to from Tulsa, the Florida revivals, Kansas City all the way to Toronto Airport church (probably even ol’ Swaggart too 🙂
Charles Page [10/19/2015 7:05 PM]
Aren’t all the Pentecostal denominational divisions emanating from Tellico Plains equally legitimate? as we studied at AmWay University they all represent minority religious views. They are not cults but minority religions.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 7:08 PM]
yeah but not according to W. Phillips’s book on Tomlinson’s work
Charles Page [10/19/2015 7:10 PM]
I could be convinced that Wade is correct! If an intellectual decision has to be made.
Link Hudson [10/19/2015 7:10 PM]
I’m very willing to abandon denominational roots in favor of obeying and following the Lord. But my belief that we are supposed to interpret tongues in church is very much a part of my Pentecostal upbringing in the A/G, and also my general Pentecostal church experience. I think the ‘Holiness’ wing of Bible belt Pentecostals tend to be more into speaking in tongues en masse.
The Assemblies of God was the biggest Pentecostal denomination in the world the last I checked. It’s kind of a ‘big tent’ denomination and not too centralized, so I expect variations of practice on the interpretation of tongues. I’d rather be in a church meeting with one genuine message in tongues and one genuine interpretation than with everyone in the service speaking in tongues and no one interpreting to edify others. What’s the point of doing it if you don’t edify others? You can pray in tongues and edify yourself at home.
My views on church leadership have been ‘rethunk’ and don’t come mostly from Pentecostal tradition. I see plural eldership in the Bible and regular believers using their gifts to edify each other. I don’t see the clergy-centered, sermon centered spectator church tradition as well rooted in scripture. That wasn’t the way it was at Azusa Street, anyway. Azusa Street was a move toward believers operating in their gifts and toward Biblical church meetings, but Pentecostalism quickly hybridized that with Evangelical and Fundamentalist traditions.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 7:23 PM]
Link, pls dont misunderstand so the discussion stays on track. The question is not denominations (of which your view is obvious) but personal identity roots AND when the quest for such turns to simply abandoning who you are and where you come from…
Charles Page [10/19/2015 7:25 PM]
Pentecostalism quickly hybridized that with Evangelical and Fundamentalist traditions. wooooo!!! I am ex-CoG, however I am not ex-Pentecostal. Once you are Pentecostal you are always Pentecostal.
Link Hudson [10/19/2015 8:04 PM]
Charles Page, that last statement sounds Baptist to me. Roots wise, I don’t identify with the Baptist denomination. My thinking on a number of church-related issues is more ‘house church’ if you had to label it as something other than Pentecostal.
But these things aren’t important. I am a citizen of a city whose builder and maker is God.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 8:07 PM]
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit… (Hebrews 6)
Link Hudson [10/19/2015 8:14 PM]
John Kissinger Sharing in the Holy Spirit and having a heritage in the Pentecostal movement aren’t exactly the same thing.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 8:16 PM]
But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned (Hebrews 6:8)
Link Hudson [10/19/2015 8:22 PM]
John Kissinger I find the tendency of many, many people to stick with their church heritage even when it flatly contradicts the Bible to be rather irritating. It’s hard for me to relate to. I am not just talking about Pentecostals either, of course.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 8:23 PM]
Are you saying that speaking in tongues contradicts the Bible?
Link Hudson [10/19/2015 8:31 PM]
John Kissinger Who are you talking to? What are you talking about? It is possible to speak in tongues contrary to the way the Bible teaches us to do so. I will assume you are responding to my last comment, though it doesn’t seem to be a question that follows from what I said. If that were not the case, then Paul would not have corrected the way the Corinthians handled speaking in tongues.
My comment was in response to the idea of loosing connection with one’s ‘roots.’ For me, what the Bible teaches is more important than sticking with one’s roots when it comes to issues of doctrine and practice.
John Kissinger [10/19/2015 8:35 PM]
Stay on track Link It’s too early in the discussion for red herrings: Should we ignore personal quests for rethinking theology when they border abandoning your roots and faith ?
Link Hudson [10/19/2015 8:36 PM]
John Kissinger It’s on track with your comments about abandoning roots versus rethinking your theology and your comments about it. I don’t see how some of your comments are on track with that, but maybe we aren’t on the same wavelength on this thread.
John Ruffle [10/20/2015 1:29 AM]
This is a very important question. When I hit 50, I went through a 10-year re-thinking process tgat has led me to where I am today. Yet, not oma single step did I take isolation even though it was an intensely personal inner journey.
It began by questioning what i saw not being questioned because pastors don’t like their control paradigms being challenged. But itvwas also always a dialogue I sought out with other wiser Christians. Then at the same time came struggling, wrestling prayer. It was not easy but it was incredibly rewarding. It has cost me dearly – it has been on the other hand, like a personal revival.
To those who are going through a period of journey of whatever sort, I can only suggest that it is vital to remain open and teachable; humility of heart is EVERYTHING or all our theology becomes NOTHING.
The 2nd thing is, grasp what you are sensing; submit your soul to God daily and DO NOT try to teach what God shows you – yet. Instead, keep a journal. Talk to your journal and God.
Finally, remember that God treats us as individuals. Don’t try to make everyone see it your way. Don’t do anything to make your brother (or sister) stumble. Let love reign in our hearts. Amen. “Abandoning your roots VS rethinking your theology
If you are going to come against one’s ecclesial convictions like you best be ready to enter into some heated discussions on the topic of your choice. Especially when you yourself once supported the views you are now denying. Is this simply rethinking your theology or abandoning your roots Christopher? And if so, where do we draw the line to entertain or to ignore such personal quests in this group? Alan John”
Some of the wisest among us in the wider Body of Christ are those whose personal journey took them beyond their denominational, geographic or cultural walls. Those whose inner journey of fellowship and faith was more important than allegiance to a movement, or public expectations.
Mark Tague [10/20/2015 8:21 AM]
From time to time in our hopefully ever growing, ever maturing walk of faith, we come across scripture that challenge our roots, theology, and doctrine. At these moments we either change our minds a bit or we can twist the scriptures to fit our beloved doctrines. I’ll not force you to grow if you choose to stay there in your misunderstandings, but be careful about attacking people who follow scripture rather than traditions. The religious elite killed Jesus for abandoning roots and rethinking theology. You are in a dangerous place my friend.
John Kissinger [10/20/2015 8:29 AM]
Correction: The religious elite killed Jesus for renewing and reminding them of the roots they have abandoned and for challenging them to rethinking their theology and praxis according to Him (the Word)…
Varnel Watson
Something for Christians to consider and think about in this election season …
Robert Borders
Theology can be evolving without having strong roots. The Holy Spirit can lead us into truth.
Varnel Watson
Unfortunately the trend today is abandoning faith roots without much Theology evolving – and more often even without any Theology at all
Robert Borders
My biggest evolution in process relates to ecclesiology and eschetology.
Varnel Watson
Hope you are not NAR and Kingdom now
Robert Borders
There are many different views within NAR which I am not involved with. Peter Wagner died two days ago and will be sadly missed by the Body of Christ even if not part of the NAR. Peter is a good example of how one’s theology can change over a lifetime based upon research and study as well as personal experience.
Varnel Watson
Yes you are right brother
Varnel Watson
Jim Price I once asked this question in the group for further consideration and boy did I ever regret asking it
BUT its true
People abandon their faith nowadays is quite common
If you are going to come against one’s ecclesial convictions like
– Speaking in tongues (vs Baptist)
– Pentecostal theology (vs Reforfmed)
– against orginized Church leadership
– against Church’s historical merits
– or others against the #Trinity…
you best be ready to enter into some heated discussions on the topic of your choice. Especially when you yourself once supported the views you are now denying. IMHO Hebrew roots is exactly one of these Here is why http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/back-to-the-basics-hebrew-roots-for-separation-unto-the-lord-sanctified-and-set-apart-for-him/
Jim Price
I just read ” Back to basics ” and find the thoughts there to match my own.
Varnel Watson
Some find them to match own other too much to own 🙂 Joseph D. Absher In other words whether it included virtually the whole ‘Book of the Law of Moses’, or simply a portion of it. Our view, which is confirmed by 2 Kings 23:25, is that the whole Book of the Law of Moses was found, even though initial concentration was on one of the scrolls, the one brought by Hilkiah to Shaphan. In spite of the fact that the majority of scholars see The Book of the Law as being simply a portion of Deuteronomy, (although with a multitude of related theories and datings connected with that idea), that must in our view be seen as very unlikely for a number of reasons
Joseph D. Absher
Galatians 3:24 KJV — Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ten was enough for me. Some people are slow I guess.
Varnel Watson
Joe Absher one of the first great discussions in this group – still valid today Andrew you may find it interesting
Joe Absher
I never had a problem with the big stuff. The little stuff I left alone.
Varnel Watson
Tell us what the little stuff is? Joe Absher
Joe Absher
The rain falls on the just and on the unjust. Why does one man live and another man die. One man finds mercy the other perishes. He’s no better and maybe he’s worse. But God has mercy. One man has everything but God. The other man all he has is faith in God. I don’t know why people don’t believe in God. Or hate God. I never had that problem. I always knew if I died in sin it wasn’t God fault.
I never experienced some of the theology problems like in this group. Too dumb probably. Let God be true. It is he that hath made us and not we ourselves. He knows it all. And he is good. He’s holy and just but he’s good. No body gets treated unfairly by God. He’ll work with you right up to the very end. A lot of hard questionns in the life. Can you know God. The Bible says so. Sometimes he tells you something, usually it’s a faith walk but we will know for sure one day. And by then it may not even matter.Keep Jesus name sweet and holy and strong. Know that first and love and the power of grace. There’s lots of lists of doctrins but there’s only one Saviour. His name is Jesus.
Varnel Watson
there is a FINE line Charles Page Philip Williams http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/you-may-be-bapticostal-if-toward-a-pentecostal-definition-of-theologia-bapticostalis/
Link Hudson
Pentecostals were originally restorationists. They wanted to restore the church to Biblical practice and doctrine. But did some Pentecostals–generations later– have more of a mindset of preserving tradition?
Historically Israel had certainly periods of restorationism. Josiah started implementing parts of the Torah after the book had and Israel had strayed from following it. Ezra was a restorationists.
The Protestant movement was originally interested in returning to biblical practice and doctrine. But look at how much some if the traditional Protestants are into preserving their confessions and traditions.
But we see the same thing with Pentecostals. The first generation was so interested in restoration of Biblical truth and practice and many still are.
But we also see some have a traditionalist mindset. For example there are Pentecostals–generations who seem married to the tradition of the one-man or senior pastorate system- even when you show them the plurality of elders in scripture. They may insist on the order (or disorder) regarding speaking in tongues they have seen in their niche of Pentecostalism and try to interpret Paul’s words as not applying to their situation. They may reject the idea of meeting for mutual edification and insist on the pulpit-pew-sermon tradition even when shown scripture. Or they aren’t open on the topic of considering eschatological concepts if they contradict the exchatology most American Pentecostals settled into after a generation or so.
I understand that if we are on a little boat on the ocean we want to put some weight on another boat and try it before switching boats. We may need time to consider new ideas. But rejecting ideas because they do not fit with tradition concerns me. Rejecting an idea because it isn’t traditionally Pentecostal enough is a problem. The issue is whether it is true. We should be concerned with whether doctrine is Biblical not whether it is Pentecostal enough.
Calling an idea ‘Bapticostal’ to dismiss it as opposed to considering its Biblical merit could be a symptom of having a traditionalist mindset in a Pentesostal setting.
Tyler Lee Price
Lol if you’re wanting to spark some debate, im pretty sure I can make almost half this group hate me because of my view on tongues ??
Varnel Watson
Pentecostals were originally restorationists. – do you agree with that Charles Page The Lost Link?
Charles Page
Troy Day they were restorationist of a sort
Kinda like Alexander Campbell fifty years earlier
Link Hudson
Not that restoration movement.
Varnel Watson
meaning NO restoration movement at all
RichardAnna Boyce
will loyalty to denominational roots earn us rewards in the Millennium? Or asking Holy Spirit to interpret Bible for us, without any denominational commentaries or bias?
Varnel Watson
noted this long time ago Philip Williams Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Daniel J Hesse
Asking for wisdom and understanding?