Pentecostals and Charismatics: Their Differences and Similarities

[Spirit of Pentecost]

To start off my post here, I am not intending on starting any kind of argument here. I am simply trying to start a discussion for self-proclaimed Pentecostals and Charismatics to discuss how their movements/teachings are similar and dissimilar.

From general Internet information, I have gathered that both the Pentecostal and Charismatic are fairly knew (or, at least when in comparison to other Christianity movements, anyhow).

Pentecostalism --- a renewal movement within Protestant Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit

Charismatics (Charismatic Christianity) --- a form of Christianity that emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, and modern-day miracles as an everyday part of a believer's life.

I realize that these definitions may not be 100-percent precise. And yes I do know that their are several movements that consider themselves "Pentecostal" or "Charismatic", but that don't generally share many fundamentalist beliefs common within the two movements.

As a Pentecostal, I have been interested in finding just what do the Pentecostals and Charismatics have common. As I understand, they are both Full Gospel churches by default, and that their roots are generally traced back to the 1906 Asuza Street Revival. They each encourage their followers to seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit, although their teachings on the "initial evidence" of Spirit baptism is not quite the same.

Should the terms Pentecostal and Charismatic be used interchangeably? Are churches that preach and practice the movement of the Holy Spirit within their services both Pentecostal and Charismatic by default?

Again, I am not trying to start any kind of fuss or argument here. I am simply wanting to kick-start a discussion about the differences and similarities between the ever-growing Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

 

[Radrook]

You can be a charismatic without being a Pentecostal.
You can't be a Pentecostal without being a Charismatic.

 

[Ken Behrens]

A lot depends who you talk to. Catholics (and there are many of those) use the words interchangeably. I think the technical distinction is that charismatic is the behavior (tongues, prophecy, healing etc.), so charismatics are any who believe in, study, encourage and practice that behavior. Pentecostals are members of a denomination that exists to further the doctrine that charismatic potential has been restored to the Body of Christ, and thus the behavior ought to be practiced, studied, and encouraged.. Thus as Radrook said, you can be Charismatic and not be Pentecostal, but not the other way around.

 

[jesse67]

Ive been to both kinds. my impression is that Pentecostals are more into doctrine than charismatics. Charismatics are looser when it comes to doctrine than Pentecostals, in my opinion. Example, Pentecostals believe tongues is the sign of the baptism of the holy spirit. charismatics , from my exposure to them, don't associate tongues directly as a sign of the baptism of the holy spirit, and one charismatic church I went to thought everyone was baptized in the holy spirit and there was no need for water baptism. that would never float in any Pentecostal church.

 

[Dave-W]

my impression is that Pentecostals are more into doctrine than charismatics.

My understanding is exactly the opposite. I have found much more solid doctrine from charismatics than from classical pentecostals. In fact, the pentecostal church I attended for most of high school (in the Full Gospel Assembly denom) the pastor was illiterate. He seemed to have a special gift from the Holy Spirit that enabled him to read the bible; but he could read nothing else. He did not even have a grade school education.

However in the charismatic spectrum, I have encountered people like Derek Prince (double king scholar from Eaton and Cambridge), Dan Juster ThD and Z. Brad Long ThD. They each have done extensive doctrinal works and teachings.

One point however is the wider umbrella of Charismatic thought. Classical Pentecostalism came right out of the Wesleyan Holiness movement of the 1800s. So doctrinally they are very similar. In charismatic circles however, there are also doctrinal streams rooted in Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Messianic Judaism, etc.

 

[Dave-W]

Example, Pentecostals believe tongues is the sign of the baptism of the holy spirit. charismatics , from my exposure to them, don't associate tongues directly as a sign of the baptism of the holy spirit,

From Dr Long I read something that really changed my own beliefs on this. This may explain why certain charismatics disagree.

Long's writings were based on the writings of R A Torrey, a Presbyterian missionary. He noticed a distinction in scripture (which is actually MORE evident in the original Hebrew and Greek texts) between "Spirit Upon" and "Spirit Within." And all thru both testaments it is consistent: Spirit Within is for godly character, wisdom and understanding (including in the NT New Birth); while Spirit Upon was for supernatural signs and wonders and had little to do with internal character, or even being saved. Tongues is a function of "Spirit Upon." So is the Baptism in the Spirit. However, in light of the passage of Joel 2 that Peter quotes in Acts 2, the sign of the baptism was NOT tongues, rather it was PROPHECY.

Acts 2.14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;​

No mention of tongues even though that was actually just then happening.

 

[Dave-W]

one charismatic church I went to thought everyone was baptized in the holy spirit and there was no need for water baptism. that would never float in any Pentecostal church.

Have you ever read Derek Prince's teachings on water baptism? (part of his Foundation Series)

there is a similar error about water baptism in some Baptist groups. (Ironic eh?)

 

[jesse67]

From Dr Long I read something that really changed my own beliefs on this. This may explain why certain charismatics disagree.

Long's writings were based on the writings of R A Torrey, a Presbyterian missionary. He noticed a distinction in scripture (which is actually MORE evident in the original Hebrew and Greek texts) between "Spirit Upon" and "Spirit Within." And all thru both testaments it is consistent: Spirit Within is for godly character, wisdom and understanding (including in the NT New Birth); while Spirit Upon was for supernatural signs and wonders and had little to do with internal character, or even being saved. Tongues is a function of "Spirit Upon." So is the Baptism in the Spirit. However, in light of the passage of Joel 2 that Peter quotes in Acts 2, the sign of the baptism was NOT tongues, rather it was PROPHECY.

Acts 2.14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;​

No mention of tongues even though that was actually just then happening.

1 cor. 14.22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

act 2.4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2.33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

see and hear, they heard them speak in tongues which was the promise of the father which was the baptism of the Holy spirit. which is the only sign given to the unsaved.

Spirit upon and spirit within. John 14:17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The spirit dwelt with the apostles before the day of pentecost, and Jesus prophesied that the hOly spirit would be in them , referring to the day of pentecost. I see spirit upon the same as the spirit with, and spirit in the same as the spirit within.

 

[jesse67]

My understanding is exactly the opposite. I have found much more solid doctrine from charismatics than from classical pentecostals. In fact, the pentecostal church I attended for most of high school (in the Full Gospel Assembly denom) the pastor was illiterate. He seemed to have a special gift from the Holy Spirit that enabled him to read the bible; but he could read nothing else. He did not even have a grade school education.

However in the charismatic spectrum, I have encountered people like Derek Prince (double king scholar from Eaton and Cambridge), Dan Juster ThD and Z. Brad Long ThD. They each have done extensive doctrinal works and teachings.

One point however is the wider umbrella of Charismatic thought. Classical Pentecostalism came right out of the Wesleyan Holiness movement of the 1800s. So doctrinally they are very similar. In charismatic circles however, there are also doctrinal streams rooted in Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Messianic Judaism, etc.

Actually , my impression is that pentecostals are more careful in aligning their doctrine with scripture than charismatics are. My impression was that charismatics were more sloppy when it comes to doctrine than Pentecostals are. Interesting that you see it just the opposite. Probably everyone things the other fella is sloppier than they are.

 

[quietbloke]

Removed

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Moving thread to Spirit Filled /Charismatic Forum as per the respective SOPs

 

[Dave-W]

Interesting that you see it just the opposite. Probably everyone things the other fella is sloppier than they are.

Actually, I came to that conclusion as a classical pentecostal. I came across people like Derek Prince who was VERY interested in doctrinal soundness. So I made the switch.

 

[Truthfrees]

To start off my post here, I am not intending on starting any kind of argument here. I am simply trying to start a discussion for self-proclaimed Pentecostals and Charismatics to discuss how their movements/teachings are similar and dissimilar.

From general Internet information, I have gathered that both the Pentecostal and Charismatic are fairly knew (or, at least when in comparison to other Christianity movements, anyhow).

Pentecostalism --- a renewal movement within Protestant Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit

Charismatics (Charismatic Christianity) --- a form of Christianity that emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, and modern-day miracles as an everyday part of a believer's life.

I realize that these definitions may not be 100-percent precise. And yes I do know that their are several movements that consider themselves "Pentecostal" or "Charismatic", but that don't generally share many fundamentalist beliefs common within the two movements.

As a Pentecostal, I have been interested in finding just what do the Pentecostals and Charismatics have common. As I understand, they are both Full Gospel churches by default, and that their roots are generally traced back to the 1906 Asuza Street Revival. They each encourage their followers to seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit, although their teachings on the "initial evidence" of Spirit baptism is not quite the same.

Should the terms Pentecostal and Charismatic be used interchangeably? Are churches that preach and practice the movement of the Holy Spirit within their services both Pentecostal and Charismatic by default?

Again, I am not trying to start any kind of fuss or argument here. I am simply wanting to kick-start a discussion about the differences and similarities between the ever-growing Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

The similarities between Pentecostals and Charismatics are abundant.

The differences are hard to determine.

Pentecostal Assemblies is a denomination with a governing body.

Charismatics don't have a governing body.

So Charismatics may attend a Pentecostal Assemblies Church, or not.

Charismatic/Spirit Filled may have a broader scope of beliefs than the constitution of the Pentecostal Assemblies allows/subscribes to, simply because SF/C don't have an official constitution.

I was Pentecostal before I became WOF.

WOF is also Charismatic, but has far more differences with Pentecostals than Charismatics do.

 

[Dave-W]

This post was initiated by a oneness believer,who should not be initiating discussion on Pentecostal/AoG forum. Oneness is not acceptable on this Trinitarian forum

Incidently, Dr Prince made short work of debunking the Oneness "Jesus Name Only" doctrine in his booklet "Burial by Baptism."

 

[Dave-W]

WOF is also Charismatic,

I am not so sure about that. I would count them as closer to pentecostalism than charismania. (having been in a WOF congregation for a number of years)

 

[Truthfrees]

I am not so sure about that. I would count them as closer to pentecostalism than charismania. (having been in a WOF congregation for a number of years)

really?

what makes you say that?

WOF did have it's roots in Pentecostalism, but diverged greatly.

If I as a WOF were to post in the Pentecostal forum, I would incur a lot of disagreement with WOF beliefs.

I find more agreement in the Charismatic forum.

 

[Spirit of Pentecost]

This post was initiated by a oneness believer,who should not be initiating discussion on Pentecostal/AoG forum. Oneness is not acceptable on this Trinitarian forum

Again, not seeing this as fair.

 

[Alithis]

Again, not seeing this as fair.

in this case i would not worry about it .the threads been moved and the discussion is open to continue is it not ?

 

[Alithis]

Incidently, Dr Prince made short work of debunking the Oneness "Jesus Name Only" doctrine in his booklet "Burial by Baptism."

i don't think ones-ness and baptism in the name of Jesus are quite the same topic .
we are to be baptised in the name of
the father
the name of the son
and the name of the holy Spirit ...

Since those are titles and not names, can we say what their names are ? of course not, so what name encompasses them all ? answer -JESUS
the name "given above all other names .. " and the apostles have no problem later preaching 'in the name of Jesus as they did EVERYTHING in his name

 

[Biblicist]

. . . I realize that these definitions may not be 100-percent precise. And yes I do know that their are several movements that consider themselves "Pentecostal" or "Charismatic", but that don't generally share many fundamentalist beliefs common within the two movements. . .

The following formal descriptions of the terms Pentecostal and charismatic should be of some help to this discussion:

1. Pentecostals

• Classic-Pentecostals [ie, AoG] (Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to our initial Salvation)
• Non classic-Pentecostals (All Christians are Baptised in the Holy Spirit at Salvation, but not all are correctly taught that they should be able to pray in the Spirit [tongues])
• Oneness Pentecostals.
• Word of Faith.

2. Charismatics (also historically known as neo-Pentecostals)​

Historically, Charismatics are those Believers who have embraced the Full Gospel but who have chosen to remain within one of the historical denominations.

1. During the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's & 70's, the vast majority of Charismatics (ie, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Roman Catholics etc) initially viewed the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being subsequent to our initial Salvation.
2. Once the theologians within the historical denominations began to engage with Full Gospel theology, many began to challenge this older understanding to the point where now the vast majority of Charismatics no longer hold to this classic-Pentecostal understanding.
3. During the later part of the Charismatic Renewal, the hierarchies of the various liturgical denominations began to insist that their charismatic members acknowledge that salvation is obtained essentially through their various liturgies.

3. Neo-Charismatics (or “Third Wave”)​

This off-shoot of the Charismatic Movement came about during the 1980's through an attempt to synthesise Evangelical thought with the Full Gospel. Various attempts have been made to define the Third Wave but as it encompasses a wide gamut of views there is probably little chance of being able to successfully define a movement or methodology that contains such a wide range of opinions. It has often been called the Signs & Wonders movement and heavily linked to the New Apostolic Renewal (NARzies).

Many contemporary Christians who refer to themselves as charismatics may very well be neo-charismatics, where their theology or methodology may differ greatly from most charismatics (ie, neo-Pentecostals).

4. Open-but-cautious​

Since the 1980's we have seen the rise of a new category of Evangelical Believers who are neither cessationist nor Continuist. These Evangelicals may be deemed in most part to be experientially cessationist, but when it comes to their theology, they are in fact Continuists.

During the awakening of the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's & 70's, many Evangelicals were compelled to rethink their traditional understanding of the Gospel where in most part they began to realise that cessationisn was not so much a workable theology but merely a worldview that could not be sustained from within the Word. For various reasons many of these Evangelicals were content to remain within the parameters of their individual denominations outlook but they were no longer prepared to support cessationism as a viable understanding of God's Word. Even though many of these Believers may choose not to pray in tongues, they will still acknowledge that people may do so if they so choose.

It is believed that the vast majority of Evangelicals would come under this particular banner.


. . . . . . .

Theological differences between Pentecostals and charismatics

Historically, what may have been the greatest weakness of the classic or traditional Pentecostalism during most of the 20th century has been with its inability to effectively define its unique theology. It was not until the early 80's that we saw the first Pentecostal scholar who was Gordon D. Fee (AoG), who himself rejected the classic-Pentecostal position of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit but with the input of hundreds of charismatic scholars we began to see a rush of Pentecostals (both classic and non-classic) obtaining accredited doctorates in theology.

Historically speaking, Pentecostals were never able to develop a workable systematic Full Gospel theology which was undoubtedly an inherent weakness of classic-Pentecostalism.