•11.2.09
The significant difference between a Pentecostal/Charismatic and a Pentecostal is simple. One line is clearly drawn. Although Charismatics had its roots in Pentecostalism, it's theology is distinctly differentiated in their doctrine of speaking in tongues as non-biblical initial evidence of the Spirit's baptism.

Pentecostals on the other hand hold on very firmly to the belief that speaking in tongues IS the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.

A Pentecostal/Charismatic would be quite a contradiction based on it's basic doctrines alone. To be a Pentecostal and say that speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of the Spirit's baptism would more or less swing them into the Charismatic end of the pendulum. I find it pretty difficult even at this level already to reconcile the fact that there can be a Pentecostal/Charismatic. I'm sure that if one were to overlook at that part of the doctrine to see what the Charismatic movement has brought about in churches over the last 40 years, then it's easy to see why some are Pentecostal/Charismatics.

So yes, to answer this question, there is a difference between Pentecostal/Charismatics and Pentecostals. Just based on one profound doctrine.



|
This entry was posted on 11.2.09 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

0 reactions: