International Testimony to an Infallible Bible
The Dividing Line
Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation
Chapter 10
Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism
Some writers, such as Robert Mapes Anderson and Virginia Brereton,
profess to see early Pentecostalism as another form of Fundamentalism.9
They stress characteristics such as Pentecostalisms emphasis
on biblical literalism, opposition to Modernism, belief in premillennialism,
and willingness to practice both personal and ecclesiastical
separation.
Early Fundamentalists generally opposed the movement, however.
Bible commentator G. Campbell Morgan is reputed to have called
Pentecostalism "the last vomit of Satan." W. B. Riley
likewise opposed Pentecostal teaching and refused to allow Pentecostals
to hold membership in the Worlds Christian Fundamentals
Association.10 Perhaps part of the Fundamentalist resistance
was the lower social status of Pentecostalism and its extremist
reputation. Fundamentalists did not want to be identified with
these "holy rollers." But the heart of the disagreement
wasand remainsFundamentalist rejection of Pentecostal
distinctives.11
Fundamentalists protest first against the most prominent Pentecostal
teaching, that speaking in tongues is a sign of the baptism of
the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists are usually "cessationists,"
Christians who believe that some spiritual gifts, such as speaking
in tongues and special acts of healing, ceased at the close of
the New Testament era.12 They therefore reject one of the most
basic Pentecostal teachings, saying that all believers are baptized
by the Spirit (without speaking in tongues) when they are converted.
Even allowing that speaking in tongues is possible, Fundamentalists
say that the Pentecostal practice of tongues is not scriptural.
For example, in I Corinthians 14:26-32, Paul sets down rules
for speaking in tongues in church. There should be no more than
two or three people speaking in tongues in a service, and no
one should do so if an interpreter is not present. Those who
speak should do so in order and not simultaneously. Fundamentalists
maintain that these instructions are usually not followed in
Pentecostal circles.
A major concern to Fundamentalists is the tendency of some who
speak in tongues to consider their utterances a special revelation
from God. Fundamentalists (and many other Evangelicals) reject
the idea of special revelation apart from the Bible. Paul teaches
in II Timothy 3:15-17 that the Scriptures provide everything
needed for salvation and Christian living. No extra revelation
can be binding on the conscience of a believer. Long before the
Pentecostal movement ever arose, John Wesley (whom Pentecostals
see as one of their forerunners) warned:
Give no place to a heated imagination. Do not hastily ascribe
things to God. Do not easily suppose dreams, voices, impressions,
visions, or revelations to be from God. They may be from him;
they may be from nature; they may be from the devil. Therefore
"believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
be of God." Try all things by the written word, and let
all bow down before it. You are in danger of enthusiasm every
hour if you depart ever so little from Scripture; yea, or from
the plain literal meaning of any text taken in connection with
the context. And so you are if you despise or lightly esteem
reason, knowledge, or human learning; every one of which is an
excellent gift of God, and may serve the noblest purposes.13
Finally, Fundamentalists have generally been concerned about
an attitude of spiritual superiority that characterizes Pentecostal
teaching. There is almost an arrogance to the claim that Pentecostalism
has the "full gospel." The implication is that non-Pentecostals
have only a partial gospel. Such an idea is unscriptural. Paul
told the Colossian believers, "And ye are complete in him,
which is the head of all principality and power" (Col. 2:10).
The salvation of Christ through the gospel is perfect and complete.
Christians should grow in grace (II Pet. 3:18), but this growth
is the realizing of what Christ has already granted to the believer.
As Paul wrote, "I follow after, if that I may apprehend
that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus" (Phil.
3:12).
Yet, despite these differences, at least a few Fundamentalists
are willing to regard some issues as matters of interpretation
and to suggest a basis for fellowship with conservative Pentecostals.
Bob Jones Jr. cites an independent Pentecostal who withdrew from
his denomination in protest over its participation in the Charismatic
movement and says that he "is as much of a Fundamentalist
as I am." Jones goes on to refer to other independent, old-line
Pentecostal churches that have withdrawn from the major Pentecostal
denominations in protest against the Charismatic movement. He
argues that there is a place for fellowship with such believers.
Still, he draws the line at accepting teachings such as receiving
new revelation, tongues, and the gift of healing. Such teachings
go beyond what he sees as the bounds of mere differences of interpretation.14
There are many extremes in the Charismatic movement that Fundamentalists
reject. Fundamentalists (along with many other Christians) cringed
in 1987 when Oral Roberts claimed that God had threatened to
take him home if Roberts did not get $8 million by a certain
date. The secular media jokingly compared this to a hostage situation
with God issuing the ransom demand. Charismatic Jim Bakker and
Pentecostal Jimmy Swaggart, both leading televangelists, became
enmeshed in sex scandals that made headlines. But defenders of
a movement can always claim that extremes are not typical. A
key and indisputable difference between Fundamentalism and the
Charismatic movement, and those Pentecostals who go along with
the Charismatics, is the question of separation. In some cases
the point of dispute is personal separation. The worst examples
are entertainers and athletes who claim to have had Charismatic
experiences of some kind but whose worldly lifestyles hardly
"shew forth the praises of him who hath called [them] out
of darkness into his marvelous light" (I Pet. 2:9). To be
fair, we should note that many Charismatics and Pentecostals
uphold biblical standards of personal behavior.
Far more often the problem is ecclesiastical separation. The
basis of Christian unity for Charismatics is not so much an agreement
on the essential truths of Christianity but rather a shared spiritual
"experience." James Richard Monk, for example, cites
leading Catholic Charismatic Edward OConnor: "When
the charismatic renewal, after having been confined for decades
to the Pentecostal denominations, began to penetrate into the
established churches, it naturally tended to create bonds among
all those who embraced it. These were not, however, bonds of
doctrinal agreement; for it is not the spread of ideas about
the Holy Spirit that constitutes the Pentecostal movement, but
the experience of the Spirits power action."15
By no means are all Charismatics and Pentecostals so flexible
with doctrine. Ray Hughes, a traditional Pentecostal, says that
a common experience cannot build unity where there is no agreement
on doctrine. He points out that non-Christians, even Satanists,
have spoken in tongues and that therefore the experience of tongues
by itself cannot provide a basis for unity.16 Jack Hayford likewise
argues that Christians must agree on the person and work of Christ
as Creator, Redeemer, Gods Son, and Savior, in addition
to spiritual gifts, before they can know true unity. Yet Hayford
says that "biblical unity is discovered not as a resolution
of doctrinal differences, but as a revelation of the Living WordJesus."17
W. Dennis Pederson argues that God "will unify His body
through those who are open to His Spirit," and he urges
Charismatics to remain in their churches in the compromised major
denominations.18
An example of the dangerous doctrinal breadth of the Charismatic
movement is its acceptance of Krister Stendahl. The dean of Harvard
Divinity School in the 1970s and later a bishop in the Church
of Sweden (Lutheran), Stendahl completely accepted rationalist
historical criticism of the Bible. He wrote a work arguing that
the Gospel of Matthew was not written by that apostle but by
a much later "school of Matthew."19 Stendahl also contended
that only I Thessalonians, Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Philippians,
Philemon, and Romans were actually written by Paul.20 Yet Stendahl
claimed to be a Charismatic baptized by the Holy Spirit, and
he was a featured speaker in Charismatic conferences.21
We could cite other examples, such as the doctrinal errors of
Catholic Charismatics who try to reconcile Catholic and Pentecostal
teaching.22 Truly, there can be no spiritual unity where there
is no salvation through the work of the Holy Spirit. But likewise,
there can be no unity of the Spirit where truth is sacrificed.
Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, "When he, the Spirit of truth,
is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).
When a movement moves to embrace error, it is not being guided
by the Holy Spirit, despite what its adherents may say.
Conclusion
As we have said, there are many extremes in the Charismatic movement
that give the Fundamentalist pause. Furthermore, we have seen
important doctrinal disagreements between Fundamentalists and
Charismatics. These matters alone may give the Fundamentalist
sufficient reason to distance himself from the movement.
But the greatest danger of the Charismatic movement lies in its
ecumenicityits willingness to embrace all sorts of doctrinal
deviations in the name of Christian unity and under the supposed
leading of the Holy Spirit. The Charismatic movement blurs the
division between truth and error and therefore promotes a false
unity.
Probably some unregenerate people are being deceived into thinking
they are Christians because they have had some kind of Charismatic
experience. Many other Charismatics and Pentecostals are genuine
Christians, sincere in their desire to serve God. Jesus told
the woman of Samaria that "true worshippers shall worship
the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such
to worship him" (John 4:23). To worship and serve in the
power of the Holy Spirit is essential to Christian living, but
such worship and service will also always be in truth.
http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_10-4.html
Final page book references endnotes
http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_10-5.html |