Cessationism and Pentecostalism (Introduction)

 

This work is the beginning of a series that I intend to continue until I am satisfied I have said all I know to say. I have touched on this subject before, but I feel a need for a more comprehensive explanation to be offered. Several reasons are setting forth this effort. One is simply a need to put my thoughts down in writing for my own organization.  Another is my family, this has been something that has touched us all personally, so I want to get my thoughts down for them so they can understand the what and why of our religious thought throughout the years. Also, there are still family members as well as dear friends who continue to believe things I consider harmful to both our families and churches in general. I certainly intend to be as gracious and kind as I am able, yet because I do love them dearly, I must be straightforward to avoid any ambiguity. I am posting it here publicly because I am sure we are not the only ones who have been touched by these aberrant teachings that have moved through communities in recent decades. 

I will be presenting my thoughts from my own experiences while relying upon scripture as the basis for my arguments. I intend to appeal to both reason and logic, not so much to win an argument, but more to defend and promote a more true understanding of the Gospel and the Christian life. I believe most all those who believe these aberrant teachings do so in all sincerity with a love toward God. They defend them because they have become convinced it is an accurate understanding of the Gospel, and therefore, great respect and honor are due to them though we may hold the doctrines they believe in disrepute. 

What we are talking about is Pentecostalism and the many forms it has taken throughout the previous century. Whatever branches we may be talking about in this series, most will likely be traced back to California and the so-called revival that began in 1906 at the Azusa Street Mission. There were some small isolated groups holding meetings prior to that event, but generally, most Pentecostals point to Azusa as their roots. Historically speaking, this is relatively a new movement in Christianity. Back up 150 years and Pentecostalism does not exist nor had it existed within the Church for the previous 2000 years. Many Pentecostals refer to the movement as the Apostolic Renewal because it had not existed within the Church since the Apostolic era. 

As we consider these groups we need not question their sincerity nor their love for God; but we must question the doctrines they have embraced and induced into the Christian world as a new way of viewing God and understanding the Gospel. That in itself is no small matter and it should even provoke them to take a serious look at their history. Out of this one mission gathering in 1906 sprung over 800 new and varying belief systems that have brought division and confusion to the Christian world. I understand their zeal, I was one of them, and for over 25 years of my life, I gave time, money, and effort to its promotion. I educated my children in their doctrines and lived my life based upon their beliefs, at least to my particular branch, for their beliefs differ greatly from group to group. 

In its many forms, Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing sect of Christianity today. My first appeal in logic is whether we should accept a belief inserted into Christianity that fundamentally changes the way we view God and understand the Gospel when that belief has only been around 150 years? It is a great question, but it does not go without an answer, for I was told time and time again, "God is doing a new thing!" In my naive state of Christianity that was enough to stop my thinking and continue to confine me within the belief system. There are many forms of deception, methods that are used to stop you from thinking outside a particular range of beliefs or keep you from questioning certain behaviors. How do these things come about? 

Philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen suggests that "Once there is a desire to believe the metaphysical doctrines of the religion, the mind is ripe for self-deception. Self-deception has essentially two components. First, a person forms a belief in violation of his usual standards of evidence and judgment, what philosophers call epistemic norms. Second, a desire for content related to the content of the belief causes the deviation from the healthy belief formation process. Because vilification, fear, and desire bring about the religious credence, while that credence is at odds with usual standards of judgment, the process by which religious beliefs come about is one of self-deception." - Neil Van Leeuwen (adishakti.org)

In our thought processing, factors induced through rhetoric and or emotional experiences produce a desire to believe certain things. When strong enough, it seems we are tempted to override logic or rational thinking in favor of accepting that belief. In most cases, there are multiple factors at work influencing that thought process. "2Ti_3:13  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." "Jas_1:22  But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" These scriptures caution us about deception, both from others and our own selves.

Looking back some 35 years now it is difficult for me to recall all that produced Pentecostal beliefs as desirable to my thinking. There was the influence of friends and family, which always play a huge part. The idea also was that there was more to be experienced in my religious faith than I had previously known. A desire to please God and the idea there was more to know and experience worked together to form a working desire in my mind to believe. Once we reach that point, we move from a state of resistance to a state of looking for reasons to believe a certain thing. Once affirmed, we are hooked. When questions do arrive, there are many thought-stopping processes that are able to keep you within the desired parameters. 

The degree of damage that is done through aberrant religious beliefs varies greatly. Some simply leave you in a state of error of a minor sort, if you can accept any error as acceptable. Others can take you so off track that you can find yourself in a cult or a system so unorthodox even one's salvation could be in question. A problem with this is, the one in the cult is no more aware of his state of deception than the one in a minor error. That should emphasize in our mind the importance of examining what it is we believe and why? In our Christian faith, that examination should be conducted through the lens of Scripture and sound Christian doctrine. Sound doctrine is that which has been received and believed throughout the centuries. If someone is teaching you something that has not been taught before in historic Christianity, they are probably not teaching you true Christian doctrine.  

How is it that we get drawn away into these different beliefs, one philosopher supposes, "A belief about reality is not reality itself. Furthermore, a belief is something that results from inferences drawn from the evidence/facts. That means a belief is person-related and is only true to the degree that it properly expresses the way things really are. Evidence/facts are not self-interpreting. Two people can examine the same evidence and draw different inferences from the evidence, leading to differing claims."

In other words, just because I may believe it is true, doesn't make it true. I may have examined the evidence and analyzed the facts, which has convinced me of what I believe. However, the evidence/facts don't interpret themselves, and we may view them for various reasons differently thereby coming to different conclusions which lead to different beliefs. And yes, we do this while looking at the same evidence/facts, all while the actual reality is escaping our understanding. 

One example is the Grand Canyon, an archeologist examining the fact there is a very large Canyon in front of him, if he is educated in the theory of evolution, will interpret the evidence/facts in a way that supports his understanding. 

Another archeologist educated in the Creation model will examine the same evidence/facts and interpret them in a way that supports his understanding. Then they both are engaged in the work of persuading others of their particular beliefs based upon the same evidence/facts using their various interpretations. Their success greatly depends not so much upon the evidence/facts as it does the persuasive qualities they possess. Many cult leaders are able to gain a large following simply by their charismatic personalities. 

The same philosopher suggests, "A belief is something that happens to us as information that we think to be credible exerts some influence on our mental complex, causing us to think in a certain way." All that has to be done for someone to misdirect us is to present the evidence/facts in such a way our minds are deceived into its credibility. How easily that is done depends on many variables within the personage themselves. 

Our philosopher would continue saying, "Belief formation, as indicated by the term ‘formation’, requires something from which a belief arises. This something is information or evidence, something on which or from which to construct a belief. The information can come in different ways. It can come by way of personal experience, through the senses, by rational thought process or by any combination of these." That explanation is certainly oversimplifying the complicated processes of our mind and the way we form our ideas. If the desire already exists for the belief, very little evidence/facts need to be presented before a belief is securely formed. However, it serves as an example as to why we are cautioned in scripture constantly to not be deceived. Next time we may look at some of the ideas that are presented in these groups and how persuasive they can be on our minds.   

David