# Pentecostal Monergists?



## Jared (Nov 4, 2011)

Pentecostal monergists. Has anyone here ever met someone that would fit that category? I chose both of those terms carefully. I mean someone that is Pentecostal in the technical sense as opposed to Charismatic and a monergist not necessarily Reformed in the strictest sense but monergistic in their approach to salvation. I have met a few people like this over the last few years. It seems to me that some people are more open to monergism than others. Is that true of every evangelical church or do you mainly find that in Pentecostal churches? 

I ask because a lot of Pentecostal churches don't emphasize doctrine enough for people to pick up on the fact that they believe in synergism and that salvation can be lost. This can be good and bad. It could be good because it could leave the door open for someone to embrace the truth and it could also be bad because people need to know what they believe and a lot of the Pentecostals that I have met don't know what they believe about finer points of doctrine.


----------



## rookie (Nov 4, 2011)

Not sure about that one, but we have some bible studies for unconverted people at a house here in town. And one person showed up that classified himself as a Reformed Catholic.....


----------



## Andres (Nov 4, 2011)

I was a hard-core Pentecostal for approx 7 years. My experience has been that 99% of Pentecostals, including ministers, wouldn't even know what the words monergist and synergist mean, let alone consider themselves one or the other.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 4, 2011)

I have heard of a few, and have heard of at least one Oneness Pentecostal who claimed to be a monergist. But I am not personally acquainted with any. 

A few years ago, during the course of my work, I had occasion to go into a United Pentecostal (i.e. Oneness) pastor's office. Lo and behold, the office was lined with MacArthur study guides. These were the old ones with the white cover and the red letters on the spine. I thought, "Something doesn't match up here!" When I went back around a year later, they had a different pastor. Don't know what to read into that.  But upon further reflection, even if he was on board with their heresy, the MacArthur books may have been there due to the lack of many books on that level (albeit somewhat basic) in his own tradition.

When you really think about where the two perspectives are coming from, Dispensationalism doesn't really fit with classic pentecostalism either. The fact that so many of the Pentes believe it is probably more of an "accident" of history (with them rising in popularity at approximately the same time) than anything else. But that's for another thread and another time.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 4, 2011)

Andres said:


> I was a hard-core Pentecostal for approx 7 years. My experience has been that 99% of Pentecostals, including ministers, wouldn't even know what the words monergist and synergist mean, let alone consider themselves one or the other.



Can I ask you what sparked your thirst for doctrine then? Because my mother is Pentecostal I worry about her.

With my Mother as an example I would say if you have studied enough to know monergism to be true you would have studied to know that Pentecostalism is wrong. Their is no way around it.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 4, 2011)

James K. A. Smith has written on Pentecostalisms influence on Christian philosophy but I'm not sure whether he himself is one. 
Wikipedia:


> James K. A. Smith (born 1970) is Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College and a notable figure in Radical Orthodoxy, a postmodern Christian movement. His work is undertaken at the borderlands between philosophy, theology, ethics, aesthetics, science, and politics. Informed by a long Augustinian tradition of theological cultural critique--from Augustine and Calvin to Edwards and Kuyper--his interests are in bringing critical thought to bear on the practices of the church and the church's witness to culture.[1]





> Given his training in continental philosophy and in the theology of the Reformed and Pentecostal traditions, his intellectual interests are a natural fit. Smith's research topics range from the continental philosophy of religion to urban altruism to the relationship between science and theology.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 4, 2011)

Rufus said:


> James K. A. Smith (born 1970) is Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College and a notable figure in Radical Orthodoxy, a postmodern Christian movement. His work is undertaken at the borderlands between philosophy, theology, ethics, aesthetics, science, and politics. Informed by a long Augustinian tradition of theological cultural critique--from Augustine and Calvin to Edwards and Kuyper--his interests are in bringing critical thought to bear on the practices of the church and the church's witness to culture.[1]
> Given his training in continental philosophy and in the theology of the Reformed and Pentecostal traditions, his intellectual interests are a natural fit. Smith's research topics range from the continental philosophy of religion to urban altruism to the relationship between science and theology.



It sounds like either he wrote his own WIkipedia page or one of his students did.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 4, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > James K. A. Smith (born 1970) is Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College and a notable figure in Radical Orthodoxy, a postmodern Christian movement. His work is undertaken at the borderlands between philosophy, theology, ethics, aesthetics, science, and politics. Informed by a long Augustinian tradition of theological cultural critique--from Augustine and Calvin to Edwards and Kuyper--his interests are in bringing critical thought to bear on the practices of the church and the church's witness to culture.[1]
> ...



Not that you mention it, it does sound like that.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 4, 2011)

Rufus said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Rufus said:
> ...



I've come across some that read like press releases or like it was cut and pasted from a website's "About us" page. I think wikipedia eventually flags that kind of thing, especially if it's considered to not be from a neutral point of view (NPOV.)


----------



## JoannaV (Nov 4, 2011)

There are many people in many churches whose beliefs differ widely from those officially held by their denomination. Sometimes it is the people who know the truth, other times it is the official denominational stance. This will occur more often in churches where the official denominational stance is not much taught, and with people who have not studied theology: ie someone may know the truth from the Bible but not know what theological term is used to describe that belief. They may not notice the contradiction, nor be able to find a church which teaches what they actually believe, until either their own church starts to more forcefully teach the denominational stance or the person discovers the theological tradition.

Some denominational terms are used by a wider variety of groups than others. For example, Baptists are more disparate than Presbyterians. I don't know much about Pentecostals, but I did attend a Pentecostal church briefly and I recall *no* mention of charismatic beliefs or Holy Spirit baptism, so one can certainly be surprised by what one finds in any individual church.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 4, 2011)

Pentecostal (as opposed to charismatic) usually means the person or denomination is identified by a focus on a "second work of grace" after salvation that is evidenced by speaking in unknown tongues. (Charismatic means the same except, any one of the I Corinthian 12 gifts, not necessarily speaking in tongues, but including it).

Very likely, the term also includes opposite pillar doctrines to reformed theology:

Arminian influence + Dispensationalism + No Confession

whereas Reformed Theology is:

Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) + Covenant Theology + Confession

But, there are some modern exceptions- not in whole but in part.

Sovereign Grace Ministries, for example, has leadership that is presently consistently Calvinist (doctrines of grace), which is "monergism." (They do not hold covenant theology or a binding confession (systematic, accountable), only a minimalist statement of beliefs.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 4, 2011)

I first met one when I was in the Navy. I knew a Oneness Pentecostal that was. I have known a few Pentecostals that were in the past 30 years. And yes, I mean Pentecostals and not Charismatics. Pentecostals lean more toward a holiness movement type piety. I have met numerous Charismatics that were.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 4, 2011)

I know several calvinists who affirm the continuing nature of prophecy and the continuing possibility of tongues. They are good brothers. 

I know none who actually practice tongues, however, and I know none who feel comfortable in churches that do make it a habit of tongues.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 4, 2011)

Piper, Driscoll, and Chan would be examples of monergistic continuationists


----------



## Jared (Nov 4, 2011)

As far as prominent examples, there aren't very many. However, I do know of a few people that might fit that category. There was a Canadian evangelist by the name of Ern Baxter that considered himself to be a 'Pentecostal Calvinist'. Also, R.T. Kendall has used that very term to describe himself. However, his antinomianism puts him at odds with not only Pentecostalism but also the Reformed tradition. That doesn't keep him from being popular in Pentecostal circles though.

Also, the worship duo Shane & Shane lead worship at an Assembly of God church in Texas but they also read John Piper quite a bit and are featured various Reformed conferences including the Passion conference and some of the conferences hosted by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The Reformed hip-hop artist Lecrae was saved in a Church of God in Christ but I'm not sure if he still considers himself Pentecostal.

Mark Driscoll says that some Assembly of God and Foursquare churches are in the Acts 29 Network.

I live in East Tennessee and one of the larger Pentecostal denominations in our area is the Church of God (Cleveland, TN). I happen to know that Francis Chan has been a featured speaker at the annual Church of God youth event for East Tennessee. 

I once heard a Church of God in Christ pastor use Jeremiah 1:5 as a springboard into Romans 8:29.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
(Jeremiah 1:5 ESV) 

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(Romans 8:29 ESV)

If you read Romans 8:29 in light of Jeremiah 1:5, I don't see how you could be a synergist. Most Arminians that I have talked to reject the idea of reading those two passages together.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 4, 2011)

Their is a big difference between Pentecostalism and charismatics. All pentecostals (to my knowledge I may be wrong, if I am please correct me) are charismatics but not all charismatics are pentecostals. So discussing charismatics is not exactly what this thread is about. It is about pentecostal calvinists. Which in my opinion is like saying a calvinists methodist, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Jared (Nov 4, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> Their is a big difference between Pentecostalism and charismatics. All pentecostals (to my knowledge I may be wrong, if I am please correct me) are charismatics but not all charismatics are pentecostals. So discussing charismatics is not exactly what this thread is about. It is about pentecostal calvinists. Which in my opinion is like saying a calvinists methodist, it doesn't make sense.



And yet George Whitefield was a Calvinistic Methodist and not only that, he was one of the founders of Methodism. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was also a Calvinistic Methodist and a Charismatic (in the technical sense of the word).


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 4, 2011)

Or maybe that is just my experiance. I have been to one-a-many pentecostal churches with my Mother when I visit her and not one teaches calvinism or ever SBC "moderate calvinism" it can range to almost 4 point arminian to full 5 point arminian. I have never even met one 2-5 point calvinists in one of these churches


----------



## Jared (Nov 4, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> Or maybe that is just my experiance. I have been to one-a-many pentecostal churches with my Mother when I visit her and not one teaches calvinism or ever SBC "moderate calvinism" it can range to almost 4 point arminian to full 5 point arminian. I have never even met one 2-5 point calvinists in one of these churches



My experience is that the ones I've met tend to view the doctrines of grace this way:

1. I can do bad all by myself
2. God's love is unconditional
3. Jesus died just for me
4. You can't run from God
5. He's a keeper (God keeps us in other words)


----------



## Andres (Nov 5, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I was a hard-core Pentecostal for approx 7 years. My experience has been that 99% of Pentecostals, including ministers, wouldn't even know what the words monergist and synergist mean, let alone consider themselves one or the other.
> ...



What really changed my view on Pentecostalism is when I learned how to read the scriptures properly. I always believed that God's word was the ultimate authority in matters of faith, my problem was that I misunderstood God's word. I took verses out of context to make them say what I wanted them to. Basically I established my doctrine first (Pentecostalism) and then went to scripture to find verses to validate it. Then I went off to a Christian school where a I was biblical studies major. I had a very basic Intro to Hermeneutics class where we read _How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth_. Through that book and that class I came to understand the difference between eisegesis and exegesis and what it meant to read scripture in it's proper context. After that I began to read the scriptures completely differently and I began to see how much of what I believed to be scriptural - Pentecostalism, prosperity gospel, word of faith movement - wasn't biblical at all. In fact, most of it was contra-biblical! Of course that was just a first step and God in His marvelous grace also happened to send men into my life around that same time who introduced me to the doctrines of grace, so after that I began to see that a "reformed" understanding of the scriptures made the most sense. And the rest, as they say, is history!


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 5, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Piper, Driscoll, and Chan would be examples of monergistic continuationists



Dennis,
"Continuationism" is only one aspect of "Pentecostal" or "charismatic" doctrine. It does not define it.

I.e. a mere belief that the I Corinthians 12 spiritual gifts may or do continue does not define "Pentecostal."

What defines "Pentecostal" is that ALL believers can have a "second work of grace" by the Holy Spirit that WILL result in speaking in unknown tongues as evidence of it.

There is not a basis to believe that the individuals you mention believe that (second work of grace evidenced by speaking in tongues). So, they would not be "Pentecostal Monergists," which is the original post.

Further, the individuals do not represent themselves Pentecostal.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> > Their is a big difference between Pentecostalism and charismatics. All pentecostals (to my knowledge I may be wrong, if I am please correct me) are charismatics but not all charismatics are pentecostals. So discussing charismatics is not exactly what this thread is about. It is about pentecostal calvinists. Which in my opinion is like saying a calvinists methodist, it doesn't make sense.
> ...


The Welsh Presbyterian Church also was once the Calvinist Methodist Church. MLJ was definitely a charismatic in the technical sense but for people who hold his position I prefer to call them continualist.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

Clarification: Are you using the term ''Pentecostal'' to describe institutions or those who closely associate with them or just as Charismatics in general? 

If in the second case, then I would point to Sovereign Grace Ministries and New Frontiers. Strong disagreements there, but I love them and want to fellowship with them!


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 5, 2011)

There is such a breed called Reformed Charismatics: Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches, including Calvinistic churches and non-cessationist churches


----------



## Jared (Nov 5, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Clarification: Are you using the term ''Pentecostal'' to describe institutions or those who closely associate with them or just as Charismatics in general?
> 
> If in the second case, then I would point to Sovereign Grace Ministries and New Frontiers. Strong disagreements there, but I love them and want to fellowship with them!



No. I tried to make clear in my OP that I had in mind Pentecostals as opposed to Charismatics. By Pentecostal I mean someone who believes that there is a baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation and that tongues is the initial evidence of that baptism. Without the doctrine of tongues as initial evidence, according to most Pentecostals, you are simply "Charismatic" as opposed to "Pentecostal". 

There is a lot of confusion here even in "Pentecostal" circles. For instance, many times the Charismatic publication "Charisma Magazine" will speak of a high-profile Pentecostal ministry and say that it is "Charismatic".

Generally speaking, "Charismatic" is a more respectable term. Traditionally Charismatics were middle class and better educated whereas Pentecostals were lower class and less educated. That's why even some Pentecostals are ashamed of the label.

There are few true Charismatics that I have come accross. A Charismatic in the technical sense of the term believes in a baptism in the Holy Spirit following conversion but tongues may or may not be the initial evidence of that. They would say that prophecy or a word of knowledge or a gift of healing could just as easily be the initial evidence that you have experienced the baptism or release (as it is called in some of the mainline denominations) of the Spirit.

I see a lot of Third Wave people and a lot of Pentecostals. I don't see very many Charismatics. The most prominent "Charismatic" that i can think of is probably Benny Hinn.

Even Dennis and Rita Bennett, the Episcopal priest and his wife from Van Nuys, California who claim to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and then ushered in so to speak the Charismatic movement of the sixties, even they believed in tongues as initial evidence, so they weren't "technically" Charismatic.

The Word-of-Faith movement is generally considered to be an expression of the "Charismatic" movement, but most of them believe in tongues as initial evidence.

Some of those who are part of Sovereign Grace Ministries are "technically" Charismatic but even they made room in some of their position papers for Third Wave people to join their family of churches.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Clarification: Are you using the term ''Pentecostal'' to describe institutions or those who closely associate with them or just as Charismatics in general?
> ...



Isn't Benny Hinn Word of Faith? Also, the definitions are somewhat indistinct, but many charismatics do not believe in a second work of grace or a subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit after conversion. In general, that's basically a Wesleyan/holiness belief. I know of charismatic Presbyterians who were charismatic before there was any defined Third Wave movement, which as I understand it basically came out of Fuller, the Vineyard, etc. 

ML-J's view on spirit baptism wasn't the same as the Wesleyan/holiness view, as I think you probably know. He thought it was a "sealing" of the Spirit that endued certain people with power, etc. for special service. I don't think he correlated it with tongues. I think he could cite a handful of Puritans who believed in such a sealing of the Spirit. 

You're correct about the class and rural vs. urban or suburban distinction between Pentecostals and charismatics. The latter were (in the original 60's use of the term) often members of various mainline denominations.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> Martyn Lloyd-Jones was also a Calvinistic Methodist and a Charismatic (in the technical sense of the word).



It's interesting that he rejected the charismatic label.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 6, 2011)

A signature of Pentecostalism is not studying the scriptures. You have to study the Scriptures to be a monergist. I don't understand how they could stumble upon it and then keep their word-of-faith doctrines.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 6, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> There is such a breed called Reformed Charismatics: Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches, including Calvinistic churches and non-cessationist churches



This "association" is typical of the difficulty-
They appear to be defining "reformed" as merely "Calvinist"-
and "charismatic" as merely "continuationism."

This is like many who came to reformed theology (doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession + high view of the church + high view of the sacraments) by way of first being "blown away" by the truths of God's sovereignty, which became "Calvinism" in isolation from the rest of church life and practice.

John Gerstner, in his book, "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth," makes a good case that "Calvinism" requires, biblically and logically, covenant theology (not dispensationalism), let alone the rest of what is required for minimal "reformed theology."

What we have in the Association appears to be someone who is beginning to understand the doctrines of grace, and seeing, for the first time how biblical the rest of doctrine and practice is in "reformed theology."

Scripture interprets Scripture, and that concept is a strength of "reformed theology"- and rarely used outside of it. From that, _sola scriptura_ militates even against what is usually called "contuationism," let alone the larger doctrinal system called "Pentecostalism."

Again, it is important to understand that the mere belief that I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts continued beyond the completion of Scripture does not make one Pentecostal or charismatic.

Not at all.

Nor does one who thinks themselves "Calvinist" make them reformed. That is an important part, and they may be heading toward "reformed theology,"
but they are not there yet.

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

Consider the Association leader's church web site:
Our Statement of Faith

The church represents itself as "five points of Calvinism," does not represent itself as covenant theology, and has a minimalist "statement of faith," not a Confession of Faith.

So, it is not reformed- it needs the thoroughgoing reform that the Protestant Reformation brought, and indeed, it has started down that path.... with a long way to go.

(And that will get it out of its present "mode" and association and into a biblical, reformed denomination.)


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 8, 2011)

Andres said:


> I was a hard-core Pentecostal for approx 7 years. My experience has been that 99% of Pentecostals, including ministers, wouldn't even know what the words monergist and synergist mean, let alone consider themselves one or the other.


I second my brother Andre's position. I too was involved in charismatic/penecostal circles for some time, and can firmly say that the vast majority of them are diehard Arminians (some flirting with Finney-Pelagianism), or just don't care about their theology beyond the bare minimum. And as a result, there has been some real dribble that has passed for doctrine in many of these churches.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 11, 2011)

Addendum to this: one of the problems that comes about with continuationists is that there is simply too much potential for a "revelation" or "vision" to come about that is not squared with the Scriptures. And unfortunately, with almost every continuationist movement I've seen, the "revelation" is ALMOST ALWAYS placed above Scripture, either in importance or in substance. It becomes all about the "Spirit" to the degree of minimizing the Word, or subjecting the Word under the authority of the "gifts" of the Spirit.

Let me give you this well-researched link that talks about Pentecostalism in the United States and the path it took not long after its inception: The Strange History of Pentecostalism


----------

