TRUE or FALSE: All Pentecostal trace roots to Azusa? by Dr. Vinson Synan
Pentecostalism: William Seymour What scoffers viewed as a weird babble of tongues became a world phenomenon after his Los Angeles revival. Vinson Synan Of…
Pentecostalism: William Seymour What scoffers viewed as a weird babble of tongues became a world phenomenon after his Los Angeles revival. Vinson Synan Of...
Stephen Williams Is this what we were discussing with you awhile back?
Not sure…
False. There were two outpourings before Azuza Street. The first was during the 1880s or 1890s in the mountains around Murphy, N.C. that led to the formation of the Church of God denomination from Cleveland, TN. After that, there was an outpouring in the Kansas City area at a Bible college.
The roots may go back further than that, however. The Cane Creek revival in Kentucky that led to the present day Independent Christian Churches (Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement) involved some behaviors that seem to possibly ve connected to manifestations of the Holy Spirit along with some practices that were clearly very much flesh and emotion. They play down the possibilty of it being connected with any sort of spiritual ecstatcies because their official position now is that of cessationism. That was as far back as the first decade of the 1800s.
Jim Daniel Are you saying Vinson Synan should have include Murphy, N.C? I think it was Link Hudson who also mentioned the Russian molokans who spoke in tongues long before getting to the Azusa revival
Those are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a trail leading all the way back to the apostles and early church of believers who operated in the gifts of the spirit including the gift of tongues.
There was a group of believers during the 2nd century AD in the region of France and Spain called the Montanists, (I think that is the correct spelling) who were strong proponents of the use of the gifts of prophecy and tongues, especially through their leadership. They were all but eradicated by the Roman Catholics as heretics. The Catholics then seem to have destroyed anything that they may have written and quite possibly slandered them to justify the actions of the church.
The Montanists were not “eradicated” by the Roman Catholics, neither were they considered heretics BECAUSE they spoke in tongues or prophesied. Rather they were considered heretical because 1) they believed their prophetic utterances were superior to the writings of the NT, 2) they believed that Jesus would return again to Pompusa in Phrygia NOT to Jerusalem 3) that Montanus was an incarnation of the Holy Spirit and 4) when they spoke in tongues and prophesied they did so in a frenzied manner like the pagans and not like the Orthodox Catholic Church Christians who did so in a decent and orderly manner.
We’ve discussed before Speaking in Tongues in America Prior to the Azusa Street http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/speaking-in-tongues-in-america-prior-to-the-azusa-street-ourcog/
That was the Montanists of the 2nd century.
Also, there was indications that the early Quakers spoke in tongues.
Also, it was Cane Ridge, not Cane Creek. I apologize, Cane Creek is a falls in north Georgia and I keep mixing the two.
Yes also discussed http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/1796-the-foundation-of-the-great-cane-ridge-revival-of-logan-county-kentucky/
Gottfried Sommer believes several movements merged. There was speaking in tongues among Methodist-type movements in South America and India that started about the same time as the Azusa Street revival.
There were also some Presbyterians in England in the 1800’s. That turned into something highly liturgical, and kind of like the NAR in some ways, but with 12 Gentile so-called ‘apostles’.
You gentlemen show a genius for Pentecostal history!! I wish I were younger, I would love to study your findings and maybe work on a comprehensive manual tying them all together. The research would be a challenging and thouroughally enjoyable exercise!!!!!
Yet A. J. TOMLINSON did not SPEAKING IN TONGUES until 1907 http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/a-j-tomlinson-speaking-in-tongues-in-1907-church-of-god-of-prophecy-cleveland-tn/
Revival under Count Zinzendorf in 1727. Speaking in tongues occurred there. And tongues in Edward Irving’s church 1830.
But the unique mixture that emerged as Pentecostalism has Wesleyan roots (see Dayton), emphasized the “full gospel”, experiential spirituality and a strong premillennial eschatological thrust.
Zinzendorf 1727 was never proven was it?
Let me check my references.
See William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit p. 383; Van Johnson, Master’s Pentecostal Seminary, Matrix of Pentecostalism, Lecture Notes, 2014, p. 3.
Also see Richard Hogue, Tongues: A Theological History of Glossolalia, p. 193.
Dr. William DeArteaga us a frequent poster in this group and perhaps can shed some light personally on the Moravians – namely did they conenct speaking in tongues to the Holy Spirit Baptism in 1727?
Aren’t we talking about roots? They wouldn’t have been connecting tongues to HSB. Not on the radar.
Troy Day I read a litle on the Moravians in regard to their influence on the Wesleys, but never ran into thier speaking in tongues. That is possible, but I did not go into their literature deeply.
I agree. There you have it Stephen Williams Possible but never stated explicitly. Much like Irving and then the Great Cane Ridge Revival of Logan County, Kentucky – tongues were there but were they connected to HSB ??? Link Hudson http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/1796-the-foundation-of-the-great-cane-ridge-revival-of-logan-county-kentucky/
No, not HSB, but according to McGee, Zinzendorf believed tongues to be connected to the missionary effort.
Further, McGee, on page 99, citing A.J. Lewis, writes, “On one occasion, participants were ‘baptized by the Holy Spirit to one love”…and on page 32, states that famous Moravian preacher John Cennick spoke of the Spirit’s baptism “without which all other baptisms are but faint shadows” from a sermon in 1740.
The New Charismatics II mentions speaking in tongues at a Methodist revival near the University of Georgia in 1901..
No.
“In 1722, the Moravian refugees established a new village called Herrnhut, about 2 miles from Berthelsdorf. The town initially grew steadily, but major religious disagreements emerged and by 1727 the community was divided into warring factions. Zinzendorf used a combination of feudal authority and his charismatic personality to restore a semblance of unity, then on August 13th, 1727 the community underwent a dramatic transformation when the inhabitants of Herrnhut “Learned to love one another.” following an experience which they attributed to a visitation of the Holy Spirit, similar to that recorded in the Bible on the day of Pentecost. It is said that the great revival at Herrnhut was accompanied by prophecies, visions, glossolalia (Speaking in tongues), and healings.” – Moravian Moment #129–The Moravian Pentecost http://moravians.net/joomla/about-us/34-moravian-moments/231-moravian-moment-129
Moravians were evangelical, missional and revivalists but speaking in tongues was never established. It is said that Herrnhut was accompanied glossolalia but I very strongly doubt they even connected speaking in tongues to the HSB in 1727. There is just not enough theological support for such doctrine out there for the period. If you know any others 1720s sources I wold love to examine them
Aren’t we talking about roots or antecedents?
OP is about the last sentence in the article: All Pentecostal trace roots to Azusa… What Pentecostal movement came out of the Moravians?
Moravians influenced Wesley- Wesley the Pent movement
Jim Daniel Did they connect tongues to HSB at Murphy?
The first I’ve read of the ‘initial evidence doctrine’ in history was probably with Irving in the 1800’s
Tongues were the ‘standing sign’- Irving. Synan, Century of the Holy Spirit, pp. 22-25.
Does this contradict the article above? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/true-or-false-all-pentecostal-trace-roots-to-azusa-by-dr-vinson-synan/
It is my understanding that the outpouring at Murphy began with a group of believers seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tn.) has held the position that tongues is the initial evidence from their very beginning as a denomination and they came directly from that revival.
Interesting sidebar: While most of the church goes out of its way to deny that speaking in tongues is necessary to identify the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, I know of two published New Testament scholars with Ph. D.s that have said that the sign that they were looking for in Acts 8 in Samaria was speaking in tongues. That would make it unanimous that every time there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts, someone spoke in tongues. And these were not Pentecostal or Charismatics, so their opinions would not be seen by the world as biased. Unfortunately, neither one was willing to make that final step in receiving the fullness of God’s blessing.
It’s just that the Azusa narrative became the dominant one.
Azuza got all the press.
Exactly!
Link We’ve discussed before Speaking in Tongues in America Prior to the Azusa Street. Irvin did not quite make the list – scholarly source for your claim pls! Also if Jim Daniel has a source for connecting they tongues to HSB at Murphy will be helpful http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/speaking-in-tongues-in-america-prior-to-the-azusa-street-ourcog/
January 1, 1901– The initial phenomenon of speaking in tongues occurred at Parham’s school in Topeka, Kansas
January 6, 1900 – Frank Sanford’s Shiloh school reported that “The gift of tongues has descended”
1896 – Over 100 people baptized in the Shaerer schoolhouse revival conducted by the Christian Union in the North Carolina mountains
1887 – People falling in trances and speaking in tongues were reported at Maria Etter’s revival meetings in Indiana
1874 – Speaking in tongues occurred during healing meetings reported in New York
1873 – William H. Doughty and the Gift People of Rhode Island spoke in tongues
1854 – V. P. Simmons and Robert Boyd reported tongue speaking during Moody’s meetings
Try Edward Irving on Wikipedia first. (UK) I’m sure you could find a scholarly source over there since you probably have more access to those kinds of books where you are than where I am. I could use Google scholar, but you could do that as well.
Troy Day, Edward Irving from the 1800’s was in England. Have you read about that? The movement was called the Catholic Apostolic Church after he died? THey appointed 12 so-called ‘apostles’ who they did not replace, and the movement died out. There is a splinter group in Germany.
Irving’s Christology was Lucan as well. Very Pentecostal-like.
Stephen Williams What are the characteristics of Lucan Christology. Irving believed Christ did His miracles through the power of the Spirit rather than through His deity. He was accused of saying ‘Christ’s sinful flesh’ and he lost his ordination for the Presbyterian church over this. I think it was Drummond who asked him where his authority came to baptize after he lost his ordination (weird thinking IMO.) They ended up reorganizing under Drummond and others who they considered apostles.
After he died, the movement went really liturgical. Their aristocratic ‘apostles’ went around Europe and brought back aspects of liturgy. They divided up Europe by characteristics they thought matched tribes of Israel– strange from my perspective. They believed in apostles laying hands on people to ‘seal’ them. They’d lay hands on Anglican ministers and Roman Catholic priests to put their blessing on them. Drummond promoted the idea that apostles– himself and other– were necessary for the unity of the church. That kind of reminds me of NAR, but it was different in a lot of other ways.
When it started off, though, it seemed a bit more like a kind of Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. More Charismatic I guess since it happened in a Presbyterian church that believed in infant baptism.
Through the power of the Spirit…
Stephen Williams I agree the Gospels show that He did miracles through the power of the Spirit. I think Pentecostals have a valid point on this. I don’t know if Irving tooks his teaching a bit too far or not.
Yeah, likely did. But definitely possessed a Spirit Christology.
The splinter group isn’t Pentecostal or Charismatic the way we’d think of it. They just call their leaders apostles. They don’t do sermon prep. They use the apocrypha. That’s the splinter group.
Link What’s your point on Irving – source for their speaking in tongues connected to HSB?
From Irvings ‘The Day of Pentecost, or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost’
“I have had fully in my mind-namely, for preventing the church from falling into despair upon the discovery that she possesseth not the baptism with the Holy Ghost, whose standing sign, if we err not, is the speaking with tongues (Irving 28).”
as quoted in,
https://oldlandmark.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/49/
Irving may have been the first person in history to believe in the classical Pentecostal initial evidence doctrine.
Link Hudson This is old school interpretation. Have you read the many more who say old landmarkists were and are still are clueless about the Biblical HS baptism. Are you taking “standing sign” as initial evidence or you disregard the whole initial evidence doctrine? Also do you make difference between initial evidence and the gift of speaking in tongues?
Troy, initial evidence was Parham’s way of articulating it. Irving’s was standing sign, both are not biblical, but ways to articulate a biblical idea. How we articulate is not infallible.
What is old school interpretation? I don’t know what you mean by ‘standing sign’ Landmark Baptists? What do they have to do with Irving? He was a Prebyterian in England.
You cited ‘standing sign’ above so I am asking you if you understand “standing sign” as initial evidence of HSB? You should also read pg 64ff about sign and gift (since you brought is as a source in the discussion) https://archive.org/stream/daypentecostorb00irvigoog#page/n117/mode/2up/search/tongues
Troy Day So you mean did Irving mean the same thing by ‘standing sign’ as the Pentecostal movement would mean with the term ‘initial evidence.’ That’s how I took it.
I mean have you actually read the whole book like p64ff? Does this even sound like BHS and initial evidence to you?
Troy Day, I have not read that whole book. I was going to tell you that I read in a biography about him many years ago that he believed that tongues was the sign of being baptized with the Holy Ghost. But I decided to do a web search to see if I could find a quote instead, and I posted that. I haven’t read Irving’s book.
I think you may have a point there. With old school interpretation above I was referring to old landmarkists aka bapticostal
Who are you calling Bapticostals?
For the 3rd time “old landmarkists aka bapticostal”
I dont’ get it
whre does the ‘costal part come in?
How are Landmark Baptist Pentecostal?
Don’t forget the Sunderland conference under AA Bossy and the Keswick Movement both in England
A.A. Boddy, not Bossy, who was an Anglican priest to his dying day!
PAOC- “Azusa is not the birthplace of the PAOC! Stop perpetuating the myth. Ottawa Valley – McAlister via Horner. Montreal – Baker who came from Ottawa. Toronto – Hebden Mission and Keswick. Winnipeg – Argue, Methodists and Durham in Chicago. And the Canadian who went to Azusa was McAlister and that was after he already knew about speaking in tongues from Horner in the Ottawa Valley.” -Dr. Michael Wilkinson
So in short, Canada has a distinct narrative.
Von Below (noble family in Pomerania) revival started 1820, known for singing in tongues, Lars Levi Laestadius (1830) Finnland, the Laestadius still do speak in tongues. Even in the revival lead by Paavo Ruotsasleinen, speak Ing in tongues was known.
Mukti revival in India was before Azusa Street, influenced the Chilenian revival under Hoover.
Stephen Williams Which myth do you mean here? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/true-or-false-all-pentecostal-trace-roots-to-azusa-by-dr-vinson-synan/
That the birthplace of the PAOC was Azusa.
The article states “Today, practically all Pentecostal and charismatic movements can trace their roots directly or indirectly to the humble mission on Azusa Street and its pastor.” PAOC did not start until 1919 so in most probability is directly or indirectly connected right?
Not according to Canadian scholars, eg. Wilkinson.
Stephen Williams The origin of Pentecostalism is widely considered the 1906 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, California. Within months of the outbreak of revival at Azusa Street, Pentecostalism had reached Canada, and by 1910, there were Canadian Pentecostals on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, with sizable congregations in Toronto, Ontario, and Winnipeg, Manitoba. A majority of Pentecostals were found in the prairie provinces due in part to the large numbers of United States immigrants who brought their faith with them. Because of these influences, Canadian Pentecostals maintained close ties to their American counterparts Source: The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada”. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Rev. ed. Edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Mass. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003
Have you read the Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism? Have you read Anderson? The Azusa narrative became dominant not because it was THE origin of the movement but because it became the most publicized and popular centre.
Yes I have read them. Pls cite a source for your PAOC claim
I did. Michael Wilkinson is a PAOC scholar. I quoted him directly.
Canadian Pentecostalism and Winds from the North- both by Wilkinson.
Have you read the Wilkinson books? Or William Sloos’ article in Pneuma tracing the origins of the Hebden Mission back to Keswick Holiness in England. The facts are here in the North is that Pentecostalism emerged separately from Azusa. Ellen Hebden’s experience of Spirit Baptism cannot be traced to Azusa Street anymore than can Agnes Ozman’s.
Yes – as answered before. Keswick Holiness is one very limited stream and some do not recognize it as true Pentecostal because of the Calvinist element in it. I also mentioned the Molokans and other international groups. But none of this really proves the Canadian theory does it? Pls see my last comment here https://www.facebook.com/groups/pentecostaltheologygroup/permalink/1264883633566649/?comment_id=1266671826721163&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
If you would like more light shed on the subject, you could always chat with Wilkinson. Send him a private message.
So, would you say that Durham, the AG, PAOC, or any other ” Pentecostal” group that are not Wesleyan-Holiness are not to be recognized as true Pentecostal?
Stephen Williams Guess we need to examine them when there is more time. So far the Irving, Zinzendorf and the Moravian could not be proven. I suspect the Murphy case cited by Jim Daniel is a bit shaky as well…
Did you see my post about Zinzendorf? McGee states there was tongues there
Yes you also cited William DeArteaga who stated clearly his position
Right here
Further, McGee, on page 99, citing A.J. Lewis, writes, “On one occasion, participants were ‘baptized by the Holy Spirit to one love”…and on page 32, states that famous Moravian preacher John Cennick spoke of the Spirit’s baptism “without which all other baptisms are but faint shadows” from a sermon in 1740.
Zinzendorf not out yet
Troy Day, what do you make of McGee stating that tongues occurred spontaneously during Moravian meetings!
What about Irving cannot be proven? I provided a quote about his beliefs. But I can’t find a historical link between his group and the Pentecostal movement.
Yeah, I don’t know what Troy is talking about.
I have been under the impression that the Monroe County holiness group had the experience of speaking in tongues ( from which sprang the Church of God ) around 1890.
As asked Jim Daniel about Murphy / Monroe – no doubt they may have spoken in tongues but did they connect speaking in tongues to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. In other words did they explicitly understood and stated – we speak in tongues as initial evidence our receiving of the Holy Spirit. And even more importantly – is there an explicit documented source (not later on historical here-say) that proves both their claim and experience ????
My grandfather was exposed to Pentecostals being sent out of Houston into East Texas, as early as 1910, no doubt associated with the Charles Parham group (which had sent out Seymour to Los Angeles earlier).
Stephen Williams The main thing is still the main thing – they may have spoken in tongues but did they connect speaking in tongues to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. In other words did they explicitly understood and stated – we speak in tongues as initial evidence our receiving of the Holy Spirit. And even more importantly – is there an explicit documented source (not later on historical here-say) that proves both their claim and experience ????
Likely not, due to the fact that they were not looking for “initial evidence” for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was were the likes of Parham. I am sure you are well aware that Palmer equated HSB with santification where as Oberlin and Keswick groups associated it with power for service. So, who was right, and how do you know you got it?
Charles Parham formulated initial evidence in the context of a “fundamentalist-like religious culture searching for rational responses” (Robeck)
There you go – and my point exactly. BTW you posted a partial page above, I was interested to read the whole page and 2-3 after if possible to post. Seemed like good history
I bought the book for a seminary course. Good resource.
Troy Day, McGee traces many precursors to Pentecostalism, but I think that initial evidence is a debated topic at the moment. For clarification, that’s how I knew I received it, so I am good with it!
One of my professors, thinks that Pentecostalism is more than a list of “ingredients” ( eg. HSB, spiritual gifts, Jesus is our Saviour, Healer etc etc) but it is how those ingredients are mixed and “baked”! In other words, when listing characteristics in front of a CMA student, the student didn’t see much difference. So, not just ingredients, but how they are baked!
Even Cashwell visited Azusa then went to Dunn, NC to bring Pentecost to the Southeast. I have never heard the “initial evidence” doctrine came from anywhere else – directly or indirectly.
Cashwel preached what he saw, heard and already in LA – which was the purpose of his trip http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/pentecostal-apostle-to-the-south-gb-cashwell-and-the-dunn-north-carolina-revival-of-1906/
Thank you Brother for setting the record straight. The Church of God (Cleveland) was organized in 1906!
My grandmother received Spirit Baptism in 1904, after coming in contact with a young woman with ties to the people of the Apostolic Faith (Parham’s group). She United with the Church of God (Cleveland) in 1910.
Stephen Williams The only one with doctrinal affirmation baptism with Holy Spirit with evidence of tongues before Azusa (that I have found clearly documented) Frank Sanford and his Shiloh school which was visited by both Parham and AJ Tomlinson before they experienced speaking in tongues
January 6, 1900 – Frank Sanford’s Shiloh school reported that “The gift of tongues has descended”
January 1, 1901– The initial phenomenon of speaking in tongues occurred at Parham’s school in Topeka, Kansas – year later and very much copying the same style after Parham’s visit in Shiloh.
What is NOT certain IF Parham taught initial evidence ie. speaking in tongues as part of the baptism PRIOR to Shiloh Dr. Harold D. Hunter tells the story better than me in his article on the FORGOTTEN ROOTS OF THE AZUSA STREET REVIVAL http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/pentecostal-roots-of-the-azusa-street-revival/
Yes, Parham was certainly influenced by Sanford’s school and teaching.
To me Sanford is the first one who connected speaking in tongues with HSB in modern day America
Irving in England. 1830’s.
That to me is not explicitly clear and documented As pointed to Link Hudson before. Irving’s book on pg 64ff becomes very unclear what’s standing sign, initial evidence and gift of tongues
From ‘The Collected Writings of Edward Irving’
“Beyond all question …
speaking in tongues was the sign of the Holy Ghost in the person who so spake … as the tongue or word of man is the
sign of the mind within him; so, when another Spirit, the Spirit of God, enters into him, He signifieth His presence by
another tongue from that which the person himself useth.”
according to this site:http://agchurches.org/Sitefiles/Default/RSS/IValue/Resources/Holy%20Spirit/Articles/SpeakinginTongues.pdf
Once again standing sign or initial evidence? Irving makes a great deal of difference in the other book you cited. And also presence in the person or Holy Spirit baptism?
Troy Day This doesn’t touch on the ‘initial evidence doctrine’, but I thought you might find it interesting. The first article touches a bit on Plymouth Brethren attitudes toward ‘Pentecostalism’ and eschatology. The second article is from a critic of Irving who had been in the movement. Irving had some beliefs similar to Pentecostals, including some Holiness beliefs, but other leaders in his movement did not all agree https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbrfj/10_40.pdf
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/8_Bt/Irving.html
False. Most Pentecostals will preach the beginning there. But the Church Of God was before that. It wasn’t named Church Of God at that time. But after a while the same people and same movement came up with Church Of God. And this Name has stayed. But the Church Of God was before Azusa street revival.
The Pentecostal movement came about in the upper room when peter and the people were given the gift of the Holy Spirit and spake in another language that was not their own.
Thanks for the Link Link Still seems Shiloh and Parham were the first ones to really connect it. But Irving was very very close to that too
That’s the problem. If Shiloh and Parham were first, why believe it?
I don’t know why Pentecostals would want to have connections with Sandford, either, considering the accounts of starvation, etc. which were said to have been attributed to the Lord’s leading.
Btw, a quote from Irving,
“In The Collected Writings of Edward Irving, he had written: “Beyond all question …
speaking in tongues was the sign of the Holy Ghost in the person who so spake … as the tongue or word of man is the
sign of the mind within him; so, when another Spirit, the Spirit of God, enters into him, He signifieth His presence by
another tongue from that which the person himself useth.””
from http://agchurches.org/Sitefiles/Default/RSS/IValue/Resources/Holy%20Spirit/Articles/SpeakinginTongues.pdf
false
false
False
False, Sadly The Revivals in Kansas and N.C. Mountains are often overlooked.
How do you mean? Did they connect the speaking of tongues with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Yes, 1896 Murphy NC revival did. Over 100 baptized w Holy Ghost w Speaking in Tongues.
Though they may have been speaking in tongues no one there connected it as initial evidence. This was done only at Azusa
Nope. Connected at Topeka. Seymour got his IE doctrine from Parham. Canadians trace beginnings to the Hebdens in Toronto. Hebden was influenced by Keswick Holiness- independent of Azusa. Hebden connected SB with tongues as IE.
A lot of the roots went through Charles Parham’s work in Houston, including William J. Seymour. My grandfather was Spirit-baptized near Livingston in 1915 when some young evangelists were sent out from Houston. He went on to plant several assemblies in Baytown and northeast of Houston. Raymond T. Richey set up his Bible school in Baytown.
Livingston TX?
I was taught that the AG had no solid ties to Azusa… maybe a few ingignificant figures attended Azusa, but Parham did not
The late Dr. Stanley Horton described his grandmother’s involvement at Azusa St.:
http://ifphc.org/pdf/PentecostalEvangel/1960-1969/1962/1962_10_07.pdf
Parham attended and disproved greatly AG’s roots are more in Azusa than anything else. See the ministry of Cashwell
False. Church of God Revival in Murphy predates Azusa Street by 10 years
That’s what I thought.
False. 1896 in Mountains of NC before Azusa.
10 years before California
Did anyone there connect speaking in tongues as initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit? There has been no evidence presented to that extent because no one there connected it
Pentecost started on the day of Pentecost. I suggest Marvin Arnold’s book “Apostolic Church history outline”.
Yes, we know. We are talking about American Pentecostalism
Apostolic Church history outline gives detailed info. On church history both here in the U.S. and other nations. References are given to.
Again, I realize that. HOWEVER… We are discussing American Pentecostalism. The article title is a little misleading.
It gives detailed information on American Pentecostals.
Thanks.
You’re welcome. Love you.
Phillip Aaron Powers How so? The title comes from this statement in the article: Today, practically all Pentecostal and charismatic movements can trace their roots directly or indirectly to the humble mission on Azusa Street and its pastor.
People does Reece it Azusa St first. But it’s wrong because the Church Of God was before them. It didn’t start out with the Church Of God. But Quickly changed to the Church Of God, before Azusa St. started. Even tho it changed names at first. It still was the same Church.
False. It is traced to the day of Pentecost.
I thought everyone knew that. I thought you meant in our time. We wouldn’t have it , it not for when the Holy Ghost coming on the day of Pentecost.
What happened at Azusa Street during the next three years was to change the course of church history. Although the little frame building measured only 40 by 60 feet, as many as 600 persons jammed inside while hundreds more looked in through the windows. The central attraction was tongues, with the addition of traditional black worship styles that included shouting, trances, and the holy dance. There was no order of service, since “the Holy Ghost was in control.” No offerings were taken, although a box hung on the wall proclaimed, “Settle with the Lord.” Altar workers enthusiastically prayed seekers through to the coveted tongues experience. It was a noisy place, and services lasted into the night.
False…..
Why do you feel that way? The exact statement made by the article was
Today, practically all Pentecostal and charismatic movements can trace their roots directly or indirectly to the humble mission on Azusa Street and its pastor.
Troy Day I thank God for Azusa St. Outpouring.
Modern day Pentecostal Theology does, but even Parham & Seymour needed the teaching of Acts 2 to inspire their teachings.
This was a great article…..thanks for sharing.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? WHY?
I disagree. There were early groups that had stammering lips in Michigan and Ohio and Tennessee and North Carolina who joined with other groups after Azusa .
correct http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/historically-and-theologically-first-person-in-america-to-speak-in-tongues-with-holy-ghost-baptism/
I disagree. All Pentecostals trace their roots back to the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.
what about all American Pentecostals ?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, nor American for that matter.
There are stories I have heard of people with pentecostal experience further back than our founding of this country.
Yup that when the denomination started
this is correct – THE very reason the historian of Azusa and one of the most dedicated evangelist of Pentecost BARTLEMAN left was when denominations started splitting the young movement
Chris Westerman you seem to suggest that engaging in a bitter ‘culture war’ in order to preserve America’s formerly dominant Christian culture has been largely a failed strategy but I will submit that you may be too late for any of that