Jerry, that is just your opinion. I (as a Pentecostal) can defend my "theology" and "practice" using the Scriptures. Many of "us" can. As a matter of fact, the AV1611 defends it quite well. Acts 19 is a perfect example concerning our doctrine of being Baptized in the Holy Ghost subsequent to salvation. The Ephesians were asked:

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.


The word "since" in newer versions is replaced with "when" which is more in keeping with your doctrinal position.

I'm quite able to defend my "charismatic" beliefs with plenty of Scripture to back it up (I prefer Pentecostal since Charismatic tends to refer to non-traditional Pentecostal churches). The difference isn't in what the Bible says, it's what we think it means. I believe mine is the correct interpretation, and you believe yours is.

Many Biblical doctrines are that way. Where we should question someone's faith is in the fundamental doctrines (essential doctrines). The "hot-spots" doctrinally are tongues, eternal security, divorce & remarriage, the rapture, Bible prophecy: which are not essential doctrines for salvation.

I'm not saying you can't disagree. Please state your position and offer your reasons why. To say "there is much in charismatic theology and practice that does not line up with the Word of God" is only your opinion. I don't think your position lines up with the Word of God. But I absolutely will not say you aren't a Christian; you belong to a cult; or other such rhetoric.

I believe the United Pentecostal Church and a good-many Apostolic Churches are cultish because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the Apostolic Churches I'm speaking of believe in baptismal regeneration. That's cause for concern since that is going against the essential (fundamental) doctrines of Christianity.