Should Pentecostals be considered their own branch of Christianity?

[DC Al Fine]

Pentecostals are sometimes criticized for teachings practices that clash with the denominations that came out of the Reformation, most notably speaking in tongues, and modalism in the case of Oneness Pentecostals.

Is this enough of a difference to consider them their own branch of Christianity along with Protestantism, Catholicism etc?

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's interesting. I can't really weigh in on the question, but I'm interested in what others have to say.

[Blue3]

They usually are.
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Restorationist (the denominations less than 300 years old, that tend to reject long-held teachings: Mormonism, Pentacostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

They usually are.
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Restorationist (the denominations less than 300 years old, that tend to reject long-held teachings: Mormonism, Pentacostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.)

 As a resident Pentecostal, I consider ourselves a distinct branch. There's almost as many of us as there are of the other three. We have more in common with the other three branches than we do with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses (which I don't consider orthodox Christians and I lump in Oneness Pentacostals here). 

[Zioneer]

Mormon chiming in, that's a good question. I'd consider it like this:

Catholic
Orthodox (Nestorian, Syriac, Ethiopian, and the like included)
Protestant
Non-Mormon Restorationist (Pentacostalism, JWs, etc)
Mormon Restorantionist (mainline Mormonism as well as the polygamist splinters, possibly the Community of Christ/RLDS, but they've gone almost full Protestant at this point)

I see Mormonism as very, very different from even the other Restorationist churches to be its own branch, while still remaining Christian. We are pretty self-contained, and don't really have much in common with other branches of Christianity, especially in terms of church government.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd advocate a first-tier division of Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, and a second-tier division of Western Christianity into (Latin Rite) Catholic, Reformed (in the broadest sense, not in the sense of Calvinist), and Restorationist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that all the branches of Christianity should be viewed as having the same branch point is to say the least odd. The first branching is between the Occidental and Oriental Churches. The Occidental branch then splits between the Catholic and Protestant branches. The Protestant branch split initially between the Apostolic, Reformed, and Baptist branches, with Mormonism, Adventism, and Pentecostalism being later developments.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The idea that all the branches of Christianity should be viewed as having the same branch point is to say the least odd. The first branching is between the Occidental and Oriental Churches. The Occidental branch then splits between the Catholic and Protestant branches. The Protestant branch split initially between the Apostolic, Reformed, and Baptist branches, with Mormonism, Adventism, and Pentecostalism being later developments.

I think there's some merit to this schema too, although I'd characterize the original intra-Protestant split as Magisterial/Radical. And then of course you have the Fundamentalist/Modernist split spanning across almost all Protestant denominations a century ago.

[afleitch]

Not to mention that some early branches (adoptionism etc) withered. Or were forcebly burnt off.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not to mention that some early branches (adoptionism etc) withered. Or were forcebly burnt off.

Which as an adoptionist myself, I think is a shame. Tho even as an adoptionist I'm a bit heretical as I don't think that Christ was adopted, but rather that when Jesus was adopted, he became the incarnation of the already existing Christ the Son.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not to mention that some early branches (adoptionism etc) withered. Or were forcebly burnt off.

Which as an adoptionist myself, I think is a shame. Tho even as an adoptionist I'm a bit heretical as I don't think that Christ was adopted, but rather that when Jesus was adopted, he became the incarnation of the already existing Christ the Son.

I thought this was the standard adoptionist position.

[Blue3]

What do you guys think of this:

[DC Al Fine]

Shia Muslims, and non-Catholic Christians would like to have a word with your chart out back

[Antonio the Sixth]

Shia Muslims, and non-Catholic Christians would like to have a word with your chart out back

Besides, why are all the Reformed Churches lumped together while the tiny denominations evolved from the CoE are listed separately? Whoever made this chart is very anglo-centric.

[DC Al Fine]

Shia Muslims, and non-Catholic Christians would like to have a word with your chart out back

Besides, why are all the Reformed Churches lumped together while the tiny denominations evolved from the CoE are listed separately? Whoever made this chart is very anglo-centric.

Gee I hadn't noticed that. Oh here's another one: Pentecostalism emerges around 1750!

Religion is very complicated, so any attempt to graph is bound to oversimplify and make mistakes. On top of that, it always seems that the people that make these charts make a lot of unforced errors that make the charts even worse.

Ok Blue. I'll stop crapping on that chart you found now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, in what world is Hasidism separate from Judaism?! And why list Zen and Nichiren separately but not other Mahayana sects?

Also 'Zionism' 'Anti-Zionism' ayy lmao

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also 'Zionism' 'Anti-Zionism' ayy lmao

Oh wow, yeah, that's just ridiculous.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I also love the Quaker->Methodist->Pentecostal genealogy, in which they're all seen as somehow outgrowths of Anglicanism (which, granted, in the case of Methodism is actually true) rather than related to the Radical Reformation in any way. And how 'Mayan Olmec religion' disappears somehow within the first few centuries of the Christian Era and all other Amerindian religions are nonexistent. And how [Inks]ing SGI is on here but not Pure Land. And the fact that it has Vajrayana as growing directly from Theravada (which is treated as The True Buddhism in the same way that non-Hasidic Judaism is The True Judaism and the Catholic Church is The True Christianity) rather than as related to Mahayana.

[Blue3]

Jeez, someone wished there was a chart showing how they branch out, I found and posted one, and it hijacks the thread!

I challenge someone to make a similar but better graph, taking everyone's concerns here into account.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I also love the Quaker->Methodist->Pentecostal genealogy, in which they're all seen as somehow outgrowths of Anglicanism (which, granted, in the case of Methodism is actually true) rather than related to the Radical Reformation in any way.

Pentecostalism came out of the Holiness movement, which itself was largely, but not exclusively an offshoot of Methodism, so it's not entirely weird. It's certainly not as bad as calling Lutheranism a branch of the Reformed church.

[Santander]

Hilarious chart

[DC Al Fine]

Getting back on topic...

I think it would be helpful to use a 'test' like one might develop in a court case to determine what makes a separate wing of Christianity. Here are some potential indicators:

1) Modifying the definition of God
2) Looking to a new authority
3) Introducing major new doctrines
4) Not fellow-shipping with the parent group
5) Significant numbers

Applying this to Pentecostalism, #'s 3 and 5 are a big yes, #4 is a no, and #'s 1 & 2 are 'depends on the sect'. All of that adds up to a big fat 'maybe?'

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You also have to factor Protestant churches within parent denominations (e.g. Elevation Church in NC/SC and Southern Baptist) who also believe in speaking in tongues but are not of a defined Pentecostal group.

[RI]

Pentecostals hardly hold a monopoly on speaking in tongues, as evidenced by Charismatic Catholicism (which I'm not a huge fan of, but isn't actually heretical). I'd only categorize Pentecostals who deny the Trinity or practice modalism in some manner as "separate."

[Figueira]

They usually are.
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Restorationist (the denominations less than 300 years old, that tend to reject long-held teachings: Mormonism, Pentacostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.)

Orthodox is way too broad.