I don’t understand why these two are lumped together; they’re nothing alike.
You mean it is not correct to lump together “Charismatics” and “Pentecostals”?
Either way the problem is the validation provided by the tongues experience. When a person of extremely bad moral character, or one who holds to heretical doctrines, “speaks in tongues” how can you escape the conclusion that the “Holy Spirit” cares nothing about either of those things.
I remember the commitment to “holiness” held by members of the Pentecostal Holiness denomination when I was a boy. But as the Charismatic “wave” went through at the end of the “Jesus People” revival, circa 1972, I did not know anyone who would dare to make any such distinction as you suggest.
Doctrinal apostasy is no barrier to tongues.
Sexual unholiness is no barrier to tongues.
Furthermore the “miracle healings” performed by apostate evangelists would provide the same validation, and by the same thing, there is no doctrinal or moral barrier to the miracle of interpretation of tongues. If apostasy and unholiness is so unimportant to the Spirit, why bring it up? Why make a distinction between Pentecostals and charismatics?
I understand that under a certain theology system, someone could be saved and lost and saved and lost multiple times in any time period and this idea would obviate my question, since one would only need to conclude that while Jimmy Swaggart is with the prostitute, he is lost, but he gets re-saved in time to speak in tongues and perform miracles of healing.