Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)

# on 10 Dec 2008
Current Issues in Theology & Spiritual Gifts & Theology

Comments (207)

Related Posts

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 8): I am a De Facto Cessationist

207 Responses to “Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)”

1. Matt Evans on 10 Dec 2008 at 3:38 pm #

   Well, you definitely piqued my interest with this post. I started my undergrad career at Oral Roberts University and am finishing it at Criswell College, so I’ve gotten both sides of this debate for the past 4 and a half years.
   I would say I am a cessationist, but mainly out of the fear I have of some charismatics treating God like a soda machine because they have that “higher level of expectation” that God will do something.
   I’ve seen many times where someone in a charismatic church (ie. Church on the Move, Tulsa) has had something bad happen to them and a lot of church members then make them feel like they didn’t have enough belief in God or else weren’t planting a big enough seed (ie. Seed-Faith).
   It’s that increased expectation that turns me off a lot now. I worry about those who do have that expectation only to have their prayer (seemingly) go unanswered, while they continue to expect a miracle. What happens to their faith when that miracle that they expect doesn’t come?

2. C. Barton on 10 Dec 2008 at 4:28 pm #

   That God is not an impersonal & cosmic ATM which dispenses gifts and power to those who know the right “PIN”, I agree (this is the pagan concept of invocation which does not apply to our Heavenly Father).
   That God continues to intervene/minister in our lives, even in miraculous ways, I agree. Yahweh is not an absentee Father!
   In order to decide if a special dispensation of “gifts” has been superceded by Apostolic attrition or by the completion of the Bible, I would like to know how those gifts actually operated in the early church.
   Paul encouraged all to persue the gift of prophecy, meaning that those who can rightly interpret and apply God’s word are more helpful to the Church than those who pray in a special language for their own edification. My point is that the “utilitarian” gifts, such as prophecy, are just as needed today as they were back then, regardless of how great a foundation the Church has in our modern times. And besides, the Gospel is yet to be established in many places, including within the USA, so those at the vanguard of evangelization ought to seek the confirmatory gifts if they are to be found.
   Even so, the Holy Spirit still indwells Christians and He still leads us into correct understanding.

3. EricW on 10 Dec 2008 at 4:33 pm #

   C. Barton: Paul encouraged all to persue (sic) the gift of prophecy, meaning that those who can rightly interpret and apply God’s word are more helpful to the Church than those who pray in a special language for their own edification.

   Are you equating “prophecy” with the interpretation and application of Scripture? Is this what Paul meant by it in his discussion of “prophecy” and its practice “when you assemble”?

4. C. Barton on 10 Dec 2008 at 5:03 pm #

   Yes, in part; as Michael distinguishes “word of knowledge” as separate, I would posit that our modern use of the term, “Gift of Prophecy” should at least include the Spirit-led interpretation of scripture in its application to present times and circumstances, as well as its application to the future.
   The common use of the word “prophecy” to denote divination or seeing into the future is, I believe, too restrictive in the Biblical context.
   P.S.: Thanks for the spell-check!

5. Lisa Robinson on 10 Dec 2008 at 6:07 pm #

   Matt, I am right there with you. I was firmly entrenched in the Charismatic movement, wholeheartedly embracing the doctrine, including the validity of modern day apostles and prophets. In fact, I had planned on writing in the very near future about my “conversion” experience to embrace the reformed, soft-cessationist position I now hold.

   What you write is an unfortunate occurrence in many places. I think embracing all the gifts as being normative for today creates a “more” mentality that is associated with true spirituality, a desire for more of what God would say through prophets and apostles, more revival, more supernatural occurrences. It’s a mentality that seeks for God’s movement through external circumstances rather than the inward transformation that Christ came to bring. I will probably draw heat for saying this but its as if folks are being lied to from leaders within the movement when they are told it is their divine right to walk in health and prosperity when the NT makes no such claims.

   Interestingly, I had to read Surprised by the Voice of God for my Intro to Theology class and have to do a methods paper in response to his claims.

6. Marc on 10 Dec 2008 at 6:47 pm #

   I appreciate this post

7. EricW on 10 Dec 2008 at 7:33 pm #

   C. Barton:

   I don’t view Paul’s use or understanding of “prophecy” as denoting “divination or seeing into the future,” but rather a spontaneous Spirit-inspired utterance, which may play out like a Psalm, or be a hymn or a song, or be an encouraging or edifying or consoling word/message from the Lord/Spirit/God. That doesn’t mean it can’t be a prophecy of things to come, but it seems that a lot what the OT prophets wrote is along the lines of warning or exhortation or consolation without necessarily being “predictive.” Or so I think. The key is “Spirit-inspired” and perhaps also “spontaneous.” I.e., I don’t think methodical study-acquired exposition of Scripture was what Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 12-14, though that doesn’t discount the value of the study of Scripture in making one receptive to a nudge from the Spirit to speak forth something It prompts.

   (And my use of “It” for the Spirit is not because I think the Spirit is simply a force, but because the Greek pneuma is neuter, and just because the Father and the Son are “Hes” doesn’t mean the Spirit, too, is automatically or should be assumed to be a “He” – but were I to use “She” for the Spirit, that, too, might be genderizing It too much.)

8. Ken on 10 Dec 2008 at 10:57 pm #

   It has been my observation that both sides of this argument about the gifts of the Spirit has been sifted and strained ad infinatum. I’ve heard many convincing arguments from the hard cessationist camp in recent days. My son who’s own conversion is a miracle of just becoming a new creature has given me many convincing arguments why charismatics are completely wrong about the Scriptures. I believe that the few arguments I’ve told him are not easily breached but he tries. What he seems to lack is the experience of an event that transformed my own life. I cannot discount and then disregard what I personally experienced and dramatically transformed my own personal walk with Jesus because of a John MacArthur argument. Although seemingly convincing when examined purely from a logical standpoint it seems unconvincing due to the content being apart from what is supernatural in nature. To explain the ” baptism of the H.S.” as it is called in charismatic circles is like telling the farmer who never has seen a giraffe. When the farmer sees the giraffe he simply says it doesn’t exist because he’s never seen one before. Hard cessationists will discount any experience and emotion from an argument because they claim they argue from a higher plain of Scripture. I suppose anyone can do that if one has a total understanding of Scripture so I must defer to such superior knowledge.

   One thing that stands out about the two camps is that the charismatics are more likely to pray boldly and get answers from God based on their faith despite their glaring ignorance of proper exegesis of Scripture. Somehow that seems to comfort me when my own feelings of inferiority around the Scriptural giants eek out. I especially enjoy the pontification from those that know nothing about a supernatural experience they speak about with such gravity!

   I don’t mean to impugn anyone’s opinion here I just thought it might be a different point of view worth throwing into the mix.
   From an evangelical that loves Scripture but has some knowledge from an experential level on the subject.

9. Chris Davenport on 10 Dec 2008 at 11:38 pm #

   So Mr. Patton, what do you think about Dr. J.P.Moreland and Dr. Sam Storms? Just curious because these guys are Charismatic.

10. Jason C on 10 Dec 2008 at 11:56 pm #

    I would place myself in a soft-charismatic position (because someone has to be there).

    I regard all the gifts of the spirit as being available to believers (those who place their trust/loyalty in Christ) but I do have my doubts about labeling people as “prophets” or “apostles”. I would probably have more confidence if prophets in the modern church offered the same level of authority/detail as offered by first testament prophets. Apostles seem to have been chosen/sent by Jesus specifically which makes a modern apostleship seem rather difficult to substantiate.

11. C Michael Patton on 11 Dec 2008 at 12:22 am #

    They are both awesome!

12. N. Dan Smith on 11 Dec 2008 at 8:46 am #

    What about total cessationism? There are at least a few folks out there who subscribe to the idea that there are no spiritual gifts, sign or otherwise, in operation today. I have always thought that position made more theological sense than what is traditionally called “cessationism.”

13. EricW on 11 Dec 2008 at 9:29 am #

    My recollection of John MacArthur’s The Charismatics and Charismatic Chaos was that he proof-texted comments by those he was criticizing/critiquing, and used quotes sometimes out of context to make unfair criticisms.

    As for his comment/claim in his Study Bible (borrowed from Spiros Zodhiates, I believe), that “tongues” (plural) and “tongue” (singular) indicate two different things in 1 Corinthians 12-14 — one (I forget which) was a true language and hence acceptable, and the other was simply gibberish (which I believe MacArthur equated with modern-day tongues-speaking) — I recall finding a couple verses in the Greek of those passages that undermined MacArthur’s “formula,” and when I posed a question about its validity at B-Greek, the posters there rejected MacArthur’s attempted distinction.

    So … what books by cessationists do you believe make the best case for cessationism?

14. Mason on 11 Dec 2008 at 11:04 am #

    I’m not charismatic myself, but am cautiously open if it is dealt with in the right way.
    The main reason I am open is not because of any personal ‘spiritual gift’ experience, but rather because I increasingly find the cessationist arguments to be quite poorly grounded.

    Usually you have to buy into a specific premise (typically either a dispensational understanding of the church and the book of Acts, or the assumption that the purpose of sign gifts was to fill a certain role until the canon was completed, which is just that, an assumption, not something you can show anywhere Biblically) and so, if you do not buy into these different premises then the whole cessationist thing kind of falls apart.

    Now, I usually think that the way I sign gifts are used and the movements that focus on them are not really following what the Bible teaches on the issue either, so I have a lot of suspicions about their validity as well. All in all, both sides need to acknowledge the issue is not as cut and dried as they might like to believe.

15. Joshua on 11 Dec 2008 at 11:37 am #

    I do believe God can work miracles, and I really want to believe that there are “healers” today.

    However, I recently read a ministry website of a college student who use to be at my church and has now deemed himself a Pastor. This is what his website says (i have removed the name/location of the church for privacy reasons):

    “Pastor “Joe” will be preaching at the Church of God in “Church town”. All are invited to attend, it will be in the main chapel at 7:30pm. Pastor “Joe” has asked everyone to invite a non believer and if you or someone you know is sick come expecting a miracle. ”

    Then:

    “UPDATE! This night was a fruitful night, Pastor “Joe”preached on “What it means to have faith of a mustard seed”.God truly manifested Himself there, some of the results are: a Jewish man received Jesus as his Messiah and many people were healed of different sickness’ including Cancer. God is Great. Pastor “Joe” was invited to come back and he will in the future.”

    The last sentence of the first paragraph really rubs me the wrong way. However, in a certain sense aren’t we suppose to be confident that God will do things? Perhaps its due to my lack of faith and experience with such things, but I just feel something is terribly wrong with this.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

16. From The Balcony on 11 Dec 2008 at 11:47 am #

    Michael – great post today. Like a few above, during my church shopping adventures, I tried to remain open and visited reasonable charismatic churches, just to see if perhaps my view (same as yours) could be wrong.

    Your statement:
    “However, there does seem to be a higher level of expectation for divine intervention among charismatics than from cessationists. Expectation of the power of God can both motivate a Christian’s life or be a cause for great disillusionment……..”
    ……….is right on.

    The positive I found in reasonable charismatic churches is that people genuinely want to commune and fellowship with God. Their hearts are softer to God sometimes. But I found their expectations were founded on their own desires to achieve this. I also found they are more easily misled.

    You said: “I am not saying this is good or bad.” Michael, reasonable charismatic churches are fairly harmless. The extremes are not. My guess is that a lot of people don’t have a clue how an organization like IHOP (International House of Prayer) is sucking in our college students right this very minute. Prayer? They do more than prayer… (It would take me a book to give you the history of this aberrant organization.) When you start getting into the field of prophets, visions, etc…..a lot of people get hurt because leaders with charisma easily influence believers who want so badly to believe God is tangible and can be touched.

    So I agree with you on everything you have said except this one point: There is danger in the extremist camps of the charismatic world.

17. EricW on 11 Dec 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    From The Balcony:

    Re: IHOP – I/we lived in Kansas City, MO, when the “Kansas City Prophets” affair was getting headlines, and used to attend both Kansas City Fellowship (Mike Bickle, pastor (IHOP founder) – formerly South Kansas City Fellowship, and later Metro Vineyard Fellowship, and then Metro Christian Fellowship) and Full Faith Church of Love (Ernie Gruen, pastor, who accused KCF and Bickle & Co. in writing and on tape of being a “charismatic heresy”).

    Both churches were charismatic/non-denominational.

    Those were interesting times….

18. Dave Z on 11 Dec 2008 at 12:21 pm #

    I grew up in a liberal leaning (LL) non-charismatic (NC) Baptist church, then began cafefully avoiding God in my late teens, until I surrendered my life in an AOG church at 23. The passion of the AOG folks, which was new to me, was awesome. Plus they acted as if the power of God was actually real – also a novel concept. I soon began thinking all NC churches had “a form of Godliness” but were “denying the power thereof.” That church really helped me rebuild the spiritual foundation that somehow was actually built at the LL Baptist church.

    Then I moved and began attending a different AOG church. Those people could be described as charismaniacs. Made me question my (mis)understanding of NC and C churches.

    Fast forward 20 years. Today, I am not a cessationist, partly because I’m not aware of any convincing scriptural support for that position. But I am also very wary of what has been done and taught in charismatic circles. I am on staff at an NC church and have attended NC churches ever since that second AOG church. But I still think most NC folks are missing something – that expectation that God is going to work in dramatic ways. There was a passion and a reality of God’s power in that first AOG church that I cannot deny, and I sill miss it.

19. Steve Merckx on 11 Dec 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    Very interesting balanced approach to the subject Michael.
    I would say that I hold to the cessationists viewpoint here, as you described it. There is some trouble with denying God’s intervention in the world today. he tongues issues is always most prevalent to me, because of the Greek definition of what the term describes. Anytime I hear mutterings of gibberish I’m often turned off and feel pity for the individual for convincing themselves that they are actually muttering something intelligible.
    On the other hand I would never put past God to cause another to speak in a foreign language and communicate the gospel more clearly than the English language could convey. As long as the interpretation is valid and God is glorified I’d claim miraculous status for such an event.
    The biggest issue with Charismatics, at least the ones I know personally, is that they want to claim something [some special gift] that God has given only to them. I once had a person claiming to be a Prophetess in one of my studies. She claimed this because she sensed people’s heart [albeit a feat that almost all women have] and was able to speak a word from God to them that made them see clearer. By word of God I mean Scripture, of course. I’m not sure she ever saw that having the Holy Spirit imbibe you with a gift of Prophecy [in the truest sense of the word] does not necessarily make you a Prophet [as seer].
    Many Christian writers are fraught with warnings of Christians falling for such ideas that, while having gifts given to them, that they do not fall into the lies of satan that the gifts are to glorify themselves. This is most discerting today in most of the TV evangelists that are making amockery of God on the airwaves.
    Probably the best example of where the gifts come from and who is responsible for them is found in the book of Acts, when Peter seizes the moment to show the multitudes that the very Christ whom they sentenced to death on the cross, was the one responsible for all the miracles they were witnessing at that time. I think we all could re-visit that chapter and take note of Peter’s own discretion for pointing to Christ when gifts are shown.

    Great post!

20. Dennis on 11 Dec 2008 at 12:50 pm #

    I am a soft-cessationist myself. When it comes to adding new scripture (Revelation) to the Bible my view could change more towards a hard-cessationist view.

    When it concerns spiritual gifts (I don’t have any) or healing, then I am a soft-cessationist. I couldn’t rule these things out entirely because I have seen and witnessed healings, but most of my experiences have been through prayer, not so much the laying of hands.

21. Kyrie Eleison on 11 Dec 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    If spiritual warfare has not ceased, why would charismatic giftings cease?

    Wouldn’t that be like leaving Satan and his demons unchallenged to freely wreak havok while disarming all God’s children of making some pretty interesting counter-moves? Is there a passage that deliniates a point in history where all God’s children are fully unarmed of any gifting?

22. learning on 11 Dec 2008 at 1:48 pm #

    It’s not just J.P. Moreland and Sam Storms, there’s also CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace. There’s also New Frontiers with Terry Virgo based in the U.K. There’s also what is known as Grace Chuches. And also Mark Driscoll and Acts 29.

    From the testimonies I have read of people who use to be Charismatics but have turned to the Cessationists position it seems like most of them were in the “TBN” kind of charismatic churches where preaching and teaching was kind of shallow and where every sunday felt like a Pep Rally with no substance. For those who use to be in those kinds of churches what are your thoughts on such movements such as CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace or even Mark Driscoll and Acts 29? I wouldn’t even consider the health and wealth stuff charismatic. I think it’s just bad. As an evangelical charismatic or continuationist I loathe ‘charismaniac’ churches.

    Dave Z , I agree with your observation about ‘NC’ churches. If you miss charismatic churches why not plant a church? What about joining Acts 29 or Sovereign Grace? I personally love Sovereign Grace. They are both biblically strong as well as refreshingly charismatic. They are serious about both.

23. EricW on 11 Dec 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    Have y’all ever read Craig Keener’s recounting how he once listed for a skeptical teacher the nonrational experiences and healings, etc., that he had experienced or witnessed, which left the teacher with either having to reexamine his cessationist/rationalistic/Bultmannian/non-miraculous position, or call Keener a liar? I think it’s in his book Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today and/or his book 3 Crucial Questions About the Holy Spirit?

24. Gina_Biola-Mom on 11 Dec 2008 at 2:11 pm #

    This is Great! Thanks for this post!
    I have feelings about both sides of this debate. As it has been said that such gifts are not “normative” today, yet God can and does work miracles.
    Everyone is given different gifts in the service of the Kingdom – but we need to take careful consideration that we are not overly vain about what serves a higher purpose. All gifts are God-given. Yet, in these particular gifts of ‘Signs and Wonder’ we should see these as miracles, plain and simple. That is the danger within the Charismatic Movement that needs to be recognized. God is not a cosmic Santa Claus that we should expect such Apostolic gifts to accrue on our behalf due to our force of faith.

25. Dave Z on 11 Dec 2008 at 2:16 pm #

    To Learning, regarding a church plant:

    If I wasn’t fully convinced that I am serving exactly where God wants me to serve, I might. but who knows, perhaps he’ll lead that way someday.

26. Robert Jimenez on 11 Dec 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    Matt,

    I would say I am a charismatic but mainly out of the fear I have of some cessationist treating God like a cheap soda machine because they have that “lower level of expectation” that God will do nothing. — Just kidding sorry, but I just had too. I hope you have a sense of humor. But I do believe that the gifts of the Spirit are still here for the church, and have not ceased.

    Matt & Lisa, I am sorry that you two have had an unfortunate experiences with the Charismatic movement.

    Lisa, I so disagree with this statement “It’s a mentality that seeks for God’s movement through external circumstances rather than the inward transformation that Christ came to bring” I know that is your experience and I am not saying that is not occurring, but that has not been my experience at all. I would say just the opposite has been my experience, that we are looking for that inward transformation. I just preached on this last night.

    I acknowledge that the health and wealth, name it and claim have done as disservice to the body of Christ, and given charismatics a bad reputation.

    It is sad to read the response of some of the folks here. I say that because one simply sees some extreme form of the Charismatic movement, and that is the whole basis on how we formulate our opinion? Is that fair? Is that the right approach? Sure those who participate in extreme measures deserve the criticism that they get. But is that reason enough to say the Charismatic movement is wrong? Or only seeking God through external circumstances? I am sorry but a blanket statement like that about charismatics just really bothers me.

    There is a valid move of the Spirit that is happening in churches, and in the lives of millions of people. Yes the gifts are manifesting. But any good theologically sound charismatic knows the difference. The charismatic Christians that I know don’t hold to any of the extremes that are mentioned here (at least the ones I associate with), and I bet I know a whole lot more of them then any of you here. They love God, and the only thing they are seeking is a relationship which the Logos, the Son of God who paid a high price that we should be so blessed to be able to commune with Him. All I want is to know Him, and to be transformed into His image. Most Charismatics that I know, that is all they want as well. As most non-Charismatics that I know.

    I think you all would benefit from reading Gordon Fee’s excellent work “God’s Empowering Presence – The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul” it’s published by Hendrickson. No one would argue that he is not a sound theologian, nor a Greek scholar. He makes a strong exegetical presentation.

    I could equally give you a number of reasons why I am not a Calvinist and how they have hurt me personally through out the years, and say that that this is why I am not a Calvinist. And say things like “all Calvinist care about is being right, even if they are wrong, and are not seeking an inward transformation that Christ came to bring.”

    But instead I take the high road, and realize that I may be wrong. And I appreciate their devotion to the scriptures. I realize that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We are God’s adopted children, and like it or not we are family. I read this blog because I know for a fact that Michael is my brother in the Lord. I know for a fact that as this blog will continue to evolve he will give sound reasons why he has not fully embraced the charismata. And not some emotionally charged accusations. And I doubt he is deterred because of the extremes that have been done. He is just way to smart to allow the crazies to influnce his judgment.

    Michael, really looking forward to read the continuation of this blog.

27. Jugulum on 11 Dec 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    I’ll be interested to read this series. I’ve been working through these issues myself–in part because I’m a member of a somewhat-charismatic church, trying to exercise discernment. And a number of my own blog entries lately have been related to the subject. (I’m about to post something on tongues.)

    One comment: Your definition of “charismatic” can be a bit tricky.

    A charismatic is one who believes that God still gifts people in the church with the extra-ordinary or supernatural gifts and that these gifts are normative in the body of Christ for the extension of God’s message, glory, and grace. [bold added]

    That phrase “normative in the church” can be tricky. Depending on how you parse that, it might be a fair way to define charismatic… or it might not.

    It cannot mean, “Normative for every believer to practice”. (Some in the Pentecostal wing may believe that everyone should speak in tongues, but it’s not a dominant view in the entire charismatic world.)

    It can mean, “We should desire and pray for tongues, prophecies, healings, and miracles to be given in the church.” But that can be balanced by a healthy appreciation for God’s sovereignty in the distribution of gifts.

    But keep in mind: The way many charismatics define “gift of healing” or “gift of miracles”, it means something like, “God often responds to prayer for healing when this person prays.” But a cessationist can agree pretty closely with that idea. So… It becomes unclear what’s meant by, “normative in the church”.

28. Mark Barnes on 11 Dec 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    I appreciate the post, but I’m not convinced you’re justified in arbitrarily designating some gifts as supernatural/revelatory and others as (presumably) natural. That’s partly why I’m neither a cessationist nor a charismatic

29. RD on 11 Dec 2008 at 3:13 pm #

    As my blog details, I was raised charismatic, but for the last decade have been slowly sliding away, first towards Michael’s current position but more recently more towards his old, more hard-line position.

    I mean that, while for many years I began to question many aspects of the charismatic/Pentecostal movement, I held out hope that something about the movement was right and that I, in my unique situation, had just not been privileged enough to see it. As I gradually grew more confident in cessationism, I simultaneously observed that the charismatic movement logically and seemingly inevitably proceeds toward error in its vision on how the church is supposed to operate.

    Now, I’m not going to say by any means that it’s the “doctrine of demons”, “another gospel”, or any such thing; keep in mind also that I am not painting all individuals who consider themselves charismatic to suffer these shortcomings. But my increasing conviction is that those who do not have a biblical rationale for questioning certain core aspects of charismatic teaching will not be able to argue with the movement that turns Christianity in practice into something almost unrecognizable. A significant segment of the charismatic movement views the church’s role as an altogether different animal than does the cessationist — and what’s worse, unlike “soft cessationists”, they do so with the full weight of biblical authority. Here’s a few examples.

    1) Physical healing is provided for in the atonement.
    They typically use Isaiah 53’s “by his stripes we are healed” to justify this. Even some charismatics wouldn’t agree, but among those who do agree, its implications are tremendous: although most adherents to this teaching are seldom pushed this far, if it’s true then every person “atoned for” (every Christian) should be healed. Those who aren’t healed…well, makes you question whether they were atoned for, doesn’t it? Shouldn’t it? The larger implication is that divine healing, since it’s so rare, should be sought as a fruit of our atonement; no wonder, then, that it’s such a focus among most charismatics!

    2) Spiritual warfare is the backdrop upon which our lives are overlaid.
    Okay, this sounds dramatic. But it’s not far from the truth. Had a bad week? Satan’s been out to get you. Feeling depressed? You’re not depressed, you’re demon-oppressed. Holding a grudge? Rebuke that “spirit of unforgiveness”. Even conditions diagnosed by medical authorities such as bipolar disorder likely have a spiritual root that can be addressed in lieu of or (fortunately, but inconsistently) alongside medical treatment. The result is that we live in a world of magic that bears an uncommon resemblance to the beliefs of the superstitious populace in the late Middle Ages.

    But is it Scriptural? Sure! If you read the Gospels and Acts as depictions of status quo for the church, one can easily see why overt demonic activity and frequent angelic visits should be expected. Here again: without a Scriptural principle precluding this, it’s the cessationists who are inconsistent.

    3) The gospel proclaimed correctly will be accompanied by signs and wonders as confirmation.
    Here’s where we get real problems, and where my home church is making its bed to lie in. If signs and wonders accompany those who believe as we see in Acts and, as Paul and the author of Hebrews agreed, they existed to confirm divine authority and the truthfulness of the gospel, and if the Bible doesn’t explicitly nail down a date in which those things ended, and since (they argue) these things still happen today at charismatic revivals, then the clear testimony of Scripture seems to preclude any reading that denies the centrality of these events to our evangelism. Reading Acts or 1 Corinthians 12-14 as a textbook for the modern church’s experience would indict semi-charismatics as compromisers!

    There are great Scriptural reasons to believe that these three points are misunderstandings (many of which I have addressed on my blog). I just don’t think the middle ground between them and cessationism is very stable. I would certainly rather someone question parts of charismatic doctrine than to believe all of it, so I definitely would prefer the “soft” charismatic position over full-blown charismania. But if I haven’t stated it clearly enough before, let me say it again:

    The Christian life as defined strictly by pursuing personal holiness and engaging in efforts enabled by the Spirit, bearing witness to unbelievers by a sanctified life and words of testimony, depending wholly on the teachings of Scripture and the encouragement of believers to adequately instruct on all matters of “life and godliness” — all of this done with charisms à la carte…? How consistent is this with the biblical record? I think both the “hard” charismatics and the cessationists have a more cohesive argument from Scripture.

    A consistent charismatic view will see the Christian life as characterized by performing signs and wonders to convert the lost and act as enables of the atonement by healing believers; God communicates with His Church through prophetic messages, dreams, visions, and angelic visits — the first-century church did this stuff, so why shouldn’t we? Why would any Christian want to miss out on what God’s doing in order to maintain their dead tradition or their respectability?

    I hope I don’t sound too bombastic. This is painful stuff to me, as I stay “in the closet” about this stuff among many loved ones who are caught up in the “hard” charismatic view. More than anything else, I want to know on what grounds someone can be a part-way charismatic and consistently disavow the problematic beliefs I mentioned.

    ~RD

30. Tobias on 11 Dec 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    Quick comment regarding comment #9 by Chris D.:

    So Mr. Patton, what do you think about Dr. J.P.Moreland and Dr. Sam Storms? Just curious because these guys are Charismatic.

    I’ve fairly certain I’ve heard Dr. Moreland explicitly state that he is not Charismatic. I believe it was during an interview about his Kingdom Triangle book, which I downloaded from his book website.

    I’m not sure about all the distinctions, but he calls himself a Third Wave person…

31. “Why I am not a Charismatic” | The Daily Scroll on 11 Dec 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    [...] “Why I am not a Charismatic” December 11, 2008 The first in a series of posts by Michael Patton is up at Parchment and Pen: [...]

32. C. Barton on 11 Dec 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    Hey, EricW:
    I agree that your refinement of the definition speaks truly about how the Spirit can manifest. If by “spontaneous” you mean without human premeditation, then that is a primary basis for evidence, in that many of us have been moved in mind and spirit to share what the Holy Spirit is saying, doing, etc. This is experiential, yet it is confirmed by the Scriptures (Micah, Malachi, Isaiah, Gospel of John, etc.). As for the Mother/Father God, Jesus used the paternal pronouns, so there is weight to the argument in calling God our Father.
    Let us not forget that Jesus pronounced the “teleos” on the cross, and at the last supper Jesus declared the New Covenant in His blood.
    He is our perfection; not the Written Bible.

33. EricW on 11 Dec 2008 at 4:56 pm #

    C. Barton:

    I have no problem with calling God “Father,” nor did I infer otherwise; my comment was about genderizing the Holy Spirit as either a “He” or a “She.” I guess a case could be made that since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, and God is a He (and in one instance the Spirit seems to be called the Spirit of Jesus, who is also a He), one could say that the Spirit is also a He. But no one in the New Testament refers to the Holy Spirit as a “He,” and the instances in GJohn where a masculine pronoun is used to refer to the Holy Spirit can be shown to have, or likely have, the masculine paraklêtos as the antecedent, not the neuter pneuma. When Paul compares a man’s/person’s spirit with God’s Spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:11, he doesn’t genderize the human spirit as a “he” or a “she,” either.

34. Chas on 11 Dec 2008 at 5:05 pm #

    I appreciate the thoughtful input of the posters here. I believe the bottom line for all of us is simply this: God is sovereign and He has commanded that we love one another .
    I became a tongue-talking charismatic early in my Christian walk when I read David Wilkerson’s “The Cross and the Switchblade” and earnestly asked the Lord if the baptism described in that book was real. At the time, I did not know anyone else who spoke in tongues and it was not until some months later that I discovered a charismatic group practically under my nose and had my first contact with other “tongue-talkers”. (This was in downstate Illinois in the late ’70s). I had virtually no charismatic fellowship for the first 6 months following my experience even though I was actively involved in a denominational church. I knew that to tell my experience to the elders would likely brand me a nut case and having recently been saved from a life of public, heavy-duty sin I had no desire to reopen scrutiny of my sanity. I was so ignorant of the whole matter that I did not realize that the big AOG church a block down the street specialized in that sort of thing.

    In any case, I have no quarrel with non-charismatics although I would gently suggest that one might consider that if God has, in fact, imparted special gifts for His bride in a member of the body it might behoove that member to be submissive and obedient to His calling. Just a thought.

    Finally, with regard to the “word faith” teaching, it seems doubtful that such doctrine is, strictly speaking, a part of any biblical gospel, charismatic or not. It seems more fitting to categorize it as a species of what Paul referred to as “another gospel”. The reason is that “word faith” is founded in large part on presumption rather than faith. When spokesmen for that school can boast “I have faith in my faith” as a grounds for a relationship with the Creator, then we are no longer dealing with orthodox Christian faith but rather a gnostic counterfeit. We must pray that God will open their eyes to the incomprehensibly glorious fact of His great love and mercy.

35. Edward T. Babinski on 11 Dec 2008 at 5:56 pm #

    Having been a charismatic I can still speak in tongues, but later I left the Christian fold. I know others who can still speak in tongues yet who have left the fold.

36. Jugulum on 11 Dec 2008 at 6:09 pm #

    Tobias:

    It may depend on the precise definition that you give to “charismatic”, but “Third Wave” is typically seen as a part of the charismatic movement, not distinct from it.

    Basically, if “charismatic”==”continuationist”, then Third Wave are definitely charismatic.

    I believe the major difference is that Third Wave charismatics do not believe that “baptism of the Spirit” is separate from conversion.

    Sam Storms is also Third Wave. And if you call John Piper and Wayne Grudem charismatic–they believe in modern fallible prophecy and (I think) in the continued gift of tongues–then they would be Third Wave.

37. C Michael Patton on 11 Dec 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    I imagine anyone can speak in tongues the way you are talking about it Ed. The question that this begs would be are the tongues you speak in the same tongues that are represented in the NT and those who are following this pattern today.

    There are many non-Christian religions that speak in tongues, but would not be the “gift of tongues.”

    BTW: I can write in tongues.

38. Jugulum on 11 Dec 2008 at 6:23 pm #

    RD: I have a bit of a problem with your #3.

    If signs and wonders accompany those who believe as we see in Acts and, as Paul and the author of Hebrews agreed, they existed to confirm divine authority and the truthfulness of the gospel

    Charismatics don’t necessarily quite agree with both. I would correct that to:

    If signs and wonders may accompany those who believe as we see in Acts and, as Paul and the author of Hebrews agreed, they existed in part to confirm divine authority and the truthfulness of the gospel

    1.) A charismatic doesn’t have to read Acts as teaching that all those who believe will be accompanied by signs and wonders, or that all evangelism will include it. I know that some do see signs as central to evangelism, but I don’t know why you would say that a consistent charismatic must.
    2.) As far as I know, charismatics typically reject the idea that signs exist solely (or maybe even primarily) in order to attest.

39. Lisa Robinson on 11 Dec 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    Kyrie, you said

    “If spiritual warfare has not ceased, why would charismatic giftings cease?

    Wouldn’t that be like leaving Satan and his demons unchallenged to freely wreak havok while disarming all God’s children of making some pretty interesting counter-moves? Is there a passage that deliniates a point in history where all God’s children are fully unarmed of any gifting?”

    Spiritual gifts are not for warfare, they are for service in the body of Christ (I Peter 4:10; I Cor 12; Romans 12:3-16). There is no place in the NT that indicates gifts are for spiritual warfare but we do have Eph 6:13-18 as the prescription for warfare, which is to stand and put on the full armor of God.

40. Kyrie Eleison on 11 Dec 2008 at 7:34 pm #

    I do understand giftings might not be for warfare per se. May I repose the question this way:

    If the demonic warefare “spiritual phenomenon” hasn’t ceased, why would one suppose the gifting “spiritual phenomenon” has ceased.

    It seems devoted saints would be refused access to an “ability” while the mean advesary keeps access to his “ability” in full distructive force.

41. Thaimissions on 11 Dec 2008 at 8:09 pm #

    Good post. I look forward to more. Without trying to rehash previous posters I would like to share my “perspective”. As a missionary I always found it interesting that charismatics were attending language school with me and some even failed. Now I am aware that they wouldn’t ascribe the gift of tongues to learning a foreign language, but it was interesting that in churches on Sunday they would speak in tongues but a native speaker had to interpret waht god said into the Thai language. Secondly, I found it interesting when teaching people with no understanding at all of the Scriptures (I am a missionary in Thailand), not one person who was saved ever spontaneously started speaking in tongues as many charismatics would expect. To the best of my knowledge, the subject (either for or against) never came up while I was teaching them from a creation to Christ approach (which does emphasize miracles in the Old testament and the miracles of Christ). Does this “prove” anything? no not at all. Scripture is our final authority. but as a cessaionist it is exactly what I would expect to see. Lastly, I have never met a Thai Christian (either charismatic or otherwise) who spoke in tongues until the subject was introduced to them. Interesting…. keep up the good work.

42. Lisa Robinson on 11 Dec 2008 at 9:03 pm #

    Kyrie, you are still insisting that gifts have to do with spiritual warfare and I am saying they do not. No doubt, we do have a very real enemy and Scripture tells us that he walks about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. But if you have believed in Christ, the Spirit dwells within you and you are His. Greater is he who is in you than he that is in the world. We are not taught anywhere in the NT to fight the enemy. We are told to resist him and to stand. The battle is the Lord’s

    Even if you do believe that all the sign gifts are for today, the purpose would be for edification of the body. In the early church, the gifts were for this purpose and so people would believe in Christ. The gifts point to Christ then and now.

43. From The Balcony on 12 Dec 2008 at 12:01 am #

    Eric
    I lived there during that era also Very, very interesting to say the least. The problem is, he has reinvented himself and tried to make his “ministry” look legit….so much so that he has partnered with many other ministries, the lateset of which is YWAM…..college kids need to have discernment where Bickle is concerned, I’m sure you would agree…..

44. Robert Jimenez on 12 Dec 2008 at 12:05 am #

    Michael Patton said “BTW: I can write in tongues.”

    BTW: I can interpret what you write in tongues

45. Lisa Robinson on 12 Dec 2008 at 12:58 am #

    Robert (#26),

    I guess my comment did lend to an interpretation that I am no longer a Charismatic because of experiences I encountered within the movement. Actually, experience had nothing to do with it, although after I moved away from it, I did reflect on the experiences in a serious way. My shift had everything to do with how I was reading my Bible. For years, I read the Bible in a very fragmentary way and did what so many people do and build a doctrinal normalcy out of the book of Acts and I Cor 14 that equated spirit-filled living with tongues and other sign gifts. It did seem reasonable that that is what we should be doing, and primarily because there were some significant distinctions concerning the New Covenant that I was not considering.

    Once I learned about reading in context and the correlation of Scripture in relationship to God’s overall redemptive plan for mankind, I began to see things a little differently with respect to the purpose and necessity of the gifts and what they actually were. I could go into a long diatribe about context and hermeneutics, but the main thrust is that I was actually misreading alot. I do not believe that apostles and prophets exist today or that in 21st century civiliation, we need God’s revelatory Word communicated to us via tongues, interpretations or prophecy. However, the gift of tongues might certainly be useful in remote parts of the world.

    I do agree that there are many scholarly and theologically sound folks out there that embrace the full continuation of gifts and do distinguish them from the extremes. But I can’t help but think that the extremes are really the logical next step for embracing a full continuation and the existence of modern day prophets and apostles.

    I appreciate your concern that cessationism could thrwart a full movement of God and perhaps hinder what He wants to do. But I contend that the Spirit of the living God indwelt within us ought to cause fresh and infectious revival on a daily basis. The key is not seeking after more of God through the sign gifts but allowing Him to have more of us. We yield to that and we oughta see God move in some pretty wonderous and magnificent ways.

46. C Michael Patton on 12 Dec 2008 at 1:13 am #

    Lisa, may your tribe increase 100 fold. Not necessarily because of where you stand on this issue, but because your testimony is still filled with grace without the normal bitterness and disrespect that so often accompanies those who have left a movement. Thank you!

47. Robert Jimenez on 12 Dec 2008 at 1:48 am #

    Lisa, I really appreciate that. Thanks for taking the time to add some clarity to your remarks.

    I know that we disagree on scriptural grounds, but I must confess that my experience in the charismatic movement has been excellent. Of course one does not hear much about these because which theological jockey wants to discuss charismatics that are not extreme? It would be kind of boring? Do you think that Hank Hanegraaff would? Guys like him have done just as much harm to the Charismatic movement as have the extreme Charismatic looney tunes.

    I have been a charismatic for nearly 30 years, and I agree whole heartily with your statement “I contend that the Spirit of the living God indwelt within us ought to cause fresh and infectious revival on a daily basis. The key is not seeking after more of God through the sign gifts but allowing Him to have more of us. We yield to that and we ought to see God move in some pretty wondrous and magnificent ways.”

    I don’t believe that there are apostles today either, at least not any such as the twelve, plus Paul. I do think that a pastor can have apostolic ministry, but that is not the at all the same thing. As far as I understand prophecy it’s main purpose is to edify, build up the body of Christ.

    1 Thess 5:19-22 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject whatever is harmful. TNIV

    That sounds like good advise to me. Honestly, I really appreciate your testimony, and as a second witness I also declare “may your tribe increase 100 fold”

48. ScottL on 12 Dec 2008 at 7:37 am #

    Hey Michael, look forward to your thoughts. (We miss you over at Theologica.)

    You stated – ‘In Christianity, “charismatic” refers to those who believe that certain “spiritual gifts” such as tongues, prophecy, and gifts of healings, are normative for the church.’

    Just to clarify, from my perspective, on the word ‘normative’. A more level-headed ‘charismatic’ believer would most likely not hold that every Christian should walk in the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Cor 12 in each and every moment. But, considering that there are a billion or more Christian in the earth today, it is normative that such things take place on a regular basis (on a daily basis) because the body of Christ is worldwide and filled with so many, many people indwelt and empowered by the Spirit. I just expect it in the advancing of God’s kingdom and the Spirit’s use of the billion or so saints spread across earth.

49. EricW on 12 Dec 2008 at 8:38 am #

    From the Balcony:

    I had an experience of cognitive dissonance with my charismatic experiences when I realized that most “interpretations” of tongues were off-base. I.e., as I read the Scriptures, it became quite apparent to me one day from 1 Corinthians 12-14 that most “tongues” messages are, or are to be, prayers or praises to God, whereas “prophecies” are words from God to us. Yet the vast majority, if not almost every instance, of my experiences of someone “interpreting” a “tongues” message (whether the tongue-speaker or, more often, someone else who “received” the “interpretation”) was that the “interpretation” was from God to us – e.g., “My children, whom I have called by My name,” etc.; “The Lord would say to His people,” etc.; “Thus says the Lord who reigns on high,” etc., etc. This immediately called into question the legitimacy of the so-called “interpretation,” and hence the spiritual legitimacy of the “interpreter” (often one of the “leaders” of the church, at least in one church we were in).

    I even wrote Gordon Fee an email about this, because I think it was related to something I read in one of his books that caused me to relook at 1 Corinthians this way, and he responded something about how maybe God allows for our weaknesses and imperfections in this area. That didn’t really assure me.

50. EricW on 12 Dec 2008 at 8:45 am #

    (continued) On the other hand, I have some friends whose integrity I do not question, whose lives and experiences validate the non-cessationist position. Plus, I find the cessationist argument to be weaker than the non-cessationist one from a Scriptural point of view, so even though my personal and church life is largely non-charismatic, in my theology I still lean that way, though not in its extreme forms. Interestingly, a survey last year or so written about in Christianity Today, I think, found that while many, many Christians consider themselves to be charismatic(s), they do not consider speaking in tongues, or believing that everyone should or can speak in tongues, a requirement to be charismatic. This is different from the charismatic Christianity I grew up with in the late 1970s and 1980s – e.g., The Holy Spirit and You (Bennett) and They Speak With Other Tongues (Sherrill), Face Up With A Miracle (Basham), as well as Derek Prince, etc.

51. EricW on 12 Dec 2008 at 9:30 am #

    To clarify/expand:

    I was skimming through PAUL, THE SPIRIT, AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD by Gordon D. Fee (Hendrickson 1996), not in any particular order nor for any particular purpose. When I read these words [about speaking in tongues]: “It is speech directed basically toward God” (p. 169) I suddenly stopped. Not because this was a new revelation to me — I had always known that speaking in tongues was speaking in the spirit to God. I stopped suddenly because I had the thought: “If speaking in tongues is speech directed basically toward God, then an interpretation of a message in tongues should also consist of speech directed basically toward God.”… I later read (same book) this comment by Fee: “Prayer (and praise), therefore, seems the best way to view Paul’s understanding of glossolalia [speaking in tongues]. At no point in 1 Corinthians 14 does Paul suggest that tongues is speech directed toward people.” (p. 148) Fee endnotes these statements with the remark: “See further the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:5 in GOD’S EMPOWERING PRESENCE, where I argue that the interpretation of a tongue does not thereby turn it into human-directed speech, but interprets the mystery spoken to God referred to in 14:2.” (p. 151)

    I sent a copy of my comments and questions about tongues and interpretation to Gordon Fee and received a response that basically said that from being in many situations where the “interpretation” did speak very directly to the needs of the church, his opinion was that: a) we may be experiencing a combination of a message in tongues followed by a prophetic word, rather than an “interpretation”; b) God may be accommodating himself to our weaknesses at this point; c) the New Testament may not address this issue; or d) a little bit of all the above.

52. From The Balcony on 12 Dec 2008 at 11:02 am #

    Lisa
    I appreciate your comments so much about context. Everything you said has applied in my walk, as well.

    Michael, in your next post, I expect to see a visible representation of writing in tongues! I know you are creative and you can do it.

    I remember once when we lived in KC, our kids were at a Christian school. It happened to be charismatic school because at the time, it was the best one, supposedly. They handed out brochures to the kids on “How to Speak in Tongues.” There were caricatures on the brochure showing the kids how to make funny syllables with their mouths. The brochure encouraged them to keep practicing until they got good at it. Tongues? Perhaps they are taught by rote. That does not make them genuine….at least this is what I saw…..

    I’m just not going to go into any definitive arena one way or the other because I choose to focus on the essentials of the faith – not the distractions of the faith. Lisa, this is why I appreciate your comments so much. When we focus on context and essentials….and allow the non-essentials to become less important, then I believe we see a more accurate picture of the message of Christ, simply because our human nature likes to be distracted with things we want to cling to.

53. RD on 12 Dec 2008 at 1:34 pm #

    Hi, Jugulum,

    1.) A charismatic doesn’t have to read Acts as teaching that all those who believe will be accompanied by signs and wonders, or that all evangelism will include it. I know that some do see signs as central to evangelism, but I don’t know why you would say that a consistent charismatic must.

    The fact is that signs and wonders are indeed stated to be confirmation of the gospel. That Paul’s evangelism was characterized and confirmed by miraculous deeds is shown in 1 Cor 2: “My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive word of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”

    Given the clear testimony of Scripture on that point in this passage and elsewhere, we have no reason to posit that people were expected or authorized to use the Michael’s “supernatural signs” for personal gratification as is often done in charismatic circles today. Scarcely do we find evidence that the miraculous was even for the edification of those who already believed: in 1 Cor. 14 Paul taught that even tongues when praying were useless to the believer unless there was interpretation; even then, tongues is stated specifically to be a sign primarily for unbelieving Jews, and not as profitable for believers; prophecy, while affirmed as profitable for building up the believer, is shown to be useful for unbelievers specifically for evangelism. The healing of believers in James 5 is not even tied to the gift of healing, but to anointing with oil at the hands of elders (ever wonder why it didn’t just say, “Find a healer”?). In Acts, the narration of signs and wonders being performed are everywhere accompanied by a description of reactions, typically either eliciting salvation or condemnation. The “signs and wonders” of today, by contrast, are always positive.

    In other words, if a person believes in the continuation of the charisms because they see no transition between what we see in the first century church according to the NT and our current time, they must acknowledge the importance, if not centrality, of signs and wonders to the spreading and confirmation of the gospel.

    2.) As far as I know, charismatics typically reject the idea that signs exist solely (or maybe even primarily) in order to attest.

    Well, by definition, as “sign” is a sign of something. If you mean miracles in general, well here again you have to look at how they’re used in Scripture: as a rule, the miracles we see in the Gospels and Acts aren’t wrought because God couldn’t, through ordinary providence, bring about the result (healing, raising from the dead, etc.), but rather to serve as a sign.

    Again, why not accept that the miraculous as “standard issue” for the believer is finished unless it is your reading of Scripture that informs you that they continue? And if the latter is true, why wouldn’t you choose a church model that resembles the first century to the uttermost (evangelism through signs and wonders, discipleship through prophecies, etc.)? I’m really asking.

54. C. Barton on 12 Dec 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    Um, there is a theory that Jesus had a sense of humor. Perhaps even a gift. I mean, when the foremost scholars criticized the little children for speaking (Matt. 21:16), it was kinda like, “Hey, Jesus, do you hear what is coming out of their mouths???” And Jesus basically asked them, “What’s the matter: don’t you read the Bible??”
    And so, when they criticized Jesus for healing on the Sabbath day, it was kinda like, “Aha! Look at him! He’s working on Sunday, the holy day of the week – how dare he!”
    And Jesus just says, “OK, if your son or daughter fell into a well, would you wait until Monday to rescue them?”
    So, I firmly believe that many of the “miraculous” gifts and signs are simply because God loves us and wants to bless us and others through HIs example.
    People NEED to see love acted out in genuine ways; so the Letter from James makes a point that merely showing courtesy to another is useless if they walk away hungry and broke and YOU had the means to be generous to them.
    That’s the miracle of love in action!

55. learning on 12 Dec 2008 at 3:41 pm #

    ” I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge- even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you- SO THAT you are NOT LACKING IN ANY SPIRITUAL GIFT, AS you WAIT for the REVEALING our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day our Lord Jesus Christ. ”
    1 Cor. 1:4-8

    ” Love never ends. As for
    prophecies…tongues…knowledge…they will cease. For we know in part and prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away…..For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then FACE TO FACE. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known “.
    1 Cor. 13:8-12

    From the above two passages it’s pretty clear. Paul had in mind that the gifts of the Spirit were to continue UNTIL Jesus’ second coming.

    As to the primary purpose of prophesy :

    ” On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, UNLESS someone interprets, SO THAT the church may be built up. ”

    1 Cor. 14:3-5

    ” Now brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I BENEFIT YOU UNLESS I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? ” 1 Cor. 14:6

    ” What then, brothers? When you come together, EACH ONE has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. LET ALL THINGS be done FOR BUILDING UP. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent ( shut up! meaning they could speak in tongues at will ) AND speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. ” 1 Cor. 14:26-29

    ” Therefore it says,

    ‘ When He ascended on high He led a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.’

    …..And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, TO EQUIP THE SAINTS for the work of ministry, FOR BUILDING UP THE BODY OF CHRIST, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood. ”
    – Ephesians 4:8, 11- 13a.

    Again God’s word is pretty clear. The gifts of the Spirit are given for the purpose of building up the body of Christ.

    Let’s move to Acts. In Acts 2 Peter had just given his sermon at Pentecost. The Spirit was poured out. People started speaking in tongues. Peter quotes Joel and says that what people were seeing that day was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of the last days. After he gives his sermon it reads :

    ” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘ Brothers, what shall we do? ‘ And Peter said to them, ‘ Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise (the Holy Spirit) is for you and for your children and for ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF, EVERYONE whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. ”
    – Acts 2:37-39

    Remember the context. Peter is speaking of the things that the crowd just saw happen, tongues, as well as Joel’s prophecy of the last days when the Spirit would be given to everyone and such things as prophecy and visions would be given not just to a few special people , as in the O.T. but to all and anyone within the body of Christ. Scripture is pretty clear on the gifts of the Spirit.

56. C. Barton on 12 Dec 2008 at 4:28 pm #

    That was a nice presentation of scriptural foundation, learning: I was once a member of a small cessationist congregation, the “True Church of Christ”, who taught that the “perfect” thing is the Bible in its entirety, but the scriptures are clear that only Jesus is the perfect one whom we shall see face to face. In fact this denomination also taught that if you leave their church, God might take away the Holy Spirit and give you a demon instead, like King Saul. Anyone can see that this is not from God, and neither are falling down in seizures and howling like wild animals randomly throughout the assembly.
    Sorry if this offends, but the Holy Spirit does not cruelly wrest our self-control away from us like that.

57. Edward T. Babinski on 12 Dec 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    I think I ought to explain more.

    I spoke in tongues. I left the fold later, and now have more questions than answers.

    The Bible seems to make room both for the kind of tongues spoken in Acts in which everyone heard the Gospel in their own language, and the kind of tongues in Paul which is ether a private prayer language, a language of angels, a private groaning to God, or if uttered in a group setting it is interpreted.

    I also experienced what I labeled at the time as being “baptized in the spirit,” which you can read about in my online testimony by clicking my name. It was quite a joyous experience, can’t say I’ve ever felt anything like that.

    I read a lot of books by WORD, a charismatic publisher. LIKE A MIGHTLY WIND was about a huge charismatic revival in the Phillipines with people coming back to life, whole villages walking across water to safety during a flood. Later charismatics expressed doubts about the stories coming out of the Phillipines. I also read THE SATAN SELLER, about Mike Warnke, ex-Satanic high priest, which others researched, again the stories came up empty, lies. See, SELLING SATAN.
    I also read about the miraculous gold teeth being found inside the mouths of charismatics. People apparently didn’t realize they had had such fillings put in, in the past, per an investigative article in Christianity Today.

    Then there’s the charismatics making money on TV. Curing some pretty menial things from headaches to hemmeroids, but never saying the name of the person being cured or where they live. While the rest of the world, including children, grow crippled or die of diseases. So either God has his priorities mixed up, or people are so self-centered and desperate they will listen to these Christian charlatans.

    Charismatic TV healers also in effect are saying, SEND US MONEY TO STAY ON THE AIR, OR IT’S ADIOS TO THE SIGNS AND WONDERS. These people shouldn’t be on the air in the first place. My opinion.

58. Jugulum on 12 Dec 2008 at 7:42 pm #

    RD,

    Hmm. I have some agreement with what some of you say, and some disagreement. For the moment, I’ll limit myself to a clarification, and a couple comments on healing.

    If you mean miracles in general, well here again you have to look at how they’re used in Scripture: as a rule, the miracles we see in the Gospels and Acts aren’t wrought because God couldn’t, through ordinary providence, bring about the result (healing, raising from the dead, etc.), but rather to serve as a sign.

    I did misspeak; I should have said “miraculous gifts”, not “signs”. Because “sign” does assume something about the purpose of the action. (Though “sign” doesn’t inherently mean “authenticate”.)

    However, James 5 certainly doesn’t fit your thesis. Prayer for healing, in that case, has nothing to do with signs.

    I don’t know that I agree with you that miraculous healings in the Gospels are universally represented as being primarily intended as “signs”. That’s an assumption that needs solid demonstration. I recall the phrase “moved with compassion”, for instance.

    P.S. You referred to “the gift of healing”. Actually, I don’t believe that the NT ever speaks of a gift of healing. 1 Cor. 12 speaks of gifts of healings.

    I don’t think that you can make a solid case that anyone in the New Testament–including Jesus–healed at will. Look at passages like Luke 5:17 (“the power of the Lord was with him to heal”) and John 5:19 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.”). Remember, Jesus acted by the power of the Spirit and leading of the Spirit, not from his own divinity, at his own will.

    I’m not 100% convinced of this, but the idea goes like this: Paul says “gifts of healings” because no one possesses “the gift”, where they heal at will. Rather, God works through people to heal on a case-by-case basis. When the apostles spoke to command healing, it was because God was leading them to. They did not have the right to command healing any time they wanted. (This is supported by the references in the epistles to sick acquaintances of the apostles.)

    This view also makes greater sense with a healthy view of God’s sovereignty–it seems rather odd to say that any believer could command God’s healing power at will.

59. Lisa Robinson on 12 Dec 2008 at 8:23 pm #

    Hi Learning,

    I guess you can say I’m learning too. I have some questions for you.

    1) Given all of the verses you quote from I Cor 14, what do you do with vs.22

    “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign not to unbelievers but to those who believe.”

    Keeping in mind that the “congregation” make-up looked quite differently than it does today and considering that following Christ was a new way of believing God, it does seem reasonable that both unbelievers and believers needed signs…tongues for unbelievers and prophecy for believers. I do agree with you that taking chapt 14 in context of 12-14, the goal is for edification of the body. But isn’t Paul emphasizing the importance of being understood and not tongues?

    2) The day of Pentacost was quite the phenomanom, ushering in the new way that God would relate to man. So in consideration of the power that Jesus promised in Acts 1, isn’t the occurrence at Pentacost simply the induction of the indwelling of the Spirit? Yes tongues (languages) were spoken, but wasn’t the miracle that 3,000 people understood them? Again, the emphasis is not on the tongues, but believing. Also consider what happens in Acts 10 and 11 once the gentiles are baptized with the Spirit and the fact that they are baptized right when they believe. If you compare this with I Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:27, isn’t the point of the baptism to induct a believer into the kingdom and not reproduce tongues?

    3) I’ve forgotten. Oh well, I have a paper to write anyway. Maybe I’ll remember later and get back to you

60. ScottL on 13 Dec 2008 at 5:31 am #

    Hey Lisa. Can it be my job to bring you back into the charismatic beliefs?

    Though it might be real hard if you are in a cessationist seminary.

61. Jason C on 13 Dec 2008 at 1:00 pm #

    The Bible seems to make room both for the kind of tongues spoken in Acts in which everyone heard the Gospel in their own language, and the kind of tongues in Paul which is ether a private prayer language, a language of angels, a private groaning to God, or if uttered in a group setting it is interpreted.

    I’d agree.

    I read a lot of books by WORD, a charismatic publisher. LIKE A MIGHTLY WIND was about a huge charismatic revival in the Phillipines with people coming back to life, whole villages walking across water to safety during a flood. Later charismatics expressed doubts about the stories coming out of the Phillipines.

    So when Piltdown man was found to be a fraud it’s an example of the self correcting nature of evolutionary science, and when charismatics do it it’s proof that they’re what… dumb? It’s possible for anyone, however well intentioned, to be carried away with a moment.

    I also read THE SATAN SELLER, about Mike Warnke, ex-Satanic high priest, which others researched, again the stories came up empty, lies. See, SELLING SATAN.

    I’ve also read Mike’s later book. Although he acknowledges that being the centre of a “ministry” brought out the storyteller in him he still says that much of the core of the story is true.

    I also read about the miraculous gold teeth being found inside the mouths of charismatics. People apparently didn’t realize they had had such fillings put in, in the past, per an investigative article in Christianity Today.

    Some people are dumb. At least a bunch of Christians cared enough to find out if it was true. At least they probably don’t believe in ETs and flying saucers.

    Then there’s the charismatics making money on TV. Curing some pretty menial things from headaches to haemorrhoids, but never saying the name of the person being cured or where they live. While the rest of the world, including children, grow crippled or die of diseases. So either God has his priorities mixed up, or people are so self-centered and desperate they will listen to these Christian charlatans.

    Most people are self-centred, many people are desperate. I regard much of this kind of prayer as being on the level of praying for a carpark. It’s essentially a pointless exercise. As JP Holding has pointed out, “whatever you ask for in my name” does not allow for the frivolous because in the cultural context, while Jews accepted that some could ask for God’s favour, the personal piety of those people ensured that they wouldn’t ask for things outside God’s will.

    Remember also that the Christian perspective is that this is a cursed Earth populated by immoral people. While some parts are struck by drought, farmers elsewhere are paid not to grow food in order to keep prices high. Companies, making medicine that would help these children, prefer to license their product in order to maximise profit. Looked at on the big picture we humans are just not nice people. Good thing there’s a judgement coming.

    That said, which group sends the most in terms of aid, medical supplies, and personnel to help those in that plight? I suspect it’s not the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

    Charismatic TV healers also in effect are saying, SEND US MONEY TO STAY ON THE AIR, OR IT’S ADIOS TO THE SIGNS AND WONDERS. These people shouldn’t be on the air in the first place. My opinion.

    I agree.

62. learning on 13 Dec 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    Hey Lisa,

    1.) I think I put it the wrong way. I think you have a point when it comes to Acts 2 and Peter’s focus not being on tongues when he says ‘ the promise…if for you….for all whom the Lord God calls to Himself ‘. Peter is focusing on Joel’s prophecy at the end times or ‘last days’ when God would pour out His Spirit for and on all believers and not just on messianic figures in the O.T. such as David. Peter connects ‘the promise’ to Joel’s prophecy. The focus is on the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Remember Peter quotes Joel by saying this will mark ‘ the last days ‘. Peter goes on to quote Joel 2:32 and says that ‘ whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved ‘. If calling on the name of the Lord to be saved is still in effect today why is the rest of Joel not in effect for today? Peter assumes that those (all those who are near and far off) who call of the name of Jesus and are saved will recieve the gift of the Spirit , the same Spirit that Joel’s prophecy talks about being poured out in the ‘last days’ which will be marked by such things as the gift prophecy.

    2.) when it comes to v.22 I think you have to go back to verse 21 to understand what Paul means by ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelievers. Does by ‘ a sign ‘ does Paul have in mind an evangelistic aid or something else. Let me quote Max Turner (who has a really good book in which he deals with the main objections and names of cessationism. It’s pretty technical but very good. It’s called ‘The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts’. In it he grapples with just about everyone including charismatics……Gaffin, Warfield, Dunn, Grudem, Menzies, Bickle, Farnell, MacArthur, etc….)

    On tongues being ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelieves Turner agrees with Grudem :

    ” Grudem argues that the word ’semeion’ has a double connotation in the LXX: it can mark a ’sign’ either of God’s blessing on his covenant people and/or of his judgment o unbelievers. In Isaiah 28:11 the point is that Israel have not listened to God when he spoke clearly so he will now speak through the foreign language of an invading army. Paul is alluding to this, and making captial out if, when he tells the Corinthians not to speak in tongues (without interpretation); for that way of God’s speaking would be inappropriate – certainly not an evangelistic aid (for they will say
    ‘you rave’), but rather a sign of God’s judgment (God refuses to speak in anything but a foreign language and incomprehensible language). PROPHECY , on the other hand, precisely because (in contrast to tongues) it is God’s self-revealing and communicating presence, is a sign of his blessing of his people. The convicted outsider can see this and says, ‘ Truly God is amongst you’(v.25)….. Paul does not claim tongues on their own to be a positive sign to unbelievers at all ( though if they were interpreted or recognized- a situation Paul does not envisage- he would no doubt attribute to them a positive value.)……Tongues may mistakenly be made to function as a sign to unbelievers, but then only as a negative one. Paul, for his part, does not think this is their proper purpose, and so he prescribes that they be used only with interpretation, when they may approximate the positive sign value of prophecy. We may thus exclude the view that Paul thought of tongues as primarily intended for the outsider. It is worth noting that Pauls argument seems convoluted here because essentially he only introduces the Old Testament quotation to make the polemical point (over against Corinthian boating in tongues) that , as far as the Old Testament sheds any light on the issue, (uninterpreted) tongues are not a sign of God’s especial blessing of his people, but his judgment on unbelief. ”

    The confusion comes when we think that the purpose of tongues is to be an evangelistic tool. 1 Cor. 14 is pretty clear this view of tongues holds no water. The gifts of the Spirit are primarily given for the building up of the church. Paul is clear on that. Paul thought of tongues being ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelievers not the way the pharisees asked Jesus for a sign….sort of like an evangelistic tool for people to come to faith….but rather sign to unbelievers of God’s judgment. Hope this helps.

63. Edward T. Babinski on 14 Dec 2008 at 2:40 am #

    Hi Jason C

    You wrote, “Good thing there’s a judgment coming.”

    What kind of judgment, an imminent judgment of the planet? Since you site J.P. Holding, you should know he rejects “imminent threats of judgment” put forth by pre-millennialists and many charismatics.

    Then you jump to saying, “Which group sends the most in terms of aid, medical supplies, and personnel to help those in that plight? I suspect it’s not the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.” I don’t recall mentioning that group either here nor in my online testimony.

    But your question makes me wonder just how much aid and medical supplies it would take to prove that charismatics know some “trick” to having their prayers answered that other Christians who are not charismatic just don’t know about.

    Say Hi to Mike Warnke for me, and go read SELLING SATAN, and other Christian press pieces that were written when his ministry fell to pieces in shame. He not only told stories, there were other actions that showed what kind of a guy he was. Thanks for agreeing with me that Christians aren’t perfect. I agree we’re all human.

    And have you studied pentecostal offshoots like Branhamism, based on the pentecostal prophet Branham? What a trickster! He used to have people put questions in envelopes and then hold the enveloped up and say what was in it and read it aloud to verify he was right. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the magic trade, you only have to make up the contents of one envelope when you start, some very general concern, and have someone in the audience say “amen, that was me,” and read to yourself the actual contents in the envelope you just opened, and then hold up the NEXT ENVELOPE, and say what you just read in the FIRST ONE, and continue like that throughout all the envelopes.

    Like I said, I can still speak in tongues at any time, but I don’t even believe in Christianity.

    As for charity, today there’s lots of groups of either a non-denominational or secular sort. Governments also provide enormous amounts of AID, some more secular nations contribute a higher percentage of their taxes to world aid than the U.S. does.

64. Rick C. on 14 Dec 2008 at 3:01 am #

    Last April, Evangel University of the AG (Assemblies of God) launched the inaugural:
    Dr. Stanley M. Horton Pentecostal Heritage Lectureship Series

    Btw, the podcasts link doesn’t take you to the archives where these talks actually are: Click this and go to
    04/03/08 (Dr. Stanley Horton interviewed by Dr. William Menzies) and 04/03/08 (Dr. Robert Menzies, speaks on Acts 2 as a paradigm for missions).

    I had Dr. Horton as a prof at CBC (Central Bible College). At 91, he’s still active! and is considered to be one of the top authorities on Pentecostal/charismatic history and theology. Though not as widely know as other experts in this field, such as Gordon Fee and William Menzies, “Brother Horton” (as we called our profs Bro & Sis back then) is a voice to be heard for understanding this ‘era’ in Church History. I highly recommend both lectures to anyone interested; and Dr. Horton and Dr. Menzies, especially.

    Here is 1999 interview with Dr. Horton on Coffee Talk with Rick Walston (in text).
    Brief excerpt:

    A Thinking Pentecostal
    “Too many of my Pentecostal/Charismatic brethren simply (1) accept what their churches tell them, and (2) determine their spiritual world and lives according to their spiritual experiences.

    I am different here: I have no such blind loyalty to my roots, Assemblies of God, nor can I with intellectual honesty place my spiritual experiences above the Word of God. There are a few well-known people that I would be close to in my modified Pentecostalism; Gordon D. Fee, professor of New Testament at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, is one. Though Dr. Fee is a part of the Assemblies of God (in Canada), he does not hold to the Classical Pentecostal idea that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, yet his background is in the A/G.”
    __________________________________

    Chiming in on the discussion a bit.
    Much has, and could be, discussed. It’s been mentioned that there are vast differences between the two “varieties” of Pentecostal/charismatics (though there are technical differences between these also). Dr. Horton and Gordon Fee no longer accept the Classical Pentecostal belief in “IPE” (speaking in tongues as the ‘initial physical evidence’ of being baptized in the Holy Spirit). I’m a former Pentecostal myself for this reason (as well as having differences with AG eschatology, which was why I left the denomination).

    Back to Two Varieties of Pentecostals/charismatics (in broad terms).
    1) The popular “TV” kind that teaches “WoF” (the ‘word of faith’, aka, the ‘propserity gospel’, etc.). I find it very unfortunate that this “camp” may be the only exposure many have had to the Pentecostal/charismatic Movement.

    2) Another group. These are/were ‘insiders’ who are “intellectual” and have never accepted the “excesses” going on in strand 1). When Wof teachings and other types of “extremes” began to be more widespread and gaining in popularity, these folks didn’t follow along. What’s regretable is that, as these things continued to spread…there wasn’t a lot of opposition from the “intellectual wing.” It took the downfall of some prominent people before they spoke up.

    Numbers 1) and 2) do have similarities. E.g., the AG believes physical healing is provided for in the atonement. However, they do not advocate “healing on demand” nor “name it, claim it” doctrines. Much more could be said along these lines but I don’t want to go on, not participating in the dialog.

    I’d like to add that when one experiences a genuine “moving of the Holy Spirit” (as we charismatics say); there won’t be any mistaking it is real! I could tell many stories to illustrate that the gifts of the Spirit are for today. But, of course, experience, by itself, can’t prove something is true. I don’t want debate about these things on P&P. At the same time, I can’t deny what I’ve both seen and heard. Truly amazing stories of sincere people seeking God and finding Him! Humble folks who love the Lord and love truth. Dr. Stanley Horton is one of the kindest, and probably, the most humble person I’ve ever met (and I’m almost 53). The people I’ve known who are/were “used (by God)” in the operation of the gifts of the Spirit are the very last people on earth to make claims of “I’m a prophet. You must listen to me!” or “I have a gift” (as if they own it) or anything remotely like that! They merely yield themselves to God and give Him all the glory!

    I want to pass along some sad news, then I’ll go.
    From the AGTS website: Gary McGee with his Lord
    I also had Dr. McGee as a prof at CBC. He was a fine man, and very dedicated. As the link reports, he, too, was a leading expert on Pentecostal/charismatic history. I was shocked with delight when — “Hey! It’s Brother McGee!”– seeing him unexpectedly on PBS’s Religion & Newsweekly in April 2006. To anyone who “feels led”… please pray for his friends and family.

    Closing note: There’s only one post on my blog. I’ve been to busy reading P&P to post on it!

    Thanks.

65. Edward T. Babinski on 14 Dec 2008 at 3:03 am #

    More for Jason C

    This is no “Piltdown man” stuff, these are Evangelists whom God has “blessed” with enormous ministries in which they claim to be speaking and doing miracles in the name of God and claim that people’s eternal salvation depend on believing what they believe.

    Asa Alonzo Allen (1911-1970). Prominent, flamboyant and controversial Pentecostal “healing evangelist” of the 1940s-1960s. Allen made many outrageous, unsubstantiated claims of miracles. On June 14, 1970, listeners in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines were hearing a recorded message from A. A. Allen on his radio program saying: “This is Brother Allen in person. Numbers of friends of mine have been inquiring about reports they have heard concerning me that are not true. People as well as some preachers from pulpits are announcing that I am dead. Do I sound like a dead man? My friends, I am not even sick! Only a moment ago I made a reservation to fly into our current campaign. I’ll see you there and make the devil a liar.” At that moment, at the Jack Tar Hotel in San Francisco, police were removing A. A. Allen’s body from a room strewn with pills and empty liquor bottles. The man who had once said that “the beer bottle and gin bucket” should have been on his family coat of arms was dead at 59 from what was said to be a heart attack but was in reality liver failure brought about by acute alcoholism.

    ~~~~~~

    Rev. Oral Roberts had a dream in which God told him that his daughter-in-law, Patti, would be killed in a place crash if she ever left his ministry. Patti did leave the ministry, distressed at the way her husband, Richard Roberts, was being turned into a clone of Oral, and the way they rationalized their expensive lifestyles. (See her book, Ashes to Gold). But the year Patti left his ministry, she did not die in a plane crash, while Rebecca, Oral’s own daughter, did.

    Oral Roberts’s producer writes book admitting that Oral’s “visions” were cooked up in pre-production bull sessions of which he was a part. Oral’s “vision in the desert” was cooked up. See book, Gimme That Old Time Religion.

    ~~~~~~~

    Pat Robertson diagnosed with prostate cancer. He didn’t “see” it coming when he was on TV and God was allegedly telling him all about everyone else’s illnesses. Instead Pat goes regularly to a doctor and uses all that money he gets from “guessing illnesses” on TV and “making statements about miraculous cures” to get himself treated via medical science.

    ~~~~~~~

    Benny Hinn who claims to have raised a dead man, and cured many people in a hospital, later admits he didn’t.

66. Rick C. on 14 Dec 2008 at 3:08 am #

    Please excuse some typos (and mistakes).
    I couldn’t edit them after I posted.

67. Jason C on 14 Dec 2008 at 5:33 am #

    If I recall the story of A.A. Allen correctly, he was self medicating with alcohol as a pain killer for a condition he suffered from. Yes, I do find it ironic that people with a healing ministry turn to doctors for healing. However I regard all healing, even that coming from doctors (two of my home group are med students) as a gift of God. After all it was the Christian willingness to dissect bodies which allowed Western medicine to get ahead of Islamic medicine (the first anatomically correct medical text was De Humani Corporis Fabrica published in 1543).

    The comment about Americans United was simply an aside reference to a particular group with a reputation as secular. References to secular governments (usually of formerly Christian nations) is simply irrelevant because stealing from your citizens to give to foreigners is not a Christian virtue. Personal altruism is. Of course, as Vox Day observes, atheistic morality is essentially parasitic so it’s a good thing that there’s so many religious charitable groups around to copy.

    Didn’t Dawkins try to get some sort of atheistic charity together to take money off all the religious groups? How’s that going?

    Your observations on some of the big names of the Charismatic movement merely confirm my prejudices about people in the head of large ministries. I have a libertarian’s disdain for any institution that invests too much power in one person.

    I have read the story of Branham, whom you mention, but I think you may have overstated his ability. From what I read he was an earnest man but not a well educated one. He came apart because he had no discernment and ended up spouting a lot of nonsense. Some people suggest that God took him out to keep him from causing even more damage, although enough people die in car accidents that I take that with a grain of salt.

    I did actually hear Mike Warnke speak when he visited New Zealand many years ago. He is a funny guy, much better than that dreadful Drew Carey.

    I like J.P. and agree with much of what he has to say, but that doesn’t mean I can’t look forward to a final judgement, even if it is only the one that we face after death. You’ll forgive me if I am reluctant to believe that human beings will be allowed to engage in vile treatment of their fellow man without a judgement; that would be just… unjust.

    As for your observation about speaking in tongues after leaving Christianity, haven’t you read the passage “the gifts of the Lord are without repentance”? If you did have a gift of tongues then you would still have it even after rejecting Christ.

68. Edward T. Babinski on 14 Dec 2008 at 7:18 am #

    JASON C wrote: If I recall the story of A.A. Allen correctly, he was self medicating with alcohol as a pain killer for a condition he suffered from.

    ED: Sorry to hear that Allen was merely human, but tell me something I didn’t know. And to brag about your health in God’s name and then die? Hmmm.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C. wrote: Yes, I do find it ironic that people with a healing ministry turn to doctors for healing.

    ED: They turn to doctors for healing after telling everyone else that God will heal them if they have enough faith. So, “ironic” isn’t the word. Pat uses his money to see a doctor regularly and take vitamins as a precaution, money that is gained from telling others in a nondescript anonymous way that “they are being healed by God.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C wrote: However I regard all healing, even that coming from doctors (two of my home group are med students) as a gift of God.

    ED: Hmmm, speaking of gifts from God, didn’t God design all the diseases in nature as well? Malaria, hernias? So if medical science is a gift from God, that’s just one gift to heal the ravages of previous gifts from God, isn’t it?

    And how long did it take God to give us the “gift of medical science?” It took God ages to give that gift to mankind, ages of trial and error and cutting open dead bodies and performing experiments, and we’re still far from combating nature’s killing spree which still exceeds that of all the intentional killings of people by people each year including wars.

    Do you consider yourself absolutely sure that the human body was designed in all ways by a perfect Designer when you consider the fact that the human male’s testes form inside the abdomen then have to pass through the abdominal wall and into the scrotal sac leaving two weak spots in the wall of the abdominal muscles through which the intestines can poke? According to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who treated natives in Central Africa, “They suffer much oftener than Europeans from strangulated hernia, in which a portion of the intestines pokes out through the abdominal muscles and becomes blocked, so that it can no longer empty itself. It then becomes enormously inflated with gases which form, and this causes terrible pain. Then after several days of torture death takes place, unless the intestine can be got back through the rupture into the abdomen. Our ancestors were well acquainted with this terrible method of dying, but we no longer see it in Europe because every case is operated upon as soon as it is recognized… But in Africa this terrible death is quite common. There are few who have not as boys seen some man rolling in the sand of his hut and howling with agony until death came to release him.” [On the Edge of the Primeval Forest, 1961]

    Dr. Albert Schweitzer spend years in Africa as a doctor and helped to publicize the plight of suffering Africans from a wide variety of diseases, and was also author of The Search of the Historical Jesus in which he concluded that Jesus was not a member of the Trinity but a man who preached that the world was going to end soon.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C wrote: The comment about Americans United was simply an aside reference to a particular group with a reputation as secular. References to secular governments (usually of formerly Christian nations) is simply irrelevant because stealing from your citizens to give to foreigners is not a Christian virtue. Personal altruism is. Of course, as Vox Day observes, atheistic morality is essentially parasitic so it’s a good thing that there’s so many religious charitable groups around to copy.

    Didn’t Dawkins try to get some sort of atheistic charity together to take money off all the religious groups? How’s that going?

    ED: I don’t know. Neither am I an atheist. How’s it going guessing people’s beliefs? Not very well I see. I will say that a history of famous humanitarians includes unorthodox types of people, from the founder of the International Red Cross, Andre Dunant who had a male lover, to Clara Barton founder of the U.S. Red Cross who was also a universalist Christian, to Florence Nightingale founder of modern nursing another universalist Christian who taught hospitals to disdain trying to function on a sectarian religious basis, because hospitals back then tried to either exclude people not of their faith, or evangelize them into their particular faith, while Nightingale taught that sick people should be allowed to see anyone they pleased of whatever faith, and not be evangelized by the particular faith dominant at that particular hospital.

    I need not mention other secular organizations today from the American Cancer Society to the American Heart Association, Muscular Dystrophy Telethon, Will Rogers Institute, Oxfam International, Doctors Without Borders, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the majority of United Way Groups. Nor need I mention the comparisons between whole nations and where America falls among them in levels of literacy, educational test scores, teen pregnancy, life expectancy, crime, percentage of taxes spent on foreign aid, and religiosity. The statistics prove that higher rates of religiosity do not mean a nation and its people are better off in those areas.

    I’ve also read some recent statistics concerning the spending of churches that suggests they spend the big bucks on themselves, which is fine if you consider them mainly social clubs, even mega church clubs as they have grown to be today. But when Christians take tax breaks for giving to their churches and the churches themselves exist without paying taxes, and the church’s job is simply to get more people to convert and join them, then that’s quite a social club.

    I am not saying Christians have not helped, nor denying that many Christians continue to do so. Though Christians in the past have also been part and parcel to stealing people’s land and/or wealth and/or enslaving people and/or aiding and abetting in genocide from the Americas to Africa to China to the Hawaiian islands.

    Even in the 20th century tens of thousands of children were taken from their native North American Indian families by force, and then either sterilized or murdered by deliberately having the sick kids play together at Christian boarding schools. Some were raped, others tossed down stairs. There’s a recent film about it happening in northwestern Canada. The schools were run by a variety of religions, all government approved of course, including taking the kids from their families.

    At the very least I see Christianity’s contributions in a mixed light, and view the rise of Europe more in the light of guns, germs and steel, and Europe’s benefit of being the only continent without a desert, and with the benefits of crops and domesticated animals moving laterally across Asia to Europe, as pointed out in the book Guns, Germs and Steel. See also the Connections series of videos, for many of the quirky secular aspects and ideas that gave rise to various inventions.

    Societies work best when people of all sorts of religious beliefs (or none at all) work together, it’s called secularization compared with having sectarian religious charities trying to convert everyone to their particular religious views or non-religious views.
    Cats Stevens has been working for Muslims charities. Today the Red Cross is called the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Or take the case that in 1996 the winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (the largest single monetary award given to anyone each year, larger than any single Nobel Prize) was Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. But the very next year, 1997, the winner was a Hindu, Shastri Athavale, a student of Hindu scriptures who inspired hundreds of thousands of people to spend two weeks or more visiting India’s poorest villages where they seek to advance the self-respect and economic condition of those they visit.

    Christians and their churches continue to divide and sub-divide round the world instead of joining together, because there is no longer the type of church-state support of one particular religion or denomination, so denominations and even new religions continue to breed like rabbits, instead of people being coerced by the church and state into maintaining one particular “orthodox” system of faith. Religions are breeding in fact just like consumer products do, mutating and changing to fill particular “market niches,” and up to 44% of Americans change denominations or even their religion during their lives (perhaps because you no longer need to “marry someone of your own religion” as was emphasized back when my mom was a young Catholic girl).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON CON wrote: Your observations on some of the big names of the Charismatic movement merely confirm my prejudices about people in the head of large ministries. I have a libertarian’s disdain for any institution that invests too much power in one person.
    ED: So I guess neither of us are big fans of soon to be ex-prez Bush.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C wrote: I have read the story of Branham, whom you mention, but I think you may have overstated his ability. From what I read he was an earnest man but not a well educated one. He came apart because he had no discernment and ended up spouting a lot of nonsense. Some people suggest that God took him out to keep him from causing even more damage, although enough people die in car accidents that I take that with a grain of salt.

    ED: I didn’t know he came apart. I do know that he still has close knit followers to this day. I know of someone who left the fold of one of those churches and it was quite difficult for him, since he was raised to believe in Branham’s prophecies, rightly interpreted by his church, and in things like young-earth creationism, and word of faith type miracles.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C wrote: I did actually hear Mike Warnke speak when he visited New Zealand many years ago. He is a funny guy, much better than that dreadful Drew Carey.

    ED: I heard him speak several times, including not too many years ago here in Greenville in the Memorial Auditorium. His Christian comedy albums were also good, especially his first one. But there are many reasons he fell out of favor, financial, sexual, and his propensity for lying which he called storytelling.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C wrote: I like J.P. and agree with much of what he has to say, but that doesn’t mean I can’t look forward to a final judgement, even if it is only the one that we face after death. You’ll forgive me if I am reluctant to believe that human beings will be allowed to engage in vile treatment of their fellow man without a judgement; that would be just… unjust.

    ED: If that’s what keeps you going each day, then that’s your belief. I’m just saying J.P. doesn’t believe it’s an imminent judgment. He’s a preterist, denounces the whole “LEFT BEHIND” idea.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    JASON C: As for your observation about speaking in tongues after leaving Christianity, haven’t you read the passage “the gifts of the Lord are without repentance”? If you did have a gift of tongues then you would still have it even after rejecting Christ.

    ED: Oh, so THAT’S what that passage of Scripture means. It’s so plain to me now. You must have the gift of interpretation of Scripture, because sometimes passages in Scripture are so obscure as to be as indecipherable as tongues, or to have more than one interpretations that exegetes continue to struggle with. Now can you please clear up all the issue covered in the two series of books published by Zondervan and Baker, in which Evangelical theologians argue with one another over everything from the real teachings of Genesis to Revelation and a host of topics in between and what they really mean?

69. Edward T. Babinski on 14 Dec 2008 at 7:42 am #

    Hi JASON C,

    You cited the following verse to explain to me why I can still speak in tongues after having left the fold:

    Romans 11: 29 says, “for the gifts… of God are irrevocable.”

    But the full verse says “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” you left that middle bit out. So is my “calling” also irrevocable?

    And will “all Israel be saved” as well? Every last person of Jewish genetic descent? I was already one of those, having some Ashkenazi genes in me. Apparently my ancient Jewish ancestors in Poland converted to Catholicism in the medieval ages, then one of them was raped by a Mongol, or perhaps the rape happened before the conversion. Either way, I’m probably part Ashkenazi Jew, so AM I GUARANTEED SALVATION in a double-fashion based on what Paul wrote in Romans?

    Please let me know before I accidentally blaspheme the Holy Spirit and ruin my two inerrant Scriptural verse guarantees that I’ll be reaching heaven! (Or are you calling Paul a liar, or just a master of hyperbole and it takes your inerrant holy spirit interpretation to understand him?)

70. Grackle on 15 Dec 2008 at 2:48 am #

    Edward,

    The apostle Paul said, “When I pray in a tongue, MY spirit prays…” Many tongue speakers do not realize that tongues is a function of their spirits.
    A human spirit is a curious thing. Once a spiritual function is enabled, it stays enabled. That is why in many cases clairvoyants and psychics often have an initial ‘opening up’ of their talents. You may have left the fold, but your spirit has not left you, has it? So you can still speak in tongues or do any else your spirit was enabled to do.

    Here is another: “The spirits (plural– not the Holy Spirit) of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” 1 Cor 14:32. So were these prophesying by their own spirits?

    King Saul is another interesting case; though he was rejected and the Spirit of God had left him (1 Sam 16:14), yet the Spirit came upon him and he prophesied in 19:23. So backsliden and spiritually disturbed, Saul could still prophesy in the Holy Spirit in the presence of Samuel, who knew the Holy Spirit.

    This shows how difficult spiritual things are to judge.

    Here is another one: Though we know in the Corinthian church there were those who had the gift of healing; yet there also “many of you are weak and sick, and a number had died.” 1 Cor 11:30. So not all were healed. If that Church was still around today, it would be the butt of Cessationist cynical blogs. What, you know with all these fake apostles,’another gospel’,'another Christ, ‘another Spirit’ things, besides sexual immorality, idolatry, disorderly worship, lawsuits and divisions!

    As for the issue of your calling. God never withdrew the offer. You withdrew yourself. There is a difference.

    And it is interesting that Paul used the Greek ‘charismata’ for gifts in Rom 11:29.

71. C. Barton on 15 Dec 2008 at 12:39 pm #

    “Silver and gold have I none . . .”, thus the miraculous healing and a marvelous sign of God’s love and His New Covenant as written in the Book of Acts!
    In John 3:16 it says, “For God so loved the world that He gave . . .” – how did God show His highest love for us? Through a Gift, the Gift of Himself on earth, and in Heaven.
    Consider also the awesome accounts in 2 Kings regarding the acts of the prophets, Elisha in particular. The widow’s oil was an act of mercy; and remember that Elisha was already recognized as God’s prophet – he didn’t have to prove anything to the widow, only how much God loved her. Jesus encourages us to give to others especially when we know that the recipient cannot give anything back. That’s why it’s called a gift. My point is that God gives spiritual gifts just because He wants to bless us and demonstrate His awesome love for the whole world, not just to prove that He’s right.
    I prefer to think of spiritual gifts as an endowment: we have them to use, but the control and ownership ultimately stay with God himself.
    As for Darwin and the Origin of Man: the Bible says that all manner of flesh shall bring forth of its own kind, meaning that you will never see a dove hatching from a chicken egg, and you will never see a giraffe give birth to a zebra. With Watson & Crick’s discovery of the DNA molecule, we have the testimony of science which supports the biblical perspective.

72. EricW on 15 Dec 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    C. Barton wrote: As for Darwin and the Origin of Man: the Bible says that all manner of flesh shall bring forth of its own kind, meaning that you will never see a dove hatching from a chicken egg, and you will never see a giraffe give birth to a zebra. With Watson & Crick’s discovery of the DNA molecule, we have the testimony of science which supports the biblical perspective.

    I saw a show on a science channel last week where a Chinese genetics researcher was creating a chimera by putting into the egg of a mouse the
    stem cells of a similarly-sized rodent, but one more distantly-related to a mouse than a chimpanzee is from a human, the prelude to animals bringing forth new creatures which never existed before. O, brave new world. I retired for the night before watching the end of the show to see if he succeeded (but I assume he did). The show also dealt with persons who had “super powers” (not really, but that’s the sensational title they gave it for these persons; one had taste/hearing/sight synesthesia; another could calculate huge math problems as fast as a computer (and he was NOT an autistic savant, because he could actually come up with work-arounds for new situations – he had suddenly and inexplicably developed this ability at age 21)); another man was born without eyes, but he could “see” and paint with his fingers, including getting perspective right; etc.

73. C. Barton on 15 Dec 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    Sure – and the same kind of “scientist” discovered the fabric of the physical universe, and then turned it into a weapon to scare the rest of the world into submission (the atom bomb).
    Other “scientists” discovered how to break a human mind into pieces and control a person without his knowledge or consent (MK- and MONARCH projects), again an atrocity and abomination before God. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD: this is meekness before God. No wonder God did what He did at the tower of Babel: He knew what a “One World Government” would lead to.

    Ahem, um, back to the topic: the spiritual gifts can be exercised with God’s will in mind, sort of like having a mark of authority before you go out and start doing miracles and things.
    A certain Pastor Hoggard (Festus, MO) tells us that the fruit of the Spirit is a more reliable sign of God’s presence in our lives; yet I see no reason why the gifts as outlined in Corinthians should all be totally extinguished: Godly love is the warrant by which they ought to be used, however.

74. Jeff Haynes on 15 Dec 2008 at 7:06 pm #

    There is no Biblical basis or historical basis for the elimination of the spiritual gifts. If your presupposition is that the gifts died with the last Apostle, you will never experience them in your life.

75. Mitchell on 15 Dec 2008 at 9:05 pm #

    I haven’t read all the comments yet, but a question that comes to mind is:

    Wouldn’t the sign gifts be valuable in places that don’t have the written word?

    It would be great to hear from some missionaries on their experiences with the sign gifts.

    There seems to be a place for the sign gifts. That probably isn’t in the church on the corner in America. But the church by the river in Africa might need a sign to “prove” that someone or something is from God.

76. Mitchell on 15 Dec 2008 at 9:10 pm #

    Another thought. What is the use of a sign if no one will believe it? In American we don’t even take heed to the stop signs on the streets. How many Americans would believe a miracle if it happened before their very eyes? The situation is much different in some places. Don’t go there now, but a discussion of demons would be interesting. I think Moreland or Craig was working on the topic.

77. Mitchell on 15 Dec 2008 at 10:20 pm #

    Back to the discussion. I view “normative” as expecting it to happen at every service. Using that definition of normative I would say that the Charismatic Churches are wrong.

    As a Biola graduate, I would be comfortable with defining Moreland as a non-ceassationist (it’s getting late). I seem to recall that my professors allowed for all the gifts, but cautioned that each had a time and a place. So I guess you could call them charismatic with a small “c”. The Third Wave sounds cool. How do I catch it?

    I think defining “normative” in light of billions of Christians is fallacious. (Just read Thomas Sowell’s Economic Facts and Fallacies. Something that everyone here should read. Gets your mind thinking right.) To be “normative” in light of billions, I think something would have to happen hundreds of millions of times daily.

78. learning on 16 Dec 2008 at 2:03 am #

    Mitchell,

    the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit as mentioned in 1 Cor.12-14 are for the church, for the building up the church…….not to be a sign….or not a evangelistic aid or tool. Scripture is clear on the purpose of the gifts. Does God sometimes use these gifts in evangelism, yes. But the primary purpose as stated by Paul in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians is to build up believers.

79. Mitchell on 16 Dec 2008 at 9:40 am #

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. Hmm, Supernatural Sign (see chart) Gifts are “not to be a sign”? They are a sign to those witnessing them that the message is of God. And if “Scripture is clear on the purpose of the gifts.” why are all of us having this discussion?

    While much of what happened on Pentecost was apostolic, I’m guessing many of the Christians there (yes, that term was coined later) were not Apostles. Also many there were not yet believers. So the Supernatural Sign Gifts displayed there were first to show the Christians that the message was from God and second to show non-believers the same.

    So when I said “What is the use of a sign if no one will believe it?” I was talking about the exercise of the Supernatural Sign Gifts in appropriate settings, not the use of Supernatural Sign Gifts as a primary evangelistic tool. I’m not talking about someone on a street corner babbling in “tongues.” I’m talking about someone exercising these gifts in the hut of a tribal leader who is allowing the Christians in his village to use his hut for their meeting. Of course not only the Christians in the village will be there but many others. Now don’t go picking apart this example specifically. I’m trying to communicate a concept in general.

    I don’t think these gifts are meant to be exercised every Sunday and Wednesday in the church building. I don’t think these gifts are meant to be exercised by someone who just flew into remote village for a one day evangelism event. These gifts are meant, as well, signs to show God’s presence, and to be used to build up the body of Christ.

    So, in a place that has the complete revelation of God in their own language, I would not expect Supernatural Sign Gifts to be “normative.” In a place without the written word of God, I would expect God to provide those He sends with a way to “prove” that they are from God. Why would I believe someone who has learned my language, created strange characters they say represent my language, and then translate some other strange characters they say tell me I will burn in Hell if I don’t accept some man who was, at least they tell me He was, killed to pay for my sins. I’d be saying “Show me a sign.” Now don’t jump on me for this because it appears to be a primary evangelistic tool. Again with the picking apart of the specific instead of the concept. You’re beginning to sound like my wife. The Supernatural Sign Gifts would be exercised in an appropriate setting. Maybe several have already accepted the message without a sign and are now being built up by the Sign Gifts and others see this and recognize that the message is from God.

    I’m going to stop here and let you respond.

80. C. Barton on 16 Dec 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    Well, Mitchell, if I read between the lines a little in your post, it sounds like a warning against reductionism; the gifts work within the Body which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit which is directed by God and reveals our faith and love in ordinary as well as in miraculous ways to the world and to each other – for want of a better word, I take the whole-istic approach. The gifts and gospel work within the context of God’s Kingdom and all the different elements work together to produce the results.
    For example, if you were at my house and you saw me hug and kiss my wife, it would be understood and encouraging as a sign of our love in the context of our relationship. If you saw me going around hugging and kissing strangers, it would be rather bizarre and have no contextual value.
    Poor example, maybe, but I think you can get my point from it.

81. Mitchell on 16 Dec 2008 at 12:43 pm #

    C. Barton – You need to define how you are using reductionism for me. It is difficult to tell from your post what goes with what. I do understand your example. I’ll need to think on the rest a bit longer.

82. C. Barton on 16 Dec 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    I guess the easiest way is to say that the whole is more than a simple sum of the parts. Gifts and fruits of the Spirit are operating in the Body of Christ as part of God’s ministry to us and our ministry to each other – one cannot extract the concept of “gifts” and examine it without regarding the context.
    It is a greedy analogy, I think, to say that the ministry of spiritual gifts is like the personnel department in a corporation, for instance – if you have all the personnel you need, then there is no more need for the personnel department, or so the argument goes.
    It is amazing how much we look forward to the warm times of gift giving during Christmas! Can’t we let God have as much fun as we do in giving things to others?

83. Daniel Brady on 17 Dec 2008 at 8:08 am #

    I grew up Southern Baptist, and I still attend a Southern Baptist church. I do not consider myself a charismatic, and I am appalled at how many charismatics “practice” the sign gifts.
    Having said that, though, I am no longer a cessationist, either. While many gifts are misused and abused, and while I do believe that the devil can cause someone to think they are using a spiritual gift when they are not, I do believe that God still makes all of the spiritual gifts available to the Church today.
    I do not claim to perfectly understand all the issues involved in this debate. Nor am I a

84. Daniel Brady on 17 Dec 2008 at 8:27 am #

    I grew up Southern Baptist, and I still attend a Southern Baptist church. I do not consider myself a charismatic, and I am appalled at how many charismatics “practice” the sign gifts.
    Having said that, though, I am no longer a cessationist, either. While many gifts are misused and abused, and while I do believe that the devil can cause someone to think they are using a spiritual gift when they are not, I do believe that God still makes all of the spiritual gifts available to the Church today.
    I do not claim to perfectly understand all the issues involved in this debate. Nor am I a biblical expert. However, I have studied the Word of God extensively over the years, and I do my best to make sure that my theological views line up with Scripture.
    My belief that all the gifts are still available for the Church comes from my understanding of I Cor. 13:8-12. In verse 8 (a favorite of the cessationists), Paul indeed does mention certain gifts which will pass away. However, there is nothing within the passage indicating that they would pass away at the end of the First Century. In fact, quite the contrary seems to be indicated. Verse 12, in particular, says, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
    It is clear to me that Paul is speaking of our future glorified state in heaven. On that great day when all the saints shall stand before the Lord, receive their glorified bodies, and enter their eternal abode is when these signs shall pass away. And they will pass away because there will be no more need for any of the spiritual gifts, which are given for ministry here on earth.
    But it seems to me that Paul is saying that the spiritual gifts (including the sign gifts) will not completely pass away until that day. In the meantime, my biggest beef with the charismatics is that they misuse and abuse certain gifts, not using them in accordance with the guidelines set forth by Paul. In so doing, I believe they unwittingly open themselves up to false manifestations of the gifts at times.
    I conclude, therefore, by saying that rather than rejecting certain gifts because of how they are abused and even feigned at times, let us acquaint ourselves with how the Bible says they are to be used and do our best to gently correct those who do not conduct themselves accordingly.

85. Daniel Brady on 17 Dec 2008 at 8:41 am #

    In response to post # 76 (and forgive me for so lately joining the conversation, but….):
    I have a mild, yet very noticeable case of cerebral palsy. I do not expect ever to be healed of it in this life. I believe my condition is so God can be glorified through my life and witness, in spite of my handicap.
    But what if God did decide to heal my body. Among those people I know, many of whom are not Christian, I should think that even the most skeptical of them would have difficulty denying something remarkable and supernatural had happened. Even in America, my healing (if it ever were to happen) would most certainly serve as a sign to someone.

86. Gary on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:07 pm #

    I am a Charismatic. After all are not all Christian’s charismatic? Given that the bible says all Christians have received the gift of grace, the root word being charisma.
    Whether I am a cessationist or believe in the continuing sign gifts especially is an important further question worthy of consideration and Michael has helpfully laid some of the groundwork out for us here.

    For Kyrie Eleison’s comment about spiritual warefare, the answer is that your weapon is the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel is the weapon God has given us so that He will convict or harden the person, to bring them from darkness to light, from death to life, even from demon possession to “possession in Christ” { even though all that rebel against Christ are in “satan’s kingdom anyway” Ephesian’s 6. }

    In Christ
    Gary

87. C. Barton on 19 Dec 2008 at 11:06 am #

    Gary: how great is the Word for warfare! What did Jesus use against Satan in the desert?
    Paul mentions “pulling down strongholds”, and I am told that “stronghold” means a big castle wall, a totally serious obstacle to mere human abilities. Divine Love can break down those walls in our hearts and in the world at large.
    Also, Paul spoke of imaginations – a foundation in the Word makes us grounded in the Truth, so that our imaginations won’t run wild with any seductive thought or delusion.
    Amen!

88. Why He’s Not Charismatic | Through A Glass, Dimly on 29 Dec 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    [...] Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 – Prophecy and Healings Part 4 – Excursus [...]

89. rick on 10 Jan 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    You probably already dealt with this in the comments above, I didn’t go through them, so I will ask again. I am sure you agree that scripture has the authority over all matters of doctrine and that scripture interprets scripture. No scripture is open to personal interpretation, we conform ourselves to it, not it to us or our prejudices. But your avoce description of certain gifts being disposable while others are permanant is not communicated in the authoritative text but is arbitrarily decidide upon by your own personal biases and preferences. It seems to me that, if those gifts have ceased, there must be an explicit text that says, “Upon the completion of the Cannon, there will no longer be given the gift of prophecy, tongues and healing.” Where is that test? It is neither implicit nor explicit anywhere in scripture.

90. Jonathan CHM on 08 Jul 2009 at 4:26 am #

    Holy Laughter, holy bark, holy drunkard and etc. are not found in the book of Acts during the Pentecost. Some Charismatic churches might use the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. from the Old and New Testaments to support these movements. However, bear in mind that the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. are mentioned instead of the full phrase of holy laughter, holy bark and etc. What if these practices are not from the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these practices are from the work of Holy Spirit has caused one to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and it would have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the wrong saying that these are the work of them. However, the Holy Spirit does not do it. One has indeed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by abusing the name of the Holy Spirit despite he does not do it. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgivable according to the New Testament.

91. C. Barton on 08 Jul 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    Hey, Jonathan CHM! I share your intense dislike for the false manifestations among us these days, and the Benny Hinns of Christendom fleecing the Lord’s flock.
    Anyone who has a relationship with the Lord will more often than not recognize His work and His voice when experienced.
    The term, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as used in the Gospels, was a specific term for the Pharasaical rejection of Jesus’ divine anointing. In other words, if you turned your back on Jesus and rejected Him as Messiah, there was little hope for you in the afterlife.
    Now that Jesus is glorified in Heaven, this special situation is no longer present on the earth. If someone makes a mistake about spiritual manifestations or their source, it is not an unpardonable sin. They just need to search for the truth.

92. #John1453 on 08 Jul 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Brady’s response in post 84 seems astute. Is such an interpretation discussed in any commentaries?

    Regards,
    #John

93. Jonathan CHM on 08 Jul 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    C. Barton, I am glad to receive your reply pertaining to Charismatism.
    You are right that Jesus gave comment for those people that rejected the miraculous power that was performed by the Holy Spirit to have blasmphemy against the Holy Spirit.
    Now my question is, for instance if the Holy Bark, Holy Laughter and etc. are the work of the Holy Spirit, we, Christians, that announced that these are from the Holy Spirit have to be acceptable by all Christians. What if Holy Bark, Holy Laughter and etc. are not the work of the Holy Spirit, we, Christians, that insist that these are the work from the holy Spirit would have caused to grieve the Holy Spirit by abusing the name of the Holy Spirit that commenting these are from the Holy Spirit. Bear in mind that if the definition of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit from God does not restrict itself to ignoring the power of Holy Spirit but also speaking anything against the Holy Spirit, the act of abusing the name of Holy Spirit that all these are from the Holy Spirit might have caused one to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

94. cheryl u on 08 Jul 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    # John,

    I guess I don’t know about commentaries on the subject, but Brady’s response you mentioned is the way I have always understood those verses. I have spent a lot of time in charismatic circles of one type or another, so I’m not sure if I came to that understanding on my own or through teaching. I just know it is how I have understood it for as long as I can remember. Probably a combination of both.

95. cheryl u on 08 Jul 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    #John,

    Here is a commentary that interprets the issue the way Brady did:

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=8010&commInfo=31&topic=1%20Corinthians&ar=1Cr_13_9

96. Jonathan CHM on 09 Jul 2009 at 4:42 am #

    blas’-fe-mi (blaphemia): In classical Greek meant primarily ‘defamation’ or ‘evil-speaking’in general; ‘a word of evil omen’, hence, ‘impious, and irreverent speech against God’. The above is the extract pertaining to the meaning of blasphemy in Greek. Consider carefully about holy bark, holy laugher and etc. For instance, if these are not the work of Holy Spirit, the abusing the name of Holy Spirit by saying that these are the work of Holy Spirit is indeed delivery of irreverent speech against the Holy Spirit. For instance, if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these should be directed from the work of the Holy Spirit might have abused the name of the Holy Spirit and caused defamation of its name and one might have in turn grieved the Holy Spirit since these might not be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit might be ended up to bear the name for the doer of holy bark, holy laugher and etc. What if it has grieved the Holy Spirit by insisting that these are the work of the Holy Spirit, our ignorance has ultimately caused the ultimate abusing and/or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

97. Jonathan CHM on 09 Jul 2009 at 4:56 am #

    From the above reasoning, I prefer rather to remain not to be Charismatic in order not to defile the name of Holy Spirit. Neither will I comment that there are from the Holy Spirit since the wrong comment would have turned up to defile the name of the Holy Spirit.

98. #John1453 on 09 Jul 2009 at 6:52 am #

    Thanks, Cherylu. The entire website is quite interesting and so I’ve bookmarked it.

    Regards,
    #John

99. EricW on 09 Jul 2009 at 8:17 am #

    There is this commentary, which I have found to be helpful at times:

    Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament (Hardcover)
    by French L. Arrington (Editor), Roger Stronstad (Editor)

    and J. Rodman Williams’:

    Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective (Three Volumes in One) (Hardcover)

100. cheryl u on 09 Jul 2009 at 10:20 am #

     Re: #98

     I have used that site for years. Just as a caution, someone told me that the Thayer’s Lexicon used there is quite outdated. However, I still use it and go to that site often because I haven’t found any other online site that has all of the Bible versions, commentaries, etc. available in one place that is avaiable at Blue Letter Bible.

101. Jonathan CHM on 10 Jul 2009 at 1:24 am #

     The same is for miraculous healings among Charismatic churches. We could easily spot out that many sick will fall down before the healers lay hands on them. However, many sick would remain unhealed after the rally despite they did fall down before the healers, i.e. Pastors that perform miraculous healings. God is definitely powerful and can heal all kinds of sicknesses. However, there is a deficiency in the healings in contemporary Charismatic world. What if the wonders are not the work of the Holy Spirit, the commenting to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit that it is he that does the work might have grieved the Holy Spirit in case if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit and it ends up that one has abused the name of the Holy Spirit and has ultimately blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

102. EricW on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:27 am #

     Did John Calvin speak in tongues? Maybe….

     http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2009/07/john-calvin-is-old-and-not-looking-a-day-over-500.html

103. Jonathan CHM on 11 Jul 2009 at 4:13 am #

     This is my general discovery upon Charismatic churches: Some Charismatic churches might not repent in order to do away their so-called, gift, in the churches due to they feel thieir reputations are most precious than the truth of the Bible and that causes them to persist in the practice. However, bear in mind that the insisting the so-called, gift, in their churches to be the work of the Holy Spirit might cause them to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and that causes them ultimately to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit what if the miracles are not from the work the Holy Spirit. The act of insisting to defend their reputation more important than the truth of the Bible has indeed violated the great commandment of the Lord. For Matthew 22:37, “(mentions that) Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The act of having a high preference for their reputations rather that upholding the truth of the Bible implies that his love towards his own reputation is more significance than his love towards God. For Matthew 22:37 has commanded us to put our love to God first instead of that has to be in replacement of our reputation.

104. Jonathan CHM on 11 Jul 2009 at 4:27 am #

     Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!”
     What are the elements could be found in these verses above? There are:
     1) They believe in Jesus Christ since Matthew 7:22, “(mentions that) Many will say to me..’LORD, LORD”. These people must have believed in Jesus Christ or else how they could call Jesus Christ to be their Lord as mentioned above then.
     2) These people could use Jesus’ name to perform miracles since Matthew 7:22, “(mentions that) Many…have..prophesied…in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?”
     3) Will they be accepted by Jesus Christ? Matthew 7:23, “…I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me”.

105. Jonathan CHM on 12 Jul 2009 at 7:33 pm #

     Matthew 12:31-32, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the BLASPHEMY AGAINST the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speak against a word the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever SPEAK AGAINST the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” As the phrase, speak against the Holy Spirit, is mentioned in Matthew 12:31-32 with the phrase, blasphemy against the Spirit, it implies that a person blasphemes against the Holy Spirit even if he speaks against the Holy Spirit. The same for abusing the name of the Holy Spirit in which it might have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the false saying what if the works are not from the Holy Spirit. The word, forgiven, is mentioned in Matthew 12:31-32 with the phrase, every sin & blasphemy, it implies that all blasphemies are to be considered as sin or else why we should need God’s forgiveness for the blasphemies. The same in abusing God’s or Jesus’ name to support their miracles are from God or Jesus respectively and these are the acts of blasphemy to be considered as sins too.

106. C. Barton on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:02 am #

     Hey, Jonathan! I’m not trying to be dense on this issue, it just comes naturally: what is your conclusion, or point, after quoting the “blasphemy against the HS” passages? Do you surmise that those who operate under false assumptions have lost their salvation, or could it be that there are those who have fallen into a trap of the enemy and are deluded, hopefully only briefly?
     Remember that Paul also said that (my paraphrase!!) if he were Superman himself, with all kinds of miraculous abilities, but didn’t act in true love, it means less than nothing. This, by the way, is why it is greivous to see Michelle Obama using occult hand signs, etc., on magazine covers: she might be a pleasant person, but the Luciferian agenda is obvious.
     Could there be an analogy for the false church here??

107. EricW on 13 Jul 2009 at 12:09 pm #

     Jonathan CHM:

     So, which is the greater blasphemy against the Holy Spirit – 1. to accept as being from the Holy Spirit manifestations that are from the flesh or other spirits, or 2. to be cessationist and reject some true operations of the Holy Spirit and/or to refuse to teach or lead others into a greater relationship with the Holy Spirit because “those things don’t happen anymore”?

108. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 3:38 am #

     C.Barton, I do not mean Christians will lose salvation but that those people that perform miracles might not be Christians even though they claim to be so. If you say that all these people that Jesus is Lord and could perform miracles in Jesus’ name are Christians, why should they be rejected by Jesus in the last day as mentioned in Matthew 7:23? Kindly have your feedback instead of turning round and round in the topic of love. The reason is simply that I am doing some research on Charismatic practice and would like to seek other alternative views and explanations pertianing to Charismatic practice and the reasons for its acceptability and popularity.

     What if that is mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23 have turned up to be the truth that these people be rejected by the Lord in the Last Day, these people would regret definitely for their act now. Should I have your reasoning why these people be rejected as mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23 then?

109. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 6:35 am #

     C.Barton, you are surely in the losing ground if you would use merely the word, love, to precede the so-called, gift, in contemporary Charsimatic churches. The reason is simply that they might argue that love and the so-called, gift, could exist side by side in Charismatic churches. They might argue that Charismatic people have more love than non-Charismatic people since their love extends even to every household since they exercise miraculous healings publicly so as many people could be healed from their illnesses. Not only that, they could even take that opportunity to preach to non-Christians through rallies. They could even condemn non-Charismatic churches since they are not so actively involved in preaching as compared to Charismatic churches.

110. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 6:46 am #

     C. Barton, I am not Charismatic since I am too against it. I tell you the truth in which you might not believe that I have strongest ground, at least 70% confidence so as to bring Charismatic down with full biblical support. However, I need someone to criticize or to comment the words that I submit by part to part so that I could discover where is my weak point so as to raise the confidence level to 80% or even to 90%. If my guessing is correct, you should be the right person to be since you are quite brave to comment. Not to worry whether I could be annoyed by your comment since the more you comment and the more I could advance in better knowledge and approach. I am not ashamed of God’s words and I am not ashamed if someone comments badly against me.

111. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 7:09 am #

     Eric W, you have enquired whether John Calvin spoke in tongues. Acts 2:8-10, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, Medes….” From the above verses, we know that tongues are indeed languages and/or dialects. Do you know whether John Calvin spoke in foreign languages and/or dialects? If you could not prove whether he spoke in languages and/or dialects, we could not ascertain whether John Calvin was speaking in tongues or he just speaks nonsensical words. Bear in mind, tongues in the book of Acts are languages/dialects. If a person speaks not in foreign languages/dialects, he simply speaks garbage and not in tongues.

112. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 7:22 am #

     Joseph Smith claimed that spiritual gifts did not cease and he claimed that he saw an angel and established the church of Mormons, or, the Latter-day Seven Adventist.

     Prophet Muhammad claimed he saw an angel, Gabriel, that reviewed to him revelation and he established Quran and mosque.

     George Went Hensley claimed that he received revelation and could perform miracles but he committed financially and sexual imorality. He died in year 1950+ when he was bitten by a snake.

     Many buddhists and Catholics could speak in so-called themselves, ‘tongues’. Check from the web-sites and you would find many buddhists and Catholics claim to have supernatural power.

113. EricW on 15 Jul 2009 at 8:07 am #

     Jonathan CHM wrote:

     From the above verses, we know that tongues are indeed languages and/or dialects…. Bear in mind, tongues in the book of Acts are languages/dialects. If a person speaks not in foreign languages/dialects, he simply speaks garbage and not in tongues.

     When one reads the NT in the original Greek, one sees that there is little basis for claiming that the languages (or “tongues” – glôssai) that were spoken in Acts 2 and/or other places in Acts are different from what Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The words and phrases have too much overlap and similarity to make the case that Acts is referring to known languages and/or foreign languages/dialects whereas Paul in 1 Corinthians was addressing and correcting people who spoke garbage/gibberish under the guise or claim of speaking in “real” tongues.

     I don’t know if you are familiar with or agree with the Spiros Zodhiates-John MacArthur (MacArthur Study Bible) claim that there is a difference between tongues in the singular (glôssa) and tongues in the plural (glôssai) – i.e., that one is real languages and the other is gibberish (I can’t remember which he/they say is which) – but this argument, too, doesn’t consistently hold up when one examines the Greek New Testament.

114. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 7:41 pm #

     1 Corinthians 14;21, “in the law it is written, ‘With (men of) other tongues and other lips will I speak with this people and yet for all that will they not hear me’, saith the Lord.” As the phrase, other tongues, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:21 with the phrase, I speak with this people, it implies that tongues are definitely languages and/or dialects or else how God could converse with us then.

     1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him)…”. For 1 Corinth 14:4, “He that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue edifieth himself…”. For instance, if tongues are not languages and/or dialects and it cannot be understood by the speaker, how the tongues could edify the speaker himself since 1 Corinth 14:4 mentions that tongues have to edify the speaker.

115. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 7:48 pm #

     1 Corinth 14:10, “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them (is) without significant.” As the phrase, many kind of voices, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:10 with the phrase, the world, it definitely refers to languages and/or dialects in the world instead of outside the world, ie. alien language. McArthur claimed to have other tongues that could not be understood by human beings are not biblical.

     What if the so-called, tongues, in contemporary Charismatic churches are not from the work of the Holy Spirit, the comment that their tongues are from God or the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ would cause one to abuse the name of them and it in turn blasphemes any one of them.

116. Jonathan CHM on 15 Jul 2009 at 8:02 pm #

     1 Corinth 14;14, “For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue pray that he may interpret”. The above verse demands a tongue spoker to pray for his understanding of tongues. 1 Corinth 14;37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”. The phrase, the things that I write to you, in 1 Corinth 14:37 is in present tense and it implies that the words that Paul just delivered for his message to the Church of Corinthians is indeed God’s commandment and this includes 1 Corinth 14:14.

     1 Corinth 14:15, “What is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with understanding also; I will sing with Spirit, and I will sing with understanding also.” For instance, the speaker could not understand the tongue, how could they sing and pray with understanding and this contradicts 1 Corinth 14:15.

117. C. Barton on 17 Jul 2009 at 2:42 pm #

     Paul makes it clear that some tongues by the Spirit are unknown, or “Tongues of angels”, meaning that it is an intimate prayer between the man and God. Thus, when one is moved to speak in tongues in the assembly, there should be one to interpret so that the rest of the congregation can be edified, or else why bother to speak? Thus, one who speaks without interpretation ought to keep it privately, to himself.
     When we speak in the Spirit with understanding, we are using the gift of prophecy, or perhaps special knowledge, so that not only do we get the benefit, but also those who can hear and understand us. Because, the Bible cannot be understood and used with insight by our natural reason alone; we need the Spirit to guide us into proper interpretations according to the intent of the Spirit when it was written.

118. Jonathan CHM on 17 Jul 2009 at 7:53 pm #

     Your question is quite interesting and I will tackle accordingly.
     The following are the proves that angels speak in human languages instead of alien languages or else how the people could understand what angels speak:
     Genesis 16:9, “And the angel of the Lord said unto her…”
     Luke 1:30, “And the angel said unto her, Mary…”
     For instance, if angels speak in alien languages, how could the examples above show that angels ever spoke to human beings? As angels did convey message to human beings in human languages, that proves that angels speak in human languages instead of in alien languages.

119. Jonathan CHM on 17 Jul 2009 at 8:22 pm #

     Let’s interpret 1 Corinth 14:2 in a few different ways to examine its acceptability of interpretation:
     1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him), howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries”. The word, mysteries, in 1 Corinth 14:2 should not refer to the general conversation between God and men. Instead, it could refer to the message pertaining to the mysteries in heaven and/or God and/or angels and/or whatsoever. Human beings might not be able to comprehend the tongues (languages) if they are in mysteries and/or in parable forms. This is the same as when Jesus was on earth when he commented about the mysteries in heaven in the form of parables, nobody could understand it and not even the twelve disciples. As it is a mysteries that are delivered through tongues, these are tongues spoken with God through the speakers.

120. Jonathan CHM on 17 Jul 2009 at 8:45 pm #

     1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him), howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries”. For instance, if the tongues in 1 Corinth 14:2 have to be used for the general definition of all the tongues, 1 Corinth 14:2 would contradict most part of the Scripture since tongues are in languages especially in Acts 2. The phrase, no man understandeth (him), in Acts 2 implies nobody could understand it.

121. Jonathan CHM on 17 Jul 2009 at 9:21 pm #

     C. Barton, you have mentioned that Paul makes it clear that some tongues by the Spirit are unknown, or “Tongues of angels”, meaning that it is an intimate prayer between the man and God. From your explanation, if my guessing of your understanding is correct for your interpetation of 1 Corinth 14:2, the phrase, no man understand (him), in 1 Corinth 14:2 has been interpreted as some tongues cannot be comprehended. However, bear in mind the phrase, speaketh in an…tongue, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:2 instead of the phrase, speaketh in some…tongue. As the phrase, speaketh in an…tongue, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:2, it implies that all kinds of tongues instead of restricting in certain kinds of tongues. For instance, if you interpet the phrase, no man understand (him), in 1 Corinth 14;2 as nobody could undestand his tongue, the inrepretation would turn up to be all the tongues would not be understood since 1 Corinth 14:2 does not restrict itself to some tongues but the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned and that, it contradicts Acts 2 that mentions that tongues are in languages too.

122. Jonathan CHM on 17 Jul 2009 at 9:36 pm #

     The interpretation of 1 Corinth 14:2 to be some tongues to be in languages and some are in alien languages have been found unacceptable since the word, some, is not mentioned here and neither it gives any exception in this verse too.

     The interpretation that I have listed out initially to interpret the word, mysteries, to the mysteries of God/heaven and etc. I do not find any contradiction with the Scripture when it is to be interpreted in this way.

     Kindly have anyone to advise accordingly for my understanding.

123. Jonathan CHM on 18 Jul 2009 at 3:30 am #

     If my guessing is not wrong, contemporary Charismatic churches might have abused 1 Corinth 14:2 to be interpreted as some tongues to be alien languages so as to suit their practice:
     1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him), howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries”.
     Meditate carefully the above verse again since the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned as above. For instance, if the phrase, no man understandeth (him), in 1 Corinth 14:2 is to be interpreted as alien language, the interpretation would turn up to be in hay wire for the fact that nobody could understand tongues speaking and this interpretation definitely contadicts Acts 2 that mentions that the disciples spoke in foreign languages (tongues). Bear in mind that the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:2 instead of the phrase, some tongues. For instance, if the phrase, some tongues, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:2, one could argue that some tongues are in alien languages and some are in foreign languages/dialects. However, the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned here.

124. Jonathan CHM on 18 Jul 2009 at 4:36 pm #

     Prophets from contemporary Charismatic Churches ever prophesize the end of the world in year 1987, 2000 and etc. and yet prophecies were not fulfilled and this proves that they did deliver false prophecies. As we know that God never sin and He never lies and He has foreknowledge about the future and that all His angels and Holy Spirit are under His control, contemporary Charismatic Churches should never deliver false prophecies for the instance if the Holy Spirit would have carried out its task in giving revelation to their Churches nowadays. As they did deliver unfulfil false prophecies to us, these prove that the so-called, prophecies, revelations, words of wisdom, words of knowledge and tongues speaking that were exercised from their Churches might not be from God. This is by virtue of God would have corrected all their false prophecies during the time when they exercised the so-called, prophecies, revelations, words of wisdom, words of knowledge and tongue speaking since they mentioned that God would speak to them directly through revelation currently.

     I would like to invite anyone who has the indept knowledge of contemporary Charismatic Churches to bring in their discussion so as to find out the problem in their Churches then.

125. Jonathan CHM on 18 Jul 2009 at 4:48 pm #

     The deficiencies in their prophecies, tongues speaking, revelations, words of wisdom and words of knowledge give a serious doubt whether their so-called, spirit-filled to have continuously received Pentecostal experience might not be the work of the Holy Spirit.

     What if their prophecies, tongues speaking, revelations, words of wisdom and words of knowledge are not the work of the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ, the insisting to abuse the name of Holy Spirit or God or Jeus Christ would have caused them to blaspheme against Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ respectively.

126. cheryl u on 18 Jul 2009 at 6:02 pm #

     Jonathan CHM,

     Have you by any chance read the blog rules posted on the home page? Particularly # 5?

127. Jonathan CHM on 19 Jul 2009 at 8:15 pm #

     This is my last comment and not to worry whether I would submit any further comment:

     1 Corinth 14:14 mentions that tongues must be interpreted in the Churches and 1 Corinth 14:37 mentions that God is the one that delivered this commandment to us.

     For instance, if the revelation and the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic churches are truly the work of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit should have given the advice to contemporary Charismatic people through tongues speaking, or prophecy, or the word of knowledge or the word of wisdom. However, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit did not speak to them through their so-called, spiritual gifts. As nothing has been informed among contemporary Charismatic Churches for the warning to have interpretation of tongues, there is a question whether the so-called, revelation, in contemporary Charismatic churches is from God since the Holy Spirit would definitely obey God to guide the followers according to the truth in the Bible.

     What if the tongues speakings in contemporary Charismatic Churches are from God, we must uphold that these are from God. What if the tongues speakings in contemporary Charismatic Churches are not from God, we insist the Holy Spirit to be the doer would have grieved the Holy Spirit to insist he is the one to do it even he did not and in turn we might have abused the name of the Holy Spirit to cause the defamation of his name.

128. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 12:39 am #

     Charismatic people say that they believe in Jesus Christ. However, they depend mostly on their emotions; their sights of miracles; and whatever they could visualize from their sights. Whenever they feel and see the existence of some forms of power and they say that there is God. When they could not see any miracles or wonders or their emotions are down, they say that God is not with them. They claim that they receive the Holy Spirit due to they say that they feel something passing through their bodies. All in all they claim that they are saved and yet all these are done through feelings. Their salvations are in doubt and they might not be saved since salvation is through faith and not feeling. What good does it bring about if the number of Charismatic churches has been expanding! Many are non-Christians and a few are true Christians. Now the underlying problem is we, the true Church, must be strengthened in Biblical knowledge and not to be affected by false teachings.

     Sad to say they are blinded by evil forces. No doubt they might be rejected by the Lord as mentioned in Matthew 7:22-23 for their foolishness of hearts.

129. EricW on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:06 am #

     27. Jonathan CHM on 19 Jul 2009 at 8:15 pm # This is my last comment and not to worry whether I would submit any further comment:

     So, Jonathan CHM, is #28 your last comment, your last last comment, your last comment after your last comment, or your first comment in a series of new comments that will also have a last comment, and possibly a second or a third last comment or last last comment as well?

130. EricW on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:14 am #

     28. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 12:39 am # Charismatic people say that they believe in Jesus Christ. However, they depend mostly on their emotions; their sights of miracles; and whatever they could visualize from their sights.

     And would you describe Gordon Fee and Craig Keener and J. Rodman Williams and Wayne Grudem (all self-identified Pentecostals and/or Charismatics) as such?

131. C. Barton on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:35 am #

     OK, J CHM, I’ll bite! Yes, Romans, et al tell us it is through faith that we are saved, but we are not saved by faith (our effort of faith) alone; we are saved by the gracious gift of God through Jesus. This isn’t like a cosmic jukebox, but more like going home to Papa after . . . well, the Prodigal Son thing: relationship is tantamount.
     Emotions and intimate revelations are a very real part of this relationship; if I told my wife that I don’t put any emphasis on my feelings for her, but prefer to just know by license that we are married, I would be sleeping on the sofa for a night or two, to “Devote myself to prayer . . .”, and the pain of introspection. I think that emotions ought to be involved and connected to the heart properly, being led by the Truth in our hearts.

132. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:35 pm #

     1) The following are the proves that angels could perform miracles healing and there are falling angels in the Scripture to be against God too:

     John 5:3-4, “In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

     2) The following are the proves that Angels could perform marvellous wonders:

     Luke 1:7, “And they had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren and they both were now well stricken in years.” Luke 1:13, “but the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for their prayer is heard; and they wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John”. Luke 1:18, “And Zacharias said unto the angel, ‘Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my life well stricken in years.” Luke 1:19, “And THE ANGEL ANSWERING UNTO HIM, I AM GRABRIEL…” Luke 1:20, “AND BEHOLD, THOU SHALL BE DUMB, AND NOT ABLE TO SPEAK, UNTIL THE DAY THAT THESE THINGS SHALL BE PERFORMED, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.” Luke 1:22, “And when he came out, HE COULD NOT SPEAK UNTO THEM”.

     Matthews 28:1-2, “Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Many Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And, behold, THERE WAS A GREAT EARTHQUAKE, FOR AN ANGEL OF THE LORD DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN, AND ROLLED BACK THE STONE OF THE DOOR, and sat it.”

     Acts 12:23, “Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.”

     3) Angels could appear in somebody’s dream:

     Matthews 2:19, “…an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph…”; Matthew 1:20, “…an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream…”

     As angels could perform wonders, are there any strongest proves to show that those wonders in contemporary Charismatic Churches are from God? If someone in contemporary Charismatic Church could prove it, we have to accept it. However, if nobody could prove whether the existence of wonder in contemporary Charismatic Churches is from God or the Holy Spirit or Angels, there is a danger that one would comment that certain wonders are from God or from the Holy Spirit or from Jesus Christ and, in case if they are not and it would turn up that we have forced God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit to bear the name of doer and indirectly we have abused the name of Jesus Christ or God or the Holy Spirit and this causes us to speak against Jesus Christ or God or the Holy Spirit indirectly.

133. EricW on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:42 pm #

     Jonathan CHM:

     Have you ever thought of starting your own blog?

134. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:55 pm #

     I am not ashamed of God’s words. The same is for the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts. Paul had warned by God not to visit Jerusalem and yet he persisted. What if the practice of Charismatic practice opposes the scritpure, we, Christians, must not be coward but to stand out for the speech.

135. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 9:12 pm #

     If a person all the while depends on his feeling to say that there is God, how could this be called faith? Faith is the substance on hoping what is unseen and/or those that have not been occurred.

     I do not like to receive praises from men but from God. I rather look forward for the permanent glory in heaven.

136. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 10:45 pm #

     PROOF THAT ANGELS COULD PERFORM MIRACULOUS HEALING AND THERE ARE FALLEN ANGELS TOO:

     John 5:3-4, “In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.””

     From John 5:3-4, it shows that angels could heal various kinds of illnesses whether they are blinded, halt and withered. As angels could perform miraculous healings and there are so-called, fallen angels, it is irrational to jump into conclusion that certain illnesses be healed to be the work of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit since some wonders might be the work of angels and/or fallen angels.

     One might have quoted Luke 9:49-50 well that nobody should stop those people that perform miracles in Jesus’ name. However, he should meditate Matthew 7:22-23 carefully again that the so-called people to use Jesus’ name to perform wonders might be rejected by the Lord. For instance, if these people that are mentioned in Matthew 7:22-23 to use Jesus’ name to perform wonders are the work of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit, there should not be any strong ground for Jesus to reject them. However, Jesus will reject them despite they do perform wonders in Jesus’ name and there is a query the so-called wonders that they perform are from God. The following are the extracts:
     Matthew 7:22-23, “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!’

     CASTING OUT DEMONS MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE ONE TO HAVE DISTURBED BY DEMONS AS MENTIONED IN ACTS 19:13-16:

     Matthew 17:15-16, “Lord have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.” Matthew 17:18-19, “And Jesus rebuked the devil and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, ‘Why could not we cast him out?’ ” Matthew 17:21, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” From these verses, it is obvious that the failure in casting out demons might not necessarily cause one to be disturbed by demons as that is mentioned in Luke 9:49-50.

137. Jonathan CHM on 29 Jul 2009 at 10:51 pm #

     LUKE 9:49-50 ABOUT THOSE THAT DO NOT FOLLOW JESUS BUT COULD PERFORM WONDERS IN JESUS’ NAME

     Luke 9:49, 50 (TCNT), “Hereupon John said: “Sir, we saw a man driving out demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he does not follow you with us.” “None of you must prevent him,” Jesus said to John; “he who is not against you is for you.”

     Were these people that were mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 to be the disciples of Jesus since it is mentioned that they did not follow Jesus?

     The following are the verses to prove that God’s people would surely follow Jesus:

     John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

     John 10:3, “To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calleth his own sheep by nam, and leadeth them out”.

     From the above verses, it is obvious that the sheep will surely follow the shepherd, Jesus.

     As the phrase, he is not against you is for you, is mentioned in Luke 9:49 instead of the phrase, he is not against you is for me Jesus, it does not show that all these people that could use Jesus to perform miracles were for Jesus but for us, disciples, especially Jesus had mentioned clearly in John 10:27 and 10:3 that Christians would surely follow Jesus. The possible interpetation for Luk 9:49 for him to mention that they were for us that it might be that they could assist us in bringing outsiders to the attention of Jesus Christ for our evangelism. However, they are not for Jesus since they do not follow Jesus since they would definitely follow Jesus if they are for Jesus.
     Indeed the people as mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 that could perform wonders in Jesus’s name were not God’s people or else Jesus should have included these people ont top of the twelve disciples. Or in other words, if these people that could perform wonders in Jesus’ name were God’s people, there would be more that twelve disciples instead of remaining to be twelve all the time during Jesus’ mission and it proves the fact that Jesus’ name could be abused to perform miracles. Or in other words, despite these people as mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 were not following Jesus and were not the disciples of Jesus, they could use Jesus’ name to perform wonders.

138. C. Barton on 30 Jul 2009 at 10:17 am #

     By logic alone we see that, “These signs shall follow them . . .”, speaks of healing and other miracles which follow the Believers, but it does not say that all those who perform signs and wonders are believers. I mean, not everyone who wears a crucifix is Christian, yes? I personally believe that when Jesus said, ” . . do the will of the Father”, he primarily was referring to being born again through faith, and not just acknowledgement of his teaching, etc. Those Jesus referred to could be Jewish men who added his teaching and use of his name to the old covenantal practices, and so were not saved.
     On the other hand, Jesus also said, “If you so much as give a drink of water in my name . . .”; refers to a saving faith in action – a better miracle, yes?

139. Jonathan CHM on 04 Aug 2009 at 9:10 pm #

     I apologize if my words are too strong to hurt anybody in the past but what I wrote are quoted directly from the Bible.

     The way I get the feed-back from your site, I discover that all of you’ll are truly Christians and have the desire to be perfect in the truth of God and that pleases God Himself certainly.

     My reasoning for submitting comments is to seek alternative view-points from various Christians so as I could broaden my knowledge from different perspective approaches so as to ease my write-up on certain articles.

     Other than the above, I have no other purpose.

     Thank you very much of your precious comments in the past.

140. Jonathan CHM on 05 Aug 2009 at 1:01 am #

     Contemporary Charismatic Churches support pre-millennium, mid-millennium, post-millennium and etc. However, the so-called, manifestation of the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic Churches does not stop them to support these theories and there is a query whether the so-called, manifestation of the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic Churches is from God.

     The following is the reason about my comment:

     Rev 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of this prophecy of book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

     As the phrase, shall add, is mentioned in Rev 22:18-19 with the phrase, God shall add unto him the plagues, it implies that God demands us, Christians, not to add any words into the book of Revelation. As the phrase, shall take away from…this prophecy, is mentioned in Rev 22:18-19 with the phrase, shall take away his part out of the book of life, it implies that God forbids Christians to remove anything from the book of Revelation.

     The interpretation of the Revelation that Jesus would come in Rev chapter 6 before the tribulation; or Jesus would come in Rev 20 after tribulation; and/or etc., implies that one has added words into the book of Revelation and that should be forbidden as mentioned in Rev 22:18-19. What if Jesus would come at some part of Revelation instead of in Rev 6, those Christians that insist he would come in Rev 6 has added words into God’s mouth that Jesus would come in Rev 6 even though Rev 6 does not mention it. The worse is some would link up the Book of Daniel and/or any other books to the book of Revelation. What if the actual interpretation of God for the revelation is not like this, these Christians have acted contradictorily to Rev 22:18-19 to add words into God’s mouth that God’s prophecy should be so but indeed God does not mean it.

     The same is for those that interpets Rev 13, the 666 to be the anti-christ. Nothing is mentioned in Rev 13 that 666 is for anti-christ and yet one links the word, anti-christ in 1 John 1 to be the one in Rev 13. What if God’s interpretation for 666 in Rev 13 not to be for anti-christ, we, Christians, simply force God to accept the so-called, 666, in Rev 13 to be anti-christ then.

     To my personal opninion, we, Christians, must leave the book of Revelation not to be interpreted so as we would not violate Rev 22:18-19. The reason is we, Christians, would have added words to God’s mouth in case if the book of Revelation, to God’s interpretation is another way instead of following our own interpretation.

141. Jonathan CHM on 06 Aug 2009 at 5:22 pm #

     My reasoning is simply that for instance, if the so-called, tongues speaking, the gift of prophecy, the gift of Word of Knowledge, the gift of wisdom, and etc., in contemporary Charismatic Churches are from God, they would have warned all Christians among their Churches not to interpret the book of prophecy especially the book of Revelation.

     They refer Rev 6; 8:1-2 as the first half of tribulation; and the Great Tribulation to be for Rev 8; 9; 11:15 as well as Rev 15:16. Pre-tribulation supports that Christians will be raptured before Rev 6 since they believe that Christians would not go through tribulation; Post-tribulation supports that Chrstians would be raptured after Rev 16 and perhaps in Rev 20; mid-tribulation assumes that Christians would be raptured in the middle of the book of Rev. All these interpretations have indeed abused the book of Revelation in which Rev 22:18-19 command us not to add words in the book of Prophecy and yet the so-called, manifestation of the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic Churches, should have warned Christians not to violate the book of Revelation on the condition if their so-called, gifts, are from God. As mentioned in the Scripture, the Holy Spirit will guide us for the truth of the Scripture and yet the so-called, gifts, in current world do not correct the mistakes in interpreting the book of Revelation, there is a question whether the so-called, gifts, in contemporary Charismatic Churches are from God. What if in God’s interpretation that Christians would be raptured in Rev 6 instead of Rev 20, our insisting the support that God would be raptured in Rev 6 would have added words into God’s mouth for the comment that Christians would be raptured at that time even though Rev 6 does not mention Christians would be raptured at that time. The same for mid- and post-tribulation too. They even relate Rev 12:3, 13 to be the rise of Antichrist. Nothing is mentioned in the book of Rev 12:3, 13 that the so-called, 666, is the antichrist and yet one has related the word, antichrist, in 1 John 1 to be that is mentioned in Rev 12:3, 13. What if God’s interpretation for Rev 12:3, 13 not to be an antichrist instead of some other thing, the insisting that Rev 12:3, 13 have undoubtedly added words into God’s mouth that Rev 12:3, 13 were the antichrist.

     Rev 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of this prophecy of book…” As the phrase, this prophecy of book, in Rev 22:18-19 is in singular tense, it implies a single book instead of other books and it certainly refers to the book of Revelation undoubtedly.

142. Jonathan CHM on 06 Aug 2009 at 5:25 pm #

     Some might relate Daniel 2:42-44 for the rise of the antichrist and that would occur during the tribulation and that falls within Rev 6-16. The word, antichrist, is not spelt out clearly in the book of Revelation. The insisting that antichrist would come during Rev 6-16 has undoubtedly added words into God’s mouth what if God’s interpretation of the prophecy is not in this way but in other alternative way.

     For instance, if one relates Rev 22:18-19 to be in broader term and this incudes other prophecy in the Bible too. To interpret Daniel 2:42-44 to be the rise of antichrist would certainly act against Rev 22:18-19 since one has added words into Daniel 2:42-44 especially the word, antichrist, is not mentioned in Daniel 2:42-44. One has simply related the word, antichrist, from 1 John 1 to Daniel 2:42-44. What if God’s interpretation of Daniel 2:42-44 not to be antichrist, one has added words into God’s mouth to force him to accept this interpretation.

143. Jugulum on 06 Aug 2009 at 6:04 pm #

     Jonathan, do you believe in the extra-Biblical word “Trinity”?

144. Jonathan CHM on 06 Aug 2009 at 7:16 pm #

     Yes, I too believe the word, Trinity. However, Rev 22:18-19 command us not to add any words in the prophecy instead of anywhere elsewhere and so, the support of Trinity can be established and it does not contradict the Scripture.

145. C Barton on 06 Aug 2009 at 9:20 pm #

     If I may interject . . . some feel that the term “antichrist” in the Greek can also have the meaning of “instead-of Christ”, in that the Lawless One will be a counterfeit, or a false Christ; i.e. one who claims to be Messiah. Regarding the Trinity, there is the old passage about three witnesses that curiously is absent from all but the most reliable versions of the Bible (1611 was a good year!).
     One instance of an antichrist was pharao during the slavery of Israel. two of pharao’s honorary names were, Son of God, and Giver of Eternal Life. Ya can’t get more false Christ than that, or can you?
     Some say that this is why God told Moses to tell pharao, “Israel is my son, my firstborn”.
     Also, the parting of the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds) had religious significance to Egypt, so that God was again mocking their false claims to divinity.

146. Jugulum on 07 Aug 2009 at 12:12 pm #

     Jonathan,

     Sure, you’re at least being consistent there. With your definition of “adding words”.

     To check that again: When we say that John 1 is referring to Jesus when it talks about “the Word”, you would say that we’re adding to the words of the Bible? But that’s OK, because the Bible only says don’t add to the words of the prophecy of Revelation?

147. cheryl u on 07 Aug 2009 at 12:43 pm #

     Jonathan,

     What about these verses in Proverbs:

     Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. ”

     From those verses, it doesn’t sound to me like Revelation is the only book involved here. It very plainly says “every word of God.” So if you believe the concept of the Trinity is alright because it is spoken of in the Bible, you will also have to accept that it is alright for people to make interpretations of the Book of Revelation. That is, after all, what people are doing, interpreting it as they see it.

     Otherwise, to be consistent, you will have to say that one can’t interpret the Bible at all or use any words not found in the Bible to describe Biblical principles.

148. C. Barton on 07 Aug 2009 at 1:46 pm #

     I’m pretty sure that “adding words” refers to alteration of the scriptures as approved by God; it can also apply to those who teach out of the Word. What’s different is when we say, “This is my explanation of what it means . . .”.
     Jesus was particularly dismayed at those who made the Word of no effect by their man-made traditions. An example in our day is the tradition in Islam of a temporary “marriage” which can last just a few hours or for a few days, then the couple can be “divorced” by a verbal agreement and be on their way – clearly this circumvents the commandment to be sexually pure?
     So adding in this way can be spiritullay deadly.

149. Jugulum on 08 Aug 2009 at 5:01 pm #

     Jonathan hasn’t responded yet, but I’m going to assume his answer is “Yes” to my question:

     When we say that John 1 is referring to Jesus when it talks about “the Word”, you would say that we’re adding to the words of the Bible? But that’s OK, because the Bible only says don’t add to the words of the prophecy of Revelation?

     So, one more question.

     Suppose that the book of Revelation never used the word “Jesus”. Suppose that it always referred to him as “the Christ”, “the Messiah”, “the Son of God”, “the Lord”, “the crucified and risen One”, etc.

     By your logic, it would be “adding to the words of Revelation” for anyone to say, “That’s talking about Jesus”. Right?

     Everyone can see how silly this is. You’re twisting the words of the Bible. “Adding words” means deleting or inserting text into the Bible. It has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible & summarizing it with different words. It has nothing to do with using a word that isn’t in Revelation to talk about the meaning of Revelation.

     If people are wrong about what Revelation means, you’re more than welcome simply to argue that. But you don’t get to cheat like this.

     By the way, Cheryl, good catch on Proverbs 30:6.

150. Jonathan CHM on 10 Aug 2009 at 7:25 pm #

     I have read through the theory of latter rain doctrine that supports that Contemporary Charismatic churches support that all the miraculous healings during the book of Acts have been classified by you’ll to be the first rain and that the gifts during that period has been ceased.

     Now, Contemporary Charismatic Churches experience latter rain in the sense that the gifts to be granted will be greater than the first rain.

     However, Bible mentions that God never changes. As God never changes, why should there be first rain then latter rain?

     If the Holy Spirit has guided them for the interpretation of the book of Prophecy, it surely leads us for a certainty of the interpretation of the Scripture and it would not lead us to be in doubt whether Jesus will come in Rev 6, or Rev 20, or etc. If one has treated the so-called, 666, in Rev 13 to be the anti-christ, what leads to the conclusion that Rev 13 should be so and not others when Rev 13 does not mention that the so-called, 666, is antichrist?

     1 Corinth 4:6, “…You may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be buffered us on behalf of one against the other.” As the phrase, not to think beyond what is written, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 4:6, it implies that our interpretation of the Scripture has to be restricted from Scriptural point in it. However, the interpretation in contemporary Charismatic Churches has gone so far beyond it that outside the scope of what is written. For instance, when Rev 22:18-19 mention that cannot add words or substract, yet you support that you are interpreting it and not adding words or substracting especially the so-called, antichrist, is not mentioned in Rev 13 and nothing is mentioned it to be antichrist and not even its meaning and yet you have mentioned the Holy Spirit has interpreting it. However, no proof that the Holy Spirit is at your side in interpreting it. What if the so-called, interpretation of the prophecy is not from God, you are indeed committing sins against God.

151. Jugulum on 10 Aug 2009 at 9:59 pm #

     It’s like we said nothing.

     Jonathan, there’s really no point if you don’t reply. Even assuming that you’re actually right–ignoring everything we said and going on to repeat yourself is just going to make people think you can’t defend what you claim about God’s Word.

152. cheryl u on 10 Aug 2009 at 10:28 pm #

     Jonathan,

     Maybe my memory is extremely short, but I don’t think any one commenting here at has talked about beliving any specific interpretations of Reveletion at all. All that was said is that people were not adding words to the Bible, particularly Revelation, by interpreting it as they understood it. If I am forgetting part of this conversation, please point me to it.

     And if I am correct, please don’t speak to us here like we are making false interpretations of Revelation and claiming that we believe the Holy Spirit interpreted it for us. I am having a very hard time understanding your reasoning at times, but that is what you are saying in your last paragraph as I understand it.

153. Michael on 11 Aug 2009 at 1:55 pm #

     I’m not sure where anyone here is going beyond what is written in what they are saying Jonathan. They are all trying to interpret and understand what is written as best as they can. However, there is something I would like to point out. Technically if you are reading the Bible in anything other than the original Greek you are going beyond what is written (and even then there is a question as to which codex you should be reading). Every translation of the Bible requires the translator to make certain choices in how to translate various words and phrase various sentences because there are words in Greek which have no equivalent in English. Technically this requires going beyond what is simply written.

     I think when read in context here Paul is saying that what is written is what is ultimate. Paul in this passage is addressing the propensity of some in the Early Church to set up one teacher against another. In this case some are saying they follow Apollos while others are saying they follow Paul. In order to resolve this Paul is saying that we don’t follow any one particular teacher, but we follow the Word of God. However, that being said interpreting Scripture isn’t going beyond what is written for any time you ascribe meaning to abstract words you are interpreting them. Rather what Paul is saying is that we shouldn’t dogmatize and make central things on which the Scripture is silent (see CMP’s recent post on essentials in the Christian faith) because then we inevitably divide into factions. I think CMP’s recent post on the “No Musical Instruments” movement is a good example of people trying to draw something from the silence of Scripture.

154. Jonathan CHM on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:44 pm #

     When you mention that you’ll do not add any words in the prophecy, you are right in the sense that what we receive the explanation of the prophecy has been passed down from the past and you’ll did not and do not add any words in it. I was once a victim of it that I too support all those that are not mentioned in the Scripture that were passed down from our predecessors. Now, I realise the mistake and I repent.

     The following is the explanation how the word, Word, in John 1 has to be interpreted to be Jesus:

     John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwell among us…” Who was the one that came down to earth to become flesh (or in other words, a human being) to dwell among the Jews? There is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. And so, the word, Word, in John 1:14 should refer to Jesus Christ.

     John 1:15, “John bore witness of him and cried out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is prepared before me…” The word, he, is mentioned in John 1:15 and it should refer to John 1:14 the phrase, the Word. We know that John was the one that bore witness to Jesus Christ and this gives the conclusion that the phrase, the Word, in John 1 refers to Jesus Christ.

     As the word, he, is mentioned throughout Rev 13:12-18 and Rev 13:18 refers it to the so-called, 666. The lists as mentioned between Rev 13:12-18 must be the characteristics of the so-called, 666. The following are the extracts:

     Rev 13;12, “…he exercises all the authority of the first beasts…”
     Rev 13:13, “He performs great signs…”
     Rev 13:14, “…he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs…”
     Rev 13:15, “He…cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.”
     Rev 13:16, “…he causes all…to receive a mark on the right hand or on their foreheads”.
     Rev 13:17, “…no man buy or sell except one has the mark on their right hand or their foreheads.”

     The following are the characteristics of antichrists:

     1 John 2:18, “…now are there many antichristts..”
     1 John 2:19 is the continuation of 1 John 2:18 and this shows his further characteristics as:
     1 John 2:19, “They went out from us…”.
     1 John 2:19, “…they were not of us…”.
     1 John 2:22, “Who is a liar but he that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
     1 John 4:3, “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist…”. The same is mentioned in 2 John 1:7, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

     As you have mentioned that you have interpreted the so-called, 666, as antichrist, I believe you might be able to link up the different characteristics between 666 and antichrist. I apologize that I could not explain the relationship between these two in the past and I decide to repent.

155. Jonathan CHM on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:47 pm #

     I seek your brilliant advice on how these two different characteristics of antichrist as well as 666 can be related with each other in which I, being ignorant, could not figure out myself.

     Contemporary Charismatic Churches say that they are the one that could receive direct revelation from God and surely they should be the first to receive advice from God for the mistakes that have passed down from the past and yet, they did not warn us not to violate Rev 22:18-19 and there is a query whether their so-called, gifts, are from God since the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to guide us for the truth of the Bible.

156. Michael on 12 Aug 2009 at 1:21 am #

     Maybe I’m missing something but I see no inherent contradiction between the two lists you give. In fact they seem wholly consistent with one another. Unless you assume that the lists are meant to be exhaustive of characteristics (which they obviously are not, for instance how tall is the antichrist or the 666 or whatever) there is no inherent contradiction.

     On another front your arguments are wholly illogical, and quite frankly impossibly ridiculous. If we are to accept your assertion that seeking to interpret Revelations is committing the sin talked about in Rev. 22 then the only way we could possibly avoid that sin is to not read Revelation at all. If you read the words on a page and then ascribe meaning to the words on the page you have created an interpretation and thereby committed the sin. Furthermore, there should not be any English translations of Revelation because every translator in making decisions about how to translate Greek into English would have committed the sin and by proxy everyone of us who reads Revelation including yourself when you quote it for the proposition that interpreting it is a sin. Dare I say that by interpreting Revelations 22:18-19 to mean that it is a sin to interpret Revelations you yourself have committed the very sin you accuse others of.

     Finally, isn’t this rather off topic??? It doesn’t seem to me that the original blog post here had anything to do with eschatology.

157. C. Barton on 12 Aug 2009 at 10:35 am #

     Um, I have an example about Paul’s imperative in charismatic style: the greatest gift is love. This love is not a sentimental feeling, nor is it a mystical quality that you sprinkle over something to make it irresistible.
     Let me give an example that I hope will illustrate the practical aspect of love: I’m pretty sure all of us have been in a sports game, or maybe it was chess or checkers, or maybe a card game, and one person was obviously gifted in the game. He made every move right, and almost always won every game. But this guy was arrogant and ungrateful – he insulted other who made mistakes and was boastful about his sucessess.
     In other words, he lacked the courtesy and humility (love) that is the key ingredient for true success. Without this love, he was just a lousy winner, gifted, yes, but noone wants to be with him or be like him.
     I’d rather be a simple lamp of God’s love that a dazzlingly gifted boor.

158. EricW on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:28 am #

     “Jonathan CHM” appears to like to share his insights with others:

     http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2009/07/20/reply-to-jonathan-chm-to-his-endless-rant-on-the-blasphemy-of-the-holy-spirit-and-speaking-in-tongues/

     More “cut-and-pasted” comments by “Jonathan CHM” in various blogs’ Comments sections:

     subversiveinfluence.com/2005/07/more-post-charismatic-thoughts/

     kingdomgrace.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/latter-rain-doctrine/

     Etc.

     Google for “Jonathan CHM” to find more…and more…and more.

159. Jugulum on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:43 am #

     Jonathan,

     I appreciate your answers about “the Word” in John 1, and about the antichrist in 1 John and the beast in Revelation. I’d like to reply to those.

     But first, I want to make sure I understand something.

     Earlier, I said this:

     Suppose that the book of Revelation never used the word “Jesus”. Suppose that it always referred to him as “the Christ”, “the Messiah”, “the Son of God”, “the Lord”, “the crucified and risen One”, etc.

     By your logic, it would be “adding to the words of Revelation” for anyone to say, “That’s talking about Jesus”. Right?

     I thought you would answer “Yes, that’s what I’m saying.”

     But based on what you said about John 1… it looks like you would answer, “No, Jugulum, that’s not what I mean. We can use the word ‘Jesus’ even if Revelation didn’t, as long as it did say ‘the Christ’ and ‘the Son of God’ and ‘the crucified and risen Lamb who sits upon the throne’. Because other parts of the Bible say that these are other names for Jesus. So it’s not adding words.”

     In other words, “If Revelation did make it clear that it was talking about the same person that John was in the book 1 John, then we could use the word ‘antichrist’, and that wouldn’t be adding words.’”

     Am I understanding you?

160. C. Barton on 12 Aug 2009 at 1:25 pm #

     Some of the best sources say that John was referring to a new sect arising in and out of the church: Gnosticism. These men claimed that their spirits were pure – without sin – and they denied the unique divinity of Jesus and His substitutionary sacrifice on the cross. Therefore John gave them a few “benchmarks”: “If you say you have no sin . . .” then you are one of these Gnostics and ought to submit to the truth of the Gospel. “If they do not confess Christ came in the flesh . . .” then your doctrine is polluted by these Gnostics and you are in danger.
     Although many of John’s writings have general value, he nonetheless was addressing specific issues emerging in the church in his time.
     The name “antichrist” can in this sense refer to anyone offering a counterfeit Christ and a false Gospel.

161. Jonathan CHM on 12 Aug 2009 at 7:47 pm #

     Jugulum, you are right since there is no indication in Rev 13 to have any relationship with antichrist.
     Honestly speaking, I too support 666 to be antichrist too in the past. There was an occasion that I gathered all the informations pertaining to the so-called, 666, and antichrist and yet I could not find any relationship between them and that caused me to suspect the interpretation of the prophecy that has been passed down from the past and has been accepted by all churches and all theological schools in the world. Not only that, the interpretation of Christians could be raptured in Rev 6 or Rev 20 or elsewhere has caused me to be in doubt since the word, rapture, is not found in these chapters. Since then, I decided not to deal directly with the book of prophecy especially Rev 22:18-19 have warned us not to be smarter than God to manipulate the words of prophecy.
     Contemporarcy Charismatic Churches should be the first to spot out the mistake that has been done in the past and yet none of the Charismatic people have raised this issue and there is a question whether the so-called, gifts, among them are from God.

162. Jonathan CHM on 12 Aug 2009 at 8:14 pm #

     Eric W, my purpose to submit elsewhere is to warn all Christians to beware of the false teaching of contemporary Charismatic Churches and I want all to repent.

     Refer to the video from contemporary Charismatic Churches, you would have noticed that they have turned churches to be like public entertainment organisations, such as, pub, Karaok, and etc.

     They abuse the book of prophecy and they say that they could interpret it since they mention that it is the Holy Spirit that guides them for their interpretation.

     They say that emotion can be formed partly of the faith and that contradicts the principality of faith in the Scripture that faith is the substance of what is unseen or what would occur.

     They say that their miracles are from God. What if their miracles are not from God, they would have blasphemed against God since miracles could be performed by angels especially fallen angels.

     If nobody has been warned against charismatic churches, one day, sad to say, the whole world becomes the groups that enjoy false teachings. I would feel guilty if I have done my part to correct their mistakes and to warn them right now.

163. EricW on 12 Aug 2009 at 9:22 pm #

     Unfortunately for you, Jonathan CHM, and your mission, too many people, including many I count as friends and serious committed Christians, have a Charismatic relationship with the Lord and attend Charismatic churches or gatherings, where they encounter the Lord in Spirit and Truth and Power. He changes their lives, guides their steps, answers their prayers, and reveals Himself to them, primarily via the Scriptures but also through the Holy Spirit who is active and working in their lives in the ways He has been since Pentecost. I and they know that there are lots of problems in Charismatic Churches – just like there are lots of problems of legalism and spousal abuse and domination of women in “Bible-believing” conservative churches – but painting all Charismatic Christians and churches with the broad brushes of “blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” and teaching error as you seem to be doing in your posts is I think the wrong approach to what you perceive to be the problem.

     But whatever….

164. Jonathan CHM on 17 Aug 2009 at 8:19 pm #

     If you would have bought the books of prophecy that were publicized pertaining to prophets rose before year 2000, or year 1987 and/or etc., you would discover that contemporary Charismatic Churches point to 666 as truly antichrist. Not only that, they even relate the books of prophecy, such as the book of Revelation, Daniel and etc., to the coming fall of a comet that would hit this earth as well as world-wide computers’ crashes to be the fulfilment of the end of the world. Not only that, they encouraged Christians to prophesy and they did mention that prophecy from God needed not necessarily be fulfilled. God certainly has foreknowledge about the future and He never tells lie. As He knows the future, how could there be prophecy from Him can never be fulfilled unless their so-called, gifts, are not from God and that would result in prophecies not to be fulfilled then?

165. EricW on 17 Aug 2009 at 8:59 pm #

     999

166. Michael on 17 Aug 2009 at 9:46 pm #

     Jonathan,
     Many churches, even those are are expressly not charismatic, believe that the prophecies in Revelation are about the Antichrist and that 666 is the mark of the Antichrist. I’m not sure what your point with this line of reasoning is as it pertains to Charismatics since many, if not most, non-Charismatics also believe this. I would be willing to bet that John MacArthur who has written books against the Charismatic movement would hold this given his premillenialist views on the end times.

     Furthermore, maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t know many charismatic churches around here which actually use the gift of prophecy, and if they do I know of even fewer (actually none) which would claim that such prophecy is infallible. Think about it this way. How many people say “I think God wants me to go into ministry”? Now no one including the speaker would say that their discernment of God’s will and what God wants is infallible, yet we do this every day in trying to follow God and seek His will. Most charismatic churches that I have been to (I do not nor have I ever regularly attended a charismatic church) approach it this way. Now I am not saying that there are others which may approach it different.

     One thing I do know for sure is that you are painting Charismatics with way too large of brush strokes. Like the Evangelical movement the Charismatics believe very different things from one denomination to the next and from one church to the next. It would be helpful if you could give a specific Church or Person you are critiquing rather than just throwing all “Contemporary Charismatic” churches in the same boat.

167. Jonathan CHM on 18 Aug 2009 at 7:32 pm #

     I own a book namely, The Final Victory Apocalypse Next, The End of Civilization As We Know It?, by William R. Goetz, that was publicized prior to year 2000 is a proof that contemporary Charismatic Churches did prophecise in the past. Another book of abusing the authority of the books of Revelation, Daniel and etc. is the book namely, The Final Victory: The year 2000?, by Marvin Byers, Do Middle East Events spell the end of Israel or a new beginning and the coming of the Lord?

     You have mentioned that none of the charismatic churches support prophecies are infallible. Do you mean that God would tell lies? If you support that God never tell lies, then how could that be prophecies are not infallible? Or do you mean God do not know the future? If you support that God knows the future, how could that be prophecies cannot be infallible. If prophecies cannot be infallible, you are indeed questioning whether the prophecies, such as, Daniel, Revelation, and etc., in the Bible are infallible since all these are God’s prophecies then.

168. Michael on 18 Aug 2009 at 11:12 pm #

     Jonathan,
     I do not personally believe the gift of prophecy is for today and am a de facto cessationist like CMP. So the answer I give is mostly from interactions with charismatic friends. To the best of my understanding the prophecies are considered fallible because the interpreter is fallible. Someone giving a prophecy can misinterpret the guidance of God in the same way someone reading Scripture can misinterpret the words of God. I don’t personally know any that would say that God speaks directly to the person giving the prophecy like the prophets of the Old Testament, though I’m sure their might be some out there they certainly wouldn’t be representative of Charismatics in general.

     As to the sources you quote. As far as I can tell neither one of these people is a major figure in the charismatic movement. I asked a charismatic friend about them and she hadn’t heard of either of them. This is the problem of lumping a very broad movement with many different sects and views into one pot. Furthermore I don’t understand your fixation with charismatics on this issue. Many non-charismatics do the same thing and believe the same thing so you can’t use this as a polemic against charismatics because its a broader issue. In addition the charismatics I know are actually quite agnostic about the meaning and timing of revelation, although most are dispensationalists (but then again so is the author or this blog – and he isn’t a charismatic).

     You really need to not read one book or one person and then assume from that you can understand an entire movement. For instance I am an Evangelical. Dr. John Piper is an Evangelical. As much as I respect Dr. Piper and believe him to be doing the Lord’s work, me and him have VERY VERY deep disagreements about numerous theological issues. If you read a book by him and then tried to apply that book to the Evangelical movement in general you would describe the Evangelical movement in a way that probably 75% (if not more) of its members would disagree with. Describing the macroscale from the microscale rarely results in an accurate depiction.

169. C. Barton on 19 Aug 2009 at 8:48 am #

     My comment is that the more “sensational” gifts, such as prophetic visions of the future, or healing the lame, etc., seem to be toned down or nonexistent where the Church is well-established. However, the “practical” gifts, such as interpretation and application of Scripture (the other part of “prophecy”), special knowledge, etc., are very much in operation wherever the Church is established.
     Paul tells us that these gifts are for the edification and encouragement of the body, and this need will always be among us.
     Also remember Col. 2:9 which tells us that all the fullness of God was in Jesus while He was on the earth, and He primarily was concerned with calling the lost to His Kingdom.

170. Jonathan CHM on 19 Aug 2009 at 7:37 pm #

     The books that I have listed above have been bought prior to year 2000. The books indicated that they were sold 100,000 copies in total. Those people that did buy the books would certainly know that Christians did prophesy. You are now citing Charismatic people. Do you know how many millions of Charismatic people in this world? If you know all Charismatic people in this world, you should be the well-known person among Charismatic Churches. However, you might not be a Christian or you might not visit Christian shops before year 2000. Your ignorance does not prove that these books were not publicized. Those Christians that bought these books would certainly know that you have cited Charismatic Churches.

     Contemporary Charismatic Churches have their derivation from latter rain doctrine that was established around world-wide two.

     Latter rain doctrine supports that the charismatic experience that they have now is stronger than that was in the book of Acts whereby they classified as the first rain. They support that miracles must be done through laying hands. However, the Apostle Paul could perform without laying hands and it proves that their miracles are stronger than now since contemporary Charismatic Churches could not perform miracles apart from laying hands. If the so-called, gifts of the Holy Spirit, in the Charismatic Churches is from God, surely the Holy Spirit would inform them that miracles could be performed by God even without laying lands and yet there is no sign of instruction from the Spirit to them and that proves that their so-called, manifestation of the Spirit, might not be from God.

     The following are the extracts that the apostles could perform miracles without laying hands:

     Acts 9:32-34, “Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also dwelt in Lydda. There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedrideen eight years and was paralysed. And Peter said to him, ‘Aereas, Jesus Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed’. Then he arose immediately.”

     Acts 9;36-37, “At Joppa, there was a certain disciple named Tahitha, which is translated Dorcas…she became sick and died when they had washed her, they land her in an upper room. Acts 9:39-40, “Then Peter arose and went with them. When he had come, they brought him to the upper room. And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments with Dorcas had made while she was with them. But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he said, Tabitha, arise’. And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up”.

     Acts 14:8-10, “And in Lystra a certasin man wihout strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, ‘Stand up straight on your feet!’ And he leaped and walked.”

171. Jonathan CHM on 20 Aug 2009 at 7:39 pm #

     Latter rain doctrine supports that contemporary Charismatic Churches experience the stronger manifestation of the Holy Spirit since they treat the so-called, gifts, nowadays to be the latter rain and that the manfestation of the Spirit during the book of Acts to be the first rain. However, the Apostle Paul was not hurt even when he was attacked by poisonous snake. However, contemporary Charismatic healers could not even handle poisonous snakes.

     Mark 16:18, “they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them…”

     Some Christians might not believe Mark 16:18. However, it is mentioned in the four Gospel that our God is omnipotent and nothing is impossible for him to do it. The following is the extract that Paul was not hurt when he was bitten by a snake:

     Acts 28:3-6, “But when Paul had gathered a hundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened itself on his hand. So when the primitive people saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to another, ‘No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from sea, yet justice does not allow to live’. BUT HE SHOOK THE CREATURE INTO THE FIRE AND SUFFERED NO HARM. However, THEY WERE EXPECTING THAT HE WOULD SWELL UP OR SUDDENLY FALL DOWN DEAD; but after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.”

     As Paul was not hurt even the snake attacked him, there is a query whether the current so-called, manifestation of the Spirit, is from God since they could not even handle poisonous snakes.

172. Michael on 20 Aug 2009 at 9:11 pm #

     Johnathan,
     Where did I ever say your books weren’t published??? WHERE??? Come on tell me??? I simply said they weren’t authoritative or, according to the best information available to me (which is friends who are charismatics and searching various Charismatic websites for the names of these guys), written by people recognized as authorities in the Charismatic movement. Your own arguments support me. You rightly point out that there are millions of charismatics in the world. You also note your books sold around 100,000 copies. Do the math. This is a drop in the bucket. If someone with wide name recognition and recognition as an authority had written this book (think Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth or LaHaye’s Left Behind series) it would’ve sold millions. Your own evidence shows that you are using a number of obscure, mostly unknown authors, to define a movement with millions of members, most of who have never heard of these guys. Just because one guy writes crap and claims to be a charismatic doesn’t mean all charismatics follow him or that he represents them. Anybody can write a book saying anything they want to.

     Also as demonstrated earlier your arguments with regards to treatment of the book of Revelation are illogical and irrelevant as it pertains to critiquing charismatics because non-charismatics believe and do the same thing. Many authors who are not charismatics, and in fact reject the charismatic movement, have written books espousing the exact same views of the end times. You can’t chastise one group by saying “they do X” when even haters of that group do the same thing. Yet we already discussed this as well as the issue of how to handle Revelation earlier.

     As to your arguments about the Latter Rain Movement. Their doctrine is clearly in error (how serious an error is another issue), but THE LATTER RAIN DOES NOT EQUAL CHARISMATICS!!!!!. Most charismatics (including specifically the Assemblies of God which is the largest charismatic denomination in the world) reject the vast majority of this fringe movements doctrine. The latter rain movement is not and has never been accepted by main stream charismatics, though some elements of it have had influence. So again your taking a fringe movement made up of tens of thousands and using it to critique a movement of millions who in most cases explicitly reject the doctrine of latter rain.

     As to my personal background. I have a been a Christian for 20 years. I have been frequenting Christian bookstores since Michael W. Smith was a young newcomer with crazy big hair and am well aware of what some people write about the end times. However, I do not assume that an obscure author who writes a book that sells a modest number of copies represents a movement of millions. In fact given that non-Charismatics write the same type of books I’m willing to bet that many who purchased those books weren’t even Charismatics.

173. C Michael Patton on 20 Aug 2009 at 10:31 pm #

     Guys, go our of your way to be kind or this is worthless.

174. Jonathan CHM on 21 Aug 2009 at 12:05 am #

     Refer to latter rain doctrine website, they mention that Charismatic churches nowadays have their derivations from them and they emphasize on laying hands.

175. Michael on 21 Aug 2009 at 2:04 am #

     Jonathan,
     So the latter rain people claim that the Charismatics are derived from them. First off this doesn’t make it true. Second even if it was true that charismatics were “derived” from the latter rain movement this doesn’t support your trying to connect the two in terms of doctrine especially considering most Charismatics explicitly reject much of the latter rain doctrine.

     Let me see if I can illustrate. In a significant sense every church in existence today is derived from the Roman Catholic Church. I grew up in a Baptist church which is the furthest thing from Catholic there is, but is still in a very real sense derived from the Roman Catholic Church historically. Now the Catholic Church has a lot of doctrine my church, as Baptists, explicitly reject such a Papal infallibility. Yet at the same time they have many doctrines we support such as the Trinity. Does this mean that us and the Catholics are one??? Absolutely not!!! But we are derived from them. In the end this amounts to guilt by association, and a weak association at that.

176. Jonathan CHM on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:00 pm #

     If you mention that contemporary Charismatic Churches do not have their derivation from latter rain doctrine, do you mean that you support that miracles could be performed even without hands since the Apostles could perform them without laying hands as listed above.

     Mark 16:17-20 are meant for the disciples and this includes Mark 16:18 that could deal with deadly suvbstance as what appeared to Paul that even a poisonous snake could not hurt him. If you mention that contemporary Charismatic Churches do not support latter rain doctrine, that is fine. How about could contemporary Charismatic churches deal with poisonous substance without risking themselves? Could they claim that part of Mark 16 is applicable to them and yet another part of Mark 16:18 has been ceased then? If you mention it does not cease, there is no reason to support that Mark 16:18 is not applicable to us nowadays.

     1 Corinth 12:7, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all”. As the phrase, profit of all, is mnetioned in 1 Corinth 12:7 with the phrase, the manifestation of the Spirit, it implies that all manifestations of the Spirit will definitely benefit all Christians. As all manifestation of the Spirit will benefit all Christians, these put the following practices in contemporary Charismatic Churches in question whether they are from God since the following lists seem not to benefit all Christians but the performers themselves:
     a) the so-called, feeling the presence of God, through the emotion about something hot or cold moving inside the body;
     b) Holy bark in which a person could bark without reasoning;
     c) Holy laughter in which a person could keep on laughing without a cause;
     d) the so-called, manifestation of the Spirit, in which the people would fall down unconciously or these people to have their bodies to roll from one end to another;
     e) and many others.
     As there is a query whether the above manifestation of the Spirit in each person could benefit all Christians, there is whether the so-called, manifestation of the Spirit, in Charismatic Churches is from God since it contradicts 1 Corinth 12:7 that mentions that manifestation of the Spirit should be meant for all Christians.

     Now I ask you a simple question: Does God show a clear sign in the Bible for the end of the world? You should use the so-called, manifestation of the Spirit, to question God which part of the Bible that shows the clear sign of the end of the world. If you say that you could locate it through your so-called, the manifestation of the Spirit, now shows me which part of the Bible shows a clear sign of the end of the world then. A clue to you. Not from the book of Daniel, Revelation and etc.

177. Jonathan CHM on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:44 pm #

     God does not discourage Christians to judge but we judge inside and that is among Christians and not outside. The following is the extract:

     1 Corinth 5:12-13, “For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? BUT THOSE WHO ARE OUTSIDE GOD JUDGES. Therefore, ‘put away from yourselves that wicked person”.

178. Jonathan CHM on 24 Aug 2009 at 8:05 pm #

     Actually God does reveal to me the sign of the end of the world through the Bible but not from any prophecies from the Bible, such as, Revelation, Daniel and etc. In the Scripture, he shows a clear sign and a plain explanation about the sign of the end of the world without any complication. If I would show you which part of the Bible shows that, you would feel that it is so easily to understand and yet surprisingly, it is hidden in the Bible that nobody except me has discovered. Remember the scripture mentions that our God is not the God of confusion. I will reveal it in the future and may be a number of years later through email instead of through Internet since there should be a cause for God in hiding the truth of end of the world to the public and that I do not know. Trust my very words as I am a Christian that eagerly to deliver the right message of God.

179. cheryl u on 24 Aug 2009 at 8:27 pm #

     Jonathan CHM,

     Do you honestly believe that you are the only one that has had this fact revealed to you in the whole of human history?? I’m sorry, but that sounds more than a little preposterous to me and quite self assuming!

180. Jonathan CHM on 24 Aug 2009 at 9:09 pm #

     I am not from Charismatic Churches. I am very against Charismatic practice since it contradicts the Scripture.

     Never mind! In time to come when you would have seen my email, examination of all the verses that I show you from verse to verse. God is not a God of confusion, he would show you plainly what is happening in the end of the world. Bear in mind that I would not add any words in it and you see it by yourselves how God would speak about the end of the world.

     If you see me add any words in it about the end time, then you condemn me latter.

181. Jonathan CHM on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:59 pm #

     To show that I do not lie to you, I furnish below the extract that I do not add words to the prophecy and yet the Scripture explains clearly about the future:

     2 Timothy 3:1   This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

     2 Timothy 3:2   For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

     2 Timothy 3:3   Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

     2 Timothy 3:4   Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

     2 Timothy 3:5   Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

     2 Timothy 3:6   For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

     2 Timothy 3:7   Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

     Hint: There is one verse in the Scripture that explains the end of the world and the verse is very plain. I would not explain to you much since I would include in the notes in the future for my email.

182. Michael on 25 Aug 2009 at 12:23 am #

     Jonathan,
     I am a law school grad so I’m going to lay this out in a legal manner because I think it provides a framework for thinking about your posts which are otherwise too incoherent for me to respond to.

     JONATHAN CHM vs. “THE CONTEMPORARY CHARISMATIC CHURCH”

     You are accusing a faction of the Christian Church which you refer to as “The Contemporary Charismatic Church” with a damnable heresy in adding to the words of prophecy in the book of Revelation. In order for your case to succeed you must prove the following elements. If you fail at any element your case fails.

     Element 1 – You must prove the “Contemporary Charismatic Church” ACTUALLY EXISTS!!

     You can’t bring a claim against an imaginary person you yourself have created. This is called the strawman logical fallacy. As far as I can see the people you are arguing with are either non-existent or extreme fringe groups which are not representative of mainstream charismatics. You must name actual denominations, churches, or leaders which have significant following and commit the sin you have accused them of. No fringe groups or extremists. Furthermore your accusations must be against current positions held by those denominations or churches, and not based on something that was said a decade or more ago.

     Element 2 – You must prove that your interpretation of Rev. 2:18-19 is the correct interpretation.

     You have alleged that seeking to interpret the words of prophecy contained in the Book of Revelation is the damnable sin of “adding to words of prophecy” discussed in Rev. 2:18-19. You so far have failed to prove that this is an accurate interpretation. You have also failed to respond to the allegations of the defense that YOU YOURSELF have committed this damnable sin by the very act of interpreting Rev. 2:18-19 to mean that interpreting Revelation is a sin.

     Element 3 – You must demonstrate that the majority of Charismatics engage in interpreting Revelation in such a way as to violate Rev. 2:18-19.

     In order for you complaint against Charismatics to succeed you must show that a large majority of them engage and support the practice of interpreting Revelation not just fringe groups or extremists.

     Element 4 – You must demonstrate that Charismatics are more prone to this sin then other Christian groups.

     If other Christian groups by and large commit the same sin then leveling your complaint solely against Charismatics is improper. You must join other defendants to your complaint for your arguments to be proper.

     If you are going to accuse someone of heresy the burden is on you to prove your case. I wish you good luck. In the interest of organization I would appreciate you addressing Element 1 first. Please prove to me that the “Contemporary Charismatic Church” as you have described it actually exists. Please include specific denominations, churches, or leaders, which ascribe to the beliefs you have complained of and have a…

183. Michael on 25 Aug 2009 at 12:24 am #

     …significant following

184. Jonathan CHM on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:30 pm #

     If contemporry Charismatic churches do not exist, the words that are submitted are meant for nothing but knowledge and advice and there is no linkage to legailty and whatsoever.

185. Jonathan CHM on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:53 pm #

     Let’s consider the above comments:

     a) No specific church and/or organisation and/or person is indicated and that implies that message is meant for knowledge and advice.

     b) No definition of contemporary Charistimatic churches is indicated and that implies the message does not point to an association and/or organisation and/or person to give comments.

     As there is no specific thing/organisation/person is mentioned in the comment above, I ponder why you would raise the above questions then.

186. cheryl u on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:59 pm #

     Jonathan CHM,

     What comments above are you referring too? You have lost me.

187. Jonathan CHM on 25 Aug 2009 at 8:24 pm #

     Believe me and I am not telling lies that there is a verse in the Bible that shows how the end of the world to be and I will not publicise in any comments here or there.

     Only those people that believe what I say and bother to read through my notes from email that I would send out a number of years later will know what is happening at the end time.

     The verse itself is very plain. Even if I would show it to you, one glance you would know how the end of the world would be and I do not need to explain the sequence of the end of the world.

     Those that do not believe wha I say. Never mind! Let’s the message from the end of the world to be sealed from them and they would know nothing what would come forth.

188. Michael on 25 Aug 2009 at 11:43 pm #

     Jonathan,
     This entire time you have been raging against the “Contemporary Charismatic Church” for a variety of crimes. If they don’t exist then why in blazes are you wasting all our time with this pointless arguing. I couldn’t care less about which verses tell us about the end times and this or that at this point. That is an issue to be discussed later. I want to know who specifically it is your against, what crime they’ve committed, proof that this in fact a crime, and proof that they’ve committed it. Beyond that this whole line of argument has been a hopeless waste of time.

     So please go back to my requests and prove the things I have asked you to prove earlier. If you can’t you will get no response to me other than to remind you that you have failed to establish that Charismaticism is some sort of heresy deserving our condemnation.

189. Jonathan CHM on 26 Aug 2009 at 7:44 pm #

     Mirchael, it is a small matter since knowledge and advice is good for us at least we are aware the true teaching of the Bible. Bible calls us to love one another especially we, brothers and sisters in Christ.

     For Cheryl,
     there is a person that has spotted 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Peter 3:9-13 around this web-site to mention that these link to the end-time. He is correct and these verses are so plain that one glance you know what happen in the end-time. There are some more in which it shows you how this could happen.

     Hint: A verse itself and it is so plain that one glance you would know the end-time and need not anybody to explain to you how this would happen. Not from Revelation, Daniel, …

190. Michael on 26 Aug 2009 at 11:33 pm #

     Jonathan,
     So is that an admission that there is no such thing as the “Contemporary Charismatic Church” as you have described it??? Furthermore, unless you have some special revelation from God about the “true teaching” of the Bible you’ll excuse me if I don’t replace everywhere you write “true teaching” with “my interpretation”. People who are much smarter, much more educated, and much better Christians then myself have failed to come to any consensus on how the end times will play out from the Biblical texts.

191. Jonathan CHM on 27 Aug 2009 at 12:13 am #

     I do not call it to be special revelation since it is stated in the Bible and I will not reveal now except in the future to come.

     Let’s put this topic aside since I only will reveal it in the future. If one day you has browsed my note and discover I have added words in it or I has bluffed to you, simply accuse and condemn me. Not only that, publicise it in this comment. However, once you know I do not tell lies, keep the words with you and not to publicise.

     Let’s raise another question: Bible encourages us to love one another. What should we do so as to show our love?

192. Michael on 27 Aug 2009 at 1:48 am #

     Jonathan,
     No offense, but your now not making any sense. Your going to reveal what in the future? And who said you were lying? I believe that you believe what you say you believe. I also believe you’re mistaken in your interpretations. This may make you wrong, but it doesn’t make you a liar. Someone is only lying when they attest to something they know to not be true.

     Also I’m not responding to the question about love because it is off topic for this particular blog post and we have been asked to keep things on topic by the blogger.

193. Jonathan CHM on 27 Aug 2009 at 7:38 pm #

     The Bible contains a wide range of knowledge for us to know instead of relying upon the knowledge what is passed down from the past. A Christian with humility that would flip through and meditate the Bible would be enriched by God through His wisdom.

     Let me explain the meaning of ‘love’ in the Bible to broaden your knowledge since what is passed down from the past has the definition of ‘love’ to be restricted to such as, care, concern, assistance and etc. Does the Bible restrict the word, love, to this definition?

     1 Corinth 13:2, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest is love” and that 1 Corinth 13:2, “…though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

     The above verses seem to imply that faith is not significant and that we must exercise our love to God significantly and faith to be secondary. Is this what God means to us? No, this is not true. Referring to the verses extracted below and your knowledge of ‘love’ will be broadened:

     1 Corinth 13:4-8, “Loves suffers long and its kind; love does not envy (or it means no jealousy); love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely (or it means to be polite); does not seek its own (or it means not to be self-appraisal or self-egoism); is not provoke, thinks no evil (or it means to avoid sinning); does not rejoice in iniquity; but rejoice in the truth (or it means to reject false teaching but accept the truth); bears all things, believes all things (or it means to cover faith), hopes all things (or it means to cover faith on future hopes), endures all things, love never fails..”.

     If I would tell you the word, love, covers whole range of thoughts instead of restricting to the definition of ’sympathy, concern and etc., and if you have not read through above verses, you would blame me that I has brought in new teaching to cover the word, love, with all kinds of thoughts or some might give comment that I receive new revelation from God. Those people, that dare to listen to me and browse through the words of God, would give comment that he indeed deliver the words of God rightly from the Bible.

     The same as now that when I mention that the Bible does reveal the sequence of the end of the world and yet nobody believes but in reality, it is there.

     If one day you have known that our God is not the God of confusion has given us the knowledge of the end of the world in the Bible in plain verse, you might be pondering why nobody has discovered it then. I believe that it is God’s plan and I could not explain this to you but God knows in whom I fully trust.

194. Jonathan CHM on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:03 pm #

     I enclose herewith a few Internet web-sites that shows that snakes biking wuld risk the lives of Charismatic people that claim Mark 16 is still applicable nowadays.

     http://www.palmpage.com/ptd/index.php?topic=82.0

     http://www.rickross.com/reference/snake/snake8.html

     http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Religious-Phenomena/Snake-Handling.html

     http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/pentecostal/snakeskill-fool.shtml

     Don’t you find these pastors that died as a result of snake biking are simply as fools that claim that they can handle snakes.

195. Michael on 29 Aug 2009 at 8:21 pm #

     Jonathan,
     You would have a point if Mark 16 was the only verse which discusses the issue of spiritual gifts and if the majority of charismatics thought that all of these gifts, including not dying from snake bites, were for today. Since neither of these is the case your point isn’t helpful in the debate and shows that, like with any movement, there are a few loonies who take things to the extreme. This doesn’t in anyway prove that there is some large movement out there which believes that you can get bitten by a snake per Mark 16, and not die. Not a single charismatic I know, nor a single charismatic church i have been to would teach this.

196. EricW on 29 Aug 2009 at 9:07 pm #

     I saw a snake biking once; it was a black racer snake. But it was beaten by a hoop snake, which grasped its tail in its mouth and rolled like wheel down the track, leaving the poor biking snake sitting on his bike and eating his dust.

197. Jonathan CHM on 30 Aug 2009 at 7:22 pm #

     If nobody has pointed out that many pastors had died as a result of snake handling, sad to say many ignorant Christians that think that miracles still exist today would keep on exercising this practice. Would a Christian say that he has ‘love’ if he encourages Christians to handle snake knowing this is not applicable today.

198. Jonathan CHM on 30 Aug 2009 at 7:42 pm #

     I apologize if my words have hurt anybody but I quote verses directly from the Bible.

     Indeed I have many spiritual knowledges have to impart to you’ll but that there’s a fear of any misunderstatanding of me to bring in criticism or rather I would prefer you’ll to browse through my future notes that would be out a number of years later so as to enable you’ll to have broader knowledge about the Bible.

     I am not bringing any new revelation or new knowledge to you’ll, but simply quote directly the words of God from the Bible.

199. Michael on 30 Aug 2009 at 7:44 pm #

     Do you have any statistics to indicate how many people die a year from intentionally getting bitten by snakes believing that they would be saved by a miracle??? I’d be willing to bet more people make the ridiculous claim that they themselves are Jesus Christ every year then die in this manner. Furthermore one could argue that these people were sinning by doing what they did because they were “testing God” which we are warned against.

     The greater point though is that just because there are a few crackpots in the Charismatic movement who decide to play with snakes in no way allows you to indict the whole movement. Yet this is exactly what you have done. You have, without evidence, accused an entire movement of millions of people of heresy based on the actions of a few nut jobs who the majority disagree with. To me this borders on the slander.

200. Jonathan CHM on 30 Aug 2009 at 8:27 pm #

     Michael, May be I am wrong without having broader understanding of Chsriamtic people and now I apologize.

     As I mention earlier, the above serves as knowledge and advice. If this does not exist, it is fine.

     The broader is our knowledge, we would take heed of what is wrong for the extreme.

201. Michael on 30 Aug 2009 at 8:51 pm #

     Jonathan,
     You are the epitome of an arrogant, self righteous individual. What on Earth makes you think you understand the Bible better than any of us. Do you assume we haven’t read the Bible??? Can you read Greek and Hebrew??? Do you have some special, direct revelation from God that has informed you of Truth’s that no one else knows??? Have you even been to seminary??? Have you carefully studied the history and culture in which the Bible was written???

     All you seem to do is aimlessly and mindlessly quote verses without having a clue what they actually mean. Furthermore you often use verses in the context of issues those verses were never intended to address. You may know what the words in the Bible are, but when it comes to being able to understand the Bible and know what it means you haven’t got and clue and are not any better then those you claim to be against. You just have taken different verses out of context then them. So stop apologizing with this “I quote directly from the Bible” crap. I can quote verses from the Bible to prove just about anything I want to. One must understand the WHOLE counsel of scripture the form an accurate theology, not just proof texted verse snippets.

     Now I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I’m fed up with your continual self aggrandizement, arrogance, and talking down to the rest of us as if we don’t know the Bible because we disagree with you. You are not the final arbiter of what the Bible means and meaning is what matters, not simply the words on the page. Those of us who disagree with you have read the Bible just as much as you and love the Bible just as much as you. We are well aware of what it says, but we disagree on what it means.

202. mbaker on 30 Aug 2009 at 8:55 pm #

     Jonathan CHM,

     I am not understanding why you keep talking about the end of the world when this post is specifically discussing the spiritual gifts and whether they continue or not.

     Two entirely different subjects.

     For the sake of him and the rest of us who are interested in spiritual gifts, I would suggest you go to the archives and check out Michael’s other posts, if you are so concerned, because this end times stuff has nothing to do with this particular discussion.

     Thanks.

203. Jonathan CHM on 30 Aug 2009 at 9:02 pm #

     I agree with you. Indeed Bible contains a full range of knowledge for us to know.

     When the day comes that I present to you the full truth of the Bible, you will acknowledge God has given us bountifully spiritual knowledge in the Bible.

     However, when the time comes you receive my notes pertaining to the truth of the Bible, the glory and the crown should be granted to God and not to me since God is the one that grants us the Bible and I am just the vessel that is used by God for His purpose.

     Nothing could be boasted about me whether my wisdom, knowledge and etc. Apart from God, I could do nothing.

204. Michael on 30 Aug 2009 at 9:16 pm #

     Jonathan,
     YOUR going to present us with the FULL Truth of the Bible???? Can’t you see how arrogant that statement is??? The only person who has the ability to understand the true fullness of the Bible and everything that is contained within it is God Himself. The rest of us our mere mortals who see in a “mirror dimly” and grasp at understanding the Bible as best we can. Unless you are claiming to be God I suggest you retract your statement about revealing to us the full Truth of the Bible because it is blasphemous for a man to make such a claim.

205. Lisa Robinson on 30 Aug 2009 at 9:28 pm #

     Guys, I think it might be time to hang the conversation up. The conversation seems to be going around circles and the comments are becoming accusatory, which goes against the grain of the blog rules.

206. Jonathan CHM on 30 Aug 2009 at 9:29 pm #

     I am not arrogrant and I am not God. Never mind! Should I say I share the truth to you’ll about the Bible. Sharing the truth is simply showing love to Christians. Nothing else.

207. Jonathan CHM on 30 Aug 2009 at 9:30 pm #

     I simply share what I have learned from the Bible. No extra revelation and no new knowledge but simply the Bible as a base.

Trackback URI |