click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
by C Michael PattonDecember 10th, 2008
207 Comments
I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was a charismatic. I would pick up a commentary and turn immediately to 1 Cor. 12 (the section on spiritual gifts). If the author believed that the spiritual gifts were for today, I would put it back on the shelf in disbelief that the store would carry such misleading material. If they did not believe that the gifts were for today—if the author was a “cessationist”—I would consider purchasing the book.
Such was the time when I believed that all those who believed that all charismatics were practicing a different Christianity, at best, or demon possessed, at worst.
I am not a charismatic, and I have my reasons, but I do not feel the same way today as I used to. Let me first define the terms and set up the field of play.
The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Websters Dictionary defines it as “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader).” Many would say that Barack Obama has charisma in such a way. Charisma is taken from the Greek charisma which means “gift.” Its root, charis, means “grace.”
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. In the Scriptures, we are told that God gives certain gifts to everyone in the body of Christ. Representative gift lists are mentioned in 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 4, and Eph. 4. Some of these gifts seem to be natural extensions of the recipients personality (leadership, teaching, encouragement) while others distinguish themselves by their extra-ordinary nature. 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.
Charismatic is not a denomination, but a trans-denominational theological stance or tradition which can find representation in any denomination or tradition, including Evangelicalism. In fact, I think that the charismatic position (or some variation thereof) is the fastest growing tradition within Evangelicalism.
A cessationist (taken from “cease”), one the other hand, is one who believes that the extra-ordinary gifts ceased in the first century, either at the completion of the New Testament or at the death of the last Apostle. Cessationists believe that the supernatural gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings were “sign gifts” that were given for the establishment of the church and then passed away due to a fulfillment of their purpose. They served as a supernatural “sign” from God that the Gospel message being proclaimed was unique and authoritative. Since the Gospel message has been proclaimed and established in the New Testament, cessationists believe that these type of gifts ceased due to an exhaustion of purpose. Therefore, with regards to the “gifts of the Spirit,” there are “permanent gifts” and there are “temporary gifts.”
What would a post be without a chart?
If you can see this (!), you will notice that certain “sign gifts” are revelatory while others are confirmatory. The revelatory gifts are those that reveal God’s message in some way. They are prophetic in nature. Not everyone would agree which gifts belong in this category. Some would not place “word of wisdom” or “word of knowledge” here and one’s placement of tongues will depend on how it is defined (prayer language? prophetic revelation in another language? Gospel proclamation in another language?). Either way, the catergory describes those gifts which involve a supernatural revelation from God. The “confirmatory gifts” are those which confirm or provide evidence for the revelatory gifts. In other words, someone cannot just claim to be speaking prophetically on behalf of God. Their message must be confirmed by some undeniable act of extraordinary power. Otherwise, anyone could claim to speak on behalf of God.
Of course the gift of healings have a benevolent purpose as the benefits of such gifts effect people in a wonderful way, but, according to most cessationists (and even some charismatics), the result that a person is healed is the secondary purpose. The primary purpose is the legitimize the message of the healer.
A very important points need to be made. (If you don’t get this, don’t ever bother engaging in this conversation.) Whether one is a charismatic or a cessationist, all Christians believe in God’s supernatural intervention. Only a deist would claim that God has a “hand-off” approach to history and our lives. It is not that the cessationist does not believe in healings or miracles, it is that they don’t believe in the gifts of healing, miracles, etc. being given to a certain people. Both charismatics and cessationists (should) pray for God’s supernatural intervention, can believe in stories of healings, and can expect God to direct their lives through some sort of divine guidance. In other words, just because someone prayed for healing and believes it happended, this does not make one a charismatic (properly speaking).
However, there does seem to be a higher level of expectation for divine intervention among charismatics than from cessationists. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. Expectation of the power of God can both motivate a Christian’s life or be a cause for great disillusionment. More on that later.
I will continue by giving some arguments for the Charismatic position and then we will see where this series goes.
Merry Christmas friends.
Similar Posts:
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
- Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – C Michael Patton
- Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – Sam Storms
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
Loading ...
207 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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”.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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??
Like or Dislike:
0
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”?
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jonathan CHM wrote:
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jonathan CHM,
Have you by any chance read the blog rules posted on the home page? Particularly # 5?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jonathan CHM:
Have you ever thought of starting your own blog?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jonathan, do you believe in the extra-Biblical word “Trinity”?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jonathan hasn’t responded yet, but I’m going to assume his answer is “Yes” to my question:
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »