Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pneumatology' started by bigheavyq, Dec 13, 2004.
the answer is 1) they are not on the same level as scripture
That is the precise claim that I have yet to see supported from Scripture in the least. In order to hold onto the revelatory gifts today, charismatics have to assert this two-tiered view of prophecy, which is completely foreign to any of the prophecy spoken of anywhere in the Bible. Show me one single instance in the Bible where a "prophecy" (or a message in tongues, since tongues are just prophecy in other languages) or any revelatory words from God were presented as having a subjective element, or treated as less than binding. Where is there ever a single distinguishment made in Scripture that excuses any prophetic words as being less than needing to meet the standard of Deut. 18?
As a former pentecostal (I spoke in tongues, prophesied, prayed for healing "saw" miracles), my experience has been that the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third-waiver once they have set up their intellectual trenches will not respond to argumentation. Fred, Paul, and Chris I think your wasting your time. Ultimately the "gift-user" has too many so-called miraculous experiences, and those miracles are ear plugs.
As the scriptures tell us "Satan comes as an angel of light". The mere suggestion that their experiences could be either illusion or deception approaches blasphemy for the Charismatic. Their experiences, despite their strident denial, do act as a seperate book of God for them.
[Edited on 14-12-2004 by Ianterrell]
That is the real Issue Ian. I am a former Charismatic and the reasoninng is purely subjective and experiential. Not Scriptural.
[Edited on 14-12-2004 by Irishcat922]
Ian is right. I go back and forth with my sister all the time on this. I also was raised in a charismatic church. I attended more than anyone in my family and was heavily involved in youth group and missions etc. for 27 years. You cannot convince these people. They believe that they will spiritually discern everything. So if they are in error as they are seeking God they believe they will discern that. So basically the believe that they will subjectively know if they are in error for subjectively trying to hear from the Holy Spirit. The other thing that will make it hard for them to see their error is their pride. If they have these spiritual experiences it strokes their pride and they feel more spiritual. They believe that getting closer to God means they have more of these "experiences." Its a one-up-manship type of thing also. I would never trust myself to hear from the HS correctly. I would not trust myself because I know my sinful nature. In my sisters case she also believes that the HS is at her beck and call and is just fawning all over waiting to comfort her or encourage her. Not that she is supposed to have faith and rest in God's promises. I would have argued much like Heavyq 10 years ago I think. I don't know if God just showed me or what. When I understood the doctrines of grace it just revealed to me the character of God and I see now that He would not work in such a willy nilly way. I think that is what got me. The Holy Spirit is not here to stroke my pride, He reveals God to me through the scriptures and He is sanctifying me day by day through a better understanding of the scriptures.
Heavyq I think IrishCat already showed you what scripture says is responsible for correction and edification. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I would personally never trust a person who had a word from the Lord for me. I would just go to the scriptures. So why this extra step? I also witnessed during my 27 years in a charismatic church alot of infighting and relationalship issues surrounding certain people thought they had gifts and others thinking they were full of it or full of themselves. It was not edifying at all. The scriptures are.
Why the extra step? Honestly? The charismatic movement as a whole is the direct birth child of the existential and neo-orthodox movement. It is a shift away from theology, towards subjective interpretation. The charismatic movement has never, at any time, in any of thier denominational affiliates, dealt with that aspect of their theogy.
The miraculous events at those intervals is really more of an observation than an argument (though it is true). But one can never continue to say "Just because" I will always be a charismatic.
Thus far, you have not exegetically interacted with anything on this thread, but have simply opinionated the ideas you hold. We should, as instructed, be able to give an answer....
Do you have anything elsewhere written? Or some other source to appeal to?
Any other thoughts from charismatics who might be reading this thread?
Most reformed "charasmatics" I have met, including myself, are only that for a short time. It is a transitional phase as they learn to read the Bible correctly and understand teh true nature of teh role of the Holy Spirit and teh Scriptures in our lives. I suspect it is the same with BHQ. Until one is willing to reexamine their experiences in light of Scripture, rather than redefining Scripture by their experiences, they've hit a major speed bump in their sanctification and growth. That's how it was for me, and it sounds similar with the other ex-charasmatics here too.
Good Point Matt. I think even Barth would be shocked at the result of his teaching.
I read an article awhile back by Machen defending the Authority of Scripture against neo-orthodoxy, and you would of thought he was speaking directly to the modern charismatic movement.
They haven't dealt with it because most of them have never even considered it or realize it. Most of them have probably never even heard of neo-orthodoxy or existentialism. I know I never did. And there's so many variations within the charasmatic movement for what they believe and why they believe it that there is no one systematic treatise or person you can point the finger at.
But I do disagree with you about the origins of the movement. The modern movement as we know it today was birthed out of the extreme revivalistic/holiness movement which predated neo-orthodoxy. Azuza Street is a clear example of this along with other similar outbreaks at the turn of the last century. I don't doubt that much of that neo-orthodox sentiment has been assimilated unknowingly today but the Pentacostals in particular know exactly where their movement began, even though they don't know all the details about the men who attended the Azuza "revival," especially their doctrinal deficiency.