We are in deep overreaction to charismatics. It is costing us.

I do agree with you that the tendency has been to give up the Miraculous in order to avoid seeming Charismatic -- almost like the church split up; the Charismatics got the Holy Spirit and we got the Bible in the divorce. They got enthusiasm. We got theological precision. We should keep all of these features in our fundamentalism!

But I think another way to look at it is that we have frequently reacted against the wrong features of Charismaticism. For instance, "tongues-speaking" doesn't frighten me as such, in the sense that if someone comes up and professes to speak in tongues, it provokes a conversation rather than outright rejection. The interpretive procedure that got them there, however, may frighten me and frequently does. The epistemology underlying the movement is patently unscriptural (though the far extremes of IFBx are indistinguishable from Charismaticism in this). So it's not that they speak in tongues, it's how they got there.

That's why the new soft cessationism or leaky cessationism doesn't have to be as sinister as it may sound to some. As with so many other issues (6 literal days of creation, KJV preferred/only, etc.) how you go there is far more revealing than where you are.

And the dumbed down prophecy issue is so dumbfounding, isn't it? They have conferences for a person to prophesy over them something that may or may not be true. I can do that without calling it prophecy.

Fred, you are making a problem where there is none. The charismatics are for the most part tickling ears and involved in the spirit of this age. Those who are more moderate have deep theological problems as I noted above.

Numbers are never a good judge of success. Crowds disperse as quickly as they are drawn.

Fred,

I cannot speak for others but it might be possible that others see you as a person in who is in deep overreaction, himself, to whatever exposure/experience you've had with fundamentalists and you give the impression, as well, that you have an axe to grind.

What kind of growth are you looking for?
What is your engine running on? the Word or emotions?
We all have weakness. Show us where Charismatics got it right and Baptist got it wrong.
Because I don't believe in flopping in the floor and tongues talking am I less spiritual?
Should we run around the building a few times just to liven things up?
Do we really need to keep a bottle of olive oil near the alter?
A dry and dusty service is lit aflame when the Word of God is proclaimed through the power of Holy Spirit. This is done in a clear and understandable way. The preacher must have spent time in prayer with the Lord for himself first and then for his hearers. Then he must study to the best of his ability the text of his message. The text should be allowed to mean what it says and not twisted to fit a program. At some point it should be applied to the hearers. This method of worship will accomplish the the desired affect of worship. God will be glorified, saints encouraged and examined, sinners educated as to their condition and by the power of the Holy Spirit some will be convicted of their sin. There is nothing Charismatic about it. It is God centered.

Who are E, C,? I have problems with the Presbyterians/Reformed and their soteriology. However, such problems pale in comparison with the problems I have with the charismatics and their pnuematology and their Bibliology. In neither case are the problems Fundamental v. Non-F. In the case of the Presbyterians\Reformed, they are problems which date back over 300 years. As you can surmise from my earlier comment, my opinions (at #8) concerning the charismatic movement are fairly visceral.

- I don't know who "we" is. Sure- there are nice, God-lovin' folks in all kinds of denominations, but criticism isn't aimed at the folks, but at false doctrines and the perpetrators of false doctrine. Good intentions don't excuse bad exegesis or faulty practices. But the we that is my dh and I doesn't not do things or do things in reaction to what others are doing or not doing, but instead the we that is my dh and I are part of churches that are doing and not doing what they believe God says in Scripture we should be doing and not doing.

I remember a conversation about music once, and someone was talking about how talented Michael Jackson was, and how you had to respect that talent. Personally, I've seen better film on teeth, and don't feel that in order to appreciate music I have to 'respect' someone like MJ just because he was successful in the eyes of the world. Ditto that feeling for wildfire tongues-speaking barn dances just because there's lots of emoting.

Does the "we" that is Fundamentalism have some issues to deal with? Yes- and the Front Page of this site is plastered with articles woven with introspection, constructive criticism, and spiritual challenges regarding Fundamentalism.

at least with me, my position the movement as a whole and how I deal with its individual members.

It stands to reason that a FALSE Holy Spirit is at least of the flesh or may be as you say demonic. There are also those of us who are highly suspicious of people who are cessationists
and are appalled by the insinuation that being a charismatic is synonymous with demonism. This becomes even more of a concern when ministers of the gospel issue such pronouncements.

The Charismatic Movement is something that is far off the radar these days!

Most mainstream Charismatic Churches (Assemblies of God, Etc.) do not make much of the "Tongues" thing and the few Charismatic Churches I have been in in recent years, there is very little "Tongue Talking" going on during the services.

As a young Christian in the 1980s, I was quite confused regarding the Charismatic movement based upon the "Baptist" response ("12 Rules for Speaking in Tongues", Etc.) and thus never felt completely right about this "Baptist" position. Did some further study myself and discovered that pretty much both positions (Baptist and Charismatic) were not completely correct.

Baptists are correct in stating that "Tongues" have ceased (along with the rest of the apostolic "Sign Gifts") but do not acknowledge that the "Tongues" practiced in Charismatic circles not only do not exist today but never existed during Apostolic times either!!

The modern day "Tongues" is nothing other than incoherent babbling mixed with emotionalism whereas 1 Cor 14 clearly states that these were distinct languages (with men of other tongues...but ye will not hear...Etc.) perhaps unknown to many present (hence "unknown") that need to be interpreted for the rest of the congregation.

Tongues as an "Angelic Prayer Language" is nowhere to be found in the scriptures!

Simple enough, so what of these confusing "12 Rules" pamphlets? I say pitch them all into the circular file and read your Bible!

Charismatics are not a concern, not a threat to me!

There are those who hold to the "Tongues" position who do not make a major issue of it. They perhaps practice this during their personal prayer time or whatever. I disagree but is not something I will break fellowship over. These Charismatics also tend to acknowledge that their "Tongues" is not the only evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer! And I would agree 100%!

But I do believe in the Fulness of the Spirit that it is quite applicable for today, is commanded by God that we are filled by the Spirit, and the principle reason for many of the issues in the Church is that we are neglecting this both personally and collectively!! At least the Charismatics acknowledge this even if they err!

And many of us "Sovereign Grace" types can find common ground with these Charismatics as we acknowledge that we are guided and motivated by God's Sovereign Grace working in our lives rather than trying to live the Christian life under our own power!!!

I therefore believe we both come to the same fundamental conclusion starting from differing pneumatological and soteriological perspectives!

I will, of course, oppose the more radical Charismatics and Pentecostals who insist that they are receiving "Extra-Biblical Revelation" from God as a result of their "Gift" as well as those who say you have to speak in tongues in order to have assurance of salvation, Etc.

But then again, most Charismatics would agree with me regarding this extreme faction just as most of my fellow Calvinist friends understand that Harold Camping fell off the looney wagon long ago!

So yeah, in response to the OP, we should spend more time teaching what the BIBLE says rather than teaching against what someone else says!!

And it seems that those who once preached against their falsely perceived perceptions of "Tongues" are the same ones who are now preaching against their falsely perceived perceptions of Calvinism!