I have been on this site long enough to recognise mocking and disparagement whenever this issue comes up.
Then perhaps it won’t be too much trouble to identify some of them so we can evaluate them.
The Fatal Flaw of the Charismatic Movement
Sproule —> Sproul
All fixed now.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One thing is for sure…there is no flaw in the Charismatic’s choice of music!
Sarcasm font off. :-)
Nah, he takes the whole thing too seriously. There’s nothing terribly theological about it.
It’s just one big fat hoax, from Agnes Ozman on through Charles Fox Parham, William Seymour, Oral Roberts, et al.
Other than the staggering work of plagiarism the Book of Mormon is, it’s hard to think of any hoax that’s taken on bigger dimensions than Miss Ozman’s purported handwriting in Chinese in 1901 that launched the whole circus.
Unfortunately cessationists have this obsession with mocking the work of the Spirit.
Instead of facing up to the difficulties of discerning what is of God and what is not they throw everything out.
I know that makes for an easy life but real life can be messy sometimes and part of this messiness is the presence of the false amongst the genuine. The early church had the same problems but rather than running away from the difficulties they had the courage to face them.
Richard Pajak
Unfortunately cessationists have this obsession with mocking the work of the Spirit.
Do you have examples of this mocking by cessationists?
I have been on this site long enough to recognise mocking and disparagement whenever this issue comes up.
Richard Pajak
Evaluate through which lenses? As a former cessationist who has experienced amazing and unexplainable manifestations of the Holy Spirit I can say too bad for you who will not open your heart just a little. My first taste of what some call “hoax” was when I went to hear a Baptist preacher speak in a little country church that his wife had grown up in. The Glory fell in that place. Maybe 40 people and the Holy Spirit. Words fail me in describing that unexpected encounter. I remember my Baptist preacher got up to preach and couldn’t at first. He seriously and publicly said that it may not be any point to it. I actually shudder to think that we (and I have been guilty) use words like “hoax” and attitudes of disdain when describing the Holy Spirit’s visitation.
The error of the Charismatic is thinking experience overshadows the Word. The equally grievous error of the Fundamentalist is thinking that experience is bad. The indescribable presence of Holy Spirit will really mess up your doctrine.
[Jeffrey Dean]The indescribable presence of Holy Spirit will really mess up your doctrine.
While meditating deeply on this, fire fell from on high, and it was shown to me that I own the title to a certain bridge named Brooklyn that should be sold to those with the faith to redeem it.
For those with little faith, I have original, individually anointed copies of handwritten Holy Spirit Chinese from the founder of Pentecostalism/Charismatism that could be sent for a seed offering of $100.
And don’t anybody call it a hoax or a fraud.
One mustn’t tar everyone with the same brush Jeff.
Though some may think “experience overshadows the Word” it is not fair to ascribe this to everyone who believes that the Holy Spirit continues to minister through the gifts. It seems to be put forward by some that the two are incompatible. Paul however believed in the authority of Scripture and encouraged the use of the gifts. He saw no incompatibility.
As to trawling through the many posts on this issue Larry I just don’t have the heart to wade through them as I suspect it would be to no profit. I simply voiced my opinion. I don’t expect you to agree but I cannot for a moment imagine that you you are unaware of the way the continuationist position is held by many posters here.
As to the title “fatal”flaw” that is a somewhat hyperbolic statement. There is nothing fatal about the continuationist position. It is alive and well, as is the cessationist position but not both are correct.
Ng’s post above is a typical example if you need one. It looks like he wanted to supply you with some evidence of mocking himself Larry even though he is on your side.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak]There is nothing fatal about the continuationist position. It is alive and well, as is the cessationist position but not both are correct.
Ng’s post above is a typical example if you need one. It looks like he wanted to supply you with some evidence of mocking himself Larry even though he is on your side.
I didn’t strongly consider myself either a continuationist or a cessationist before this, but if buying the Brooklyn Bridge of Charismatism (in the face of incontrovertible evidence and continued defamation of the Holy Spirit in regard to bogus manifestations) is required, I’ll be glad to go to the opposite position.
In short, it is probably a bit of a stretch to link the Charismatic Movement (see thread title), which began in 1901, with anything biblical or New Testament at all. A fraud’s a fraud, and I can’t see the value of investing too much theological effort to disproving a three-dollar bill when all it takes is showing it to anybody—saved or unsaved.
Yet at any Charismatic rally/crusade/telecast/DVD showing, “believers” you’ll find.
I’ve never been in favor of defining a group by its worst adherents. If you do that with fundamentalism, there’s really not much (any) room for fundamentalists to be critical of charismatics.
So if you take the strongest and best representatives of those two points of view, what you find is that there are serious thoughtful people on both sides, seeking to do what they believe Scripture directs them to do.
And then you have an opportunity to engage the mind and heart in the pursuit of which ideas are truest to the Word.
It really is about ideas and doctrine of the Holy Spirit as well as doctrine of Scripture and doctrine of sanctification. Mockery persuades no one. It usually only entertains or annoys the already convinced. A waste of time.
1Pet 4:7 The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.
So a central question would be what relationship does Scripture teach ought to exist between the Word and experience?
It’s a complex subject and we’ve got articles on it here. For example…
http://sharperiron.org/tags/cessationism
So much comes down to what process we use to derive a norm from Scripture. Taken as a whole, Scripture doesn’t lead us to expect dramatic visible manifestations of the Spirit, and miraculous gifts, as a regular occurrence. There are periods of this and long, long stretches with very little of it. But always the miraculous gifts are associated with authenticating revelation. So a whole lot of the controversy also has to do with canon: do we have all of God’s Word or not?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]It really is about ideas and doctrine of the Holy Spirit as well as doctrine of Scripture and doctrine of sanctification. Mockery persuades no one. It usually only entertains or annoys the already convinced. A waste of time.
1Pet 4:7 The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.
So a central question would be what relationship does Scripture teach ought to exist between the Word and experience?
That debate has its place, but not when an out-and-out fraud exists.
In the face of their founder’s “Holy Spirit Chinese” and all that’s mushroomed out of it, Christians need to look error in the eye and rebuke it, not entertain it, enter into theological dialogue over it, etc. We do the same with “free” vacation telemarketers with more cred.
And yes, there’s time for debate over that “central question” when the gate’s bolted; I think it’s a good debate, in fact. But not when the door’s wide open—this time in Fundamentalism.
New Evangelicalism faced this situation once, in the Sixties. It was at their Berlin congress on evangelism that Billy Graham introduced Oral Roberts to the delegate assembled, much to their surprise. While the charlatan holy roller sat there flabbergasted, Billy Graham’s theology expert Harold J. Ockenga “did one of the most chivalrous things” when he “reached right over and got the microphone away from Oral before he attempted to answer” to give a more plausible theological explanation to what was basically a sixth-decade incarnation of the Topeka hoax. And we know the result—Charismatism is now bedrock-embedded in today’s Evangelicalism, from worship to theology.
So yeah, let’s do let in the camel’s nose. Or let’s zip the tent and then talk.
Even if we suppose that the “Topeka hoax” fully explains the origins of the movement, it does not follow that what we have today has no truth in it because of where it came from.
I’ve never met a charismatic who reasoned “I believe what I do because of what happened in Topeka.” There is really no relevance there.
It’s not about tents and camels and getting together. It’s about how to help people understand where their views are in error. Step 1: don’t mock their current views. Step 2: don’t assume you’re dealing with morons. Step 3: respect them enough to look at the real reasons for what they believe and help them understand why these reasons don’t warrant their conclusions.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Even if we suppose that the “Topeka hoax” fully explains the origins of the movement, it does not follow that what we have today has no truth in it because of where it came from.
About the genetic fallacy
Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
I’ve never met a charismatic who reasoned “I believe what I do because of what happened in Topeka.” There is really no relevance there.
I don’t know what the right term is, but this sounds like a fallacy.
It’s not about tents and camels and getting together. It’s about how to help people understand where their views are in error. Step 1: don’t mock their current views. Step 2: don’t assume you’re dealing with morons. Step 3: respect them enough to look at the real reasons for what they believe and help them understand why these reasons don’t warrant their conclusions.
Why is showing them their own documentation of their accepted history regarded as “mocking” even if it doesn’t fully explain everything? (So far we’ve only been presented with a specific claim from their root.)
And how is looking at “real reasons” going to convince those who don’t necessarily place reason and scripture above experience in the first place? (Not as though reasoning has not been tried.)
And aren’t we supposed to not dialogue with wolves and serpents?
I’m happy to discuss the evidence with those of like precious faith, but they don’t seem any more excited about it than the Charismatics themselves.
Discussion