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

I think that for many years, we have been divided between charismatic and non-charismatic. The problem with such a broad brush is this: there is a BIG difference between moderate charismatics (Sovereign Grace really can only technically be called tolerant of charismatics) and extreme charismatics (God wants everyone healed, wealthy, and speaking in tongues).

What is slowly happening and what needs to happen more fully is the understanding of graduations and shades. Some non-charismatics may be more emotional, for instance, than some moderate charismatics (esp. of the introverted variety).

I do agree that we need to leave more room for the Spirit while at the same time preventing or addressing abuses.

The 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s were traumatic times, and the battle lines became entrenched.

But times have changed, and it is time to re-examine some of these — at least a little.

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.

Read Wayne Grudem’s The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. He recognizes that the full blown gift of prophecy creates a problem with respect to a completed canon and solves his problem by dumbing New Testament prophecy down. He says Agabus, for example, made mistakes in his prophecies about Paul’s imprisonment. The Bible on the other hand says that Agabus spoke by the Spirit.

So either way you have an inerrancy issue. Either full blown ongoing prophecy that adds to the Scriptures or dumbed down prophecy based on errors in Acts.

[Don Johnson] Read Wayne Grudem’s The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. He recognizes that the full blown gift of prophecy creates a problem with respect to a completed canon and solves his problem by dumbing New Testament prophecy down. He says Agabus, for example, made mistakes in his prophecies about Paul’s imprisonment. The Bible on the other hand says that Agabus spoke by the Spirit.

So either way you have an inerrancy issue. Either full blown ongoing prophecy that adds to the Scriptures or dumbed down prophecy based on errors in Acts.

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.

those of us who view any working of (a) false Holy Spirit(s) as demonic.

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

I concur.

[Pastor Harold] Numbers are never a good judge of success. Crowds disperse as quickly as they are drawn.

How can adopting some practices from a scripturally bankrupt “church” solve any of our problems. Our issues are solved by study and application of the Word. Not by copying the man centered techniques of a religious movement.

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.

[FredK] SNIP Let me hear some positive comments about E, C, Presbyterians, et al. We do not have God in a box. Did Christ die for non-F also? Give them a break. Would Jesus be so totally critical? Read all the preceding negative comments. Most are not constructive about outsiders. It’s out of balance. SNIP

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.

We are not over reacting.

We are not practicing extreme separation.

We do not have a phobia of becoming charismatic.

We have solid biblical ground to stand on in our opposition to the charismatic views. Nothing needs to be learned from “them”. They don’t have any answers. Adding charismatic ideas will not “pep up” a Baptist church it will only weaken it. Any time you blend some thing, the main ingredient is always deluded. The Spirits power can not be manufactured or duplicated through some technique. Some of the most on fire churches in the world have what we would call weak worship service. They are on fire because each individual is seeking to glorify God with every once of their being. That is not taught, it is caught.

Fred, find a Bapticostal congregation and join it. You will find that they have their own set of weaknesses and are not any better off than any other group. We must go to the Word with prayer and not another group for the solutions.

- 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.

is not a Fundamentalist one. Good Night, Francis Wayland and Charles Spurgeon would have problems with the movement, if the movement had cropped up in their day.

Fred, there is a difference between being an adopted child of the family (irrevocable) and being a child who pleases the Father (circumstantial).

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

[Rob Fall] There are those of us who view any working of (a) false Holy Spirit(s) as demonic.

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.

[Richard Pajak]

[Rob Fall] There are those of us who view any working of (a) false Holy Spirit(s) as demonic.

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.

I’m sorry if I personally offended you. However, my position is a historic one. As a “cessionist”, what is my alternative? I’ve had to much up close and personal experience with the demonic to be sanguine about them.

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!

Ray. your position that what is popularly described as “tongues” didn’t exist even in NT times is the position I’ve heard and held for close to forty years.