Charismatics

I was one. Depending on how you define it, I still may be one.

The outcome was positive, overall.

If that's where you're getting your information, then you're not familiar with it.

"Counterfeit Revival" and "Christianity in Crisis" deal with the Word of Faith movement and the "Latter Rain" (or "Third Wave") movement and and it's important to note that Hannegraaf is, himself, a charismatic and is affiliated with Calvary Chapel, which is a charismatic denomination.

WoF and Latter Rain are abberant offshoots of the charismatic movement and are in no way representative of the mainstream of charismatic thought. In fact, I know from my time in the charismatic movement that most charismatics consider these people an embarrasment and see them as the abberation that they are.

May I ask what false doctrine they teach? Nearly all of the charismatic churches I know of adhere to orthodoxy.

 

Pentecostals, all Charismatics, and those involved in the Word of Faith movement all believe that the gift of tongues is operative for today. This in itself is a heresy, especially considering that the tongues that they speak are not another language that was actually spoken and known to others, as was practiced in the Bible. The modern tongue movement originated at the beginning of the 20th century, has nothing to do with real languages, is made up of nonsense syllables--gibberish. Its source therefore is not of God. That leaves one of two possible sources: oneself, or it is demonic.
Most also believe that the other sign gifts are also operative for today. There is no indication in the Bible that any of these gifts are in operation for today; in fact the Bible teaches that the have ceased.
DHK

 

Where?

 

I wouldn't exactly call it a heresy but we are all entitied to our opionion.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 is not conclusive in that it is debated by many. If tounges have ceased because they perfect came, did knowledge? But I agree with you that the tounges that happen in pentacostal churches are most likely not from God.

The Word of Faith movement is certainly a false doctrine, but it is not indeed the norm of pentocostal churches. Indeed, pentocaostal churches hold to most of the "fundlementals" as designed by IFBs then MOST on this board (myself included). They are pre-trib / pre-mill and entirely dispensational, they reject any form of infant baptism, they believe in salvation by grace through faith, and like our strong IFB friends down a few forums they are sometimes strict on dress, alchohol, and the KJV. They tend not to be Calvinist, so if more Arminian theology was the false doctrine you were inferring to then most on this board agree with them over you.

They "doctrines" that they teach that we disagree with normally center around the gifts of the spirit and perhaps the baptism of the spirit. I wouldn't call any of these herescies as they will not keep someone from entering heaven (someone enters heaven by trusting in Christ alone for their salvation, which they believe as I do, and anything contrary to that is what I call heresy!). However they can have some major negative effects and cause much division (so can Calvinism, see above).

Now the one-ness pentacostals and those who claim you must speak in tounges to be saved or heresies but they are no way the normative belief among pentecostals. One of my roommates in college was a pentecoastal and he was a great Christian brother and friend, and is on his way to the mission field to spread the gospel of Christ. We just happen to disagree pretty stronly on the speaking in tounges deal.

 

The modern day speaking in tongues is one of the most dangerous doctrines today. The Bible says in Phil.4:8,
“Think on these things.”
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night,” (Josh.1:8)
“Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1Tim.4:13)
“Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.” (1Tim.4:15)
“(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” (2Cor.10:4,5)

The Bible teaches that we are always, always to have full control over our minds—that we are to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. It continually tells us to think, to meditate, to pray without ceasing. We are to have complete control over our minds. The worst thing a Christian could ever do is open up his mind and give it over to the possibility of another spirit entering in, a demonic spirit. But this is precisely what happens when a person speaks in tongues. They open up their minds. They give up control over their faculties. It goes directly contrary to the teaching of the Bible which tells us to: think, pray, meditate, read, study, etc. When the mind is empty, Satan will be sure to fill it.
Ask how a person learns to speak in tongues. Invariably the answer will be: “I just empty my mind, and the ‘words’ just come.”

1Cor.12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--Here is one of the list of spiritual gifts given in 1Cor.12. Paul puts these gifts in order of importance. He says,. “First, Secondarily, thirdly, after that…” Every gift is put in order of importance. The gift of least importance is at the bottom of the list—tongues. Paul considered the gift of tongues to be considered as the least important of all the gifts, and yet ironically Charismatics consider it to be the most important.

1Cor.12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--Paul then rhetorically asks the Corinthians if all of them are apostles, or if all of them are prophets, or if all of them are workers of miracles, etc. The obvious answer to all these questions was an emphatic NO! All believers did not have the gift of tongues and were not to seek the gift of tongues any more than they were to seek the gift of apostleship. Yet many Charismatic churches teach that all should seek the gift of tongues. In fact there usually is a disparity created in the church between the ones that have and the ones that have not spoken in tongues. The “haves” are more spiritual than the “have-nots,” by virtue of their having spoken in tongues. And in most Charismatic churches it is a sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit, and in some a sign of salvation.

I believe that 1Cor.13:8-13 can be used to demonstrate how these sign gifts have already ceased, and that they ceased at the end of the first century when the Bible was completed with the Book of Revelation.
The three gifts: prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge (not common knowledge), were all used to supplement revelation while the New Testament was in the process of being written. Thus Paul could say: We know in part (we have part of the Bible—the Old Testament), and we prophesy in part (because the New Testament is not yet complete), but when it is complete (perfect), then that which is in part (temporary sign gifts) shall pass away.

Any person who believes that tongues is still for today has not read or understood the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians. What is the purpose of the gift of tongues. First it was to provide a means of revelation to bring edification to the church before the canon of the Scripture was completed (before that which was perfect was come). Second, it was a gift that was given to the local church. It was never intended for private or selfish use. It was always to be used in the church, for the benefit of all in the church. And thirdly, perhaps most importantly of all, it was a sign for the unbelieving Jew. In chapter 14:

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
--Verse 22 plainly says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not. It is not a sign for the believer but for the unbeliever. That in itself ought to shoot holes in anyone’s idea about tongues being a prayer language for personal edification.
Verse 21 is a quote from Isaiah. Isaiah says that with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to “this people.” This people refers to the nation of Israel. The sign of speaking in tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel. It was to show to them that the message of the gospel was genuine, that it was from God. It authenticated the gospel message. Isaiah continues: “yet for all that will they not hear me.” Tongues are for a sign for the unbelieving Jew. If there are no unbelieving Jews present in your church, tongues are fruitless; they are not fulfilling their intended purpose.
Read through the rest of the chapter and see the prohibitions that Paul puts on speaking in tongues:
1. It must be in a real language.
2. There must be an interpreter at all times—otherwise shut up!
3. Only two, at the most three may speak in tongues; and never, never, at the same time.
4. Women are not allowed to speak in tongues at all. They are to keep quiet in the church.

These are just some of the prohibitions that Paul puts on speaking in tongues.
If the modern-day speaking in tongues is Biblical, and it just started at the beginning of the 20th century (and it did), then what did those poor Christians do for the 1800 years between the end of the first century and the beginning of the 20th century when there was no speaking in tongues, except in the odd sporadic heretical sect?
DHK

 

Another dangerous doctrine that charismatics teach is ongoing revelation, that God is still speaking words to people apart from the perfect completed Scriptures.

If we train up our children to trust only the written Words of God, they will not fall into the charismatic heresies. The Bible is perfect, complete, and 100% sufficient.

 

No it's not. It's a non-essential that believers have the liberty to disagree over.

Generally, "heresy" refers to hetrodox teaching of essentials, not secondary, non-essential issues.

 

Where? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, where?

 

Right. Oneness pentacostlism is a cult and not representative of pentacolstalism as a whole or of the charismatic movement.

This is why I try to differentiate between "pentacostal" and "charismatic", even though it may seem like splitting hairs.

 

Agreed. Oneness Pentecostalism is an anti-Trinitarian heresy. Tongues are not a prerequisite for salvation, nor are they a gift that has necessarily ceased. DHK's interpretation of I Cor 13 is but one interpretation and is more a product of eisegesis than exegesis. Don Carson is worth reading on this subject.

Like Mike, I am an ex-WoF devotee; just because the excesses are wrong doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater; in steering away from the Scylla of hypercharismaticism, WoF and the Toronto Blessing, we must be careful not to veer towards the Charibdis of cessationism

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes...and?

Tongues speakers don't go into some trance-like state. They are in complete control.

Not true.

Then they have been taught improperly.

This is not taught in the mainstream.

Individual churches may teach this but it's not the norm. The prevailing thought is that tongues is a gift that God gives at His pleasure.

Again, you're confusing the WoF movement with the charismatic movement.

 

But that's not normative among the charismatic movement.

If you believe it is, then I would invite you to go into your average charismatic church and watch what happens when someone speaks a word that is contrary to the Bible.

In my church, the pastor would call them out on it and demand that the person demonstrate where in scipture such a message is found. The common view is that God speaks but will not say anything that doesn't confirm His word as given in the Bible.

What does the charismatic movement teach that's heretical.

 

DHK,

I agree with you. I hold the same beliefs as John MacArthur in his book *Charismatic Chaos*. I think it can be dangerous for a believer to put more emphasis on experience and man,than on the written Word of God.

Just my thoughts!

Molly

 

Surprise, surprise Molly agrees with MacArthur.

Charismatic Chaos is a decent book but as Johnny Mac has a tendency to do: he overstates the case on occasion and argues against extreme straw men on other occasions. While the book is useful in many ways, one cannot buy into it hook-line-sinker style.

 

I almost always agree with MacAurther and I do agree with him in principle here.

"Charismatic Chaos" was a very good book on the subject but MacAurther does tend to speak very broadly.

 

No it's not. It's a non-essential that believers have the liberty to disagree over.

Generally, "heresy" refers to hetrodox teaching of essentials, not secondary, non-essential issues. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll drop the word heresy, Mike, and agree that it is the wrong term to use. However I would classify it as a dangerous false doctrine at the very least. It is the one doctrine that unites all three groups--the tongues are operative today. To be a Charismatic you have to believe in tongues. That is basically what defines a Charismatic.
DHK

 

Where? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, where? </font>[/QUOTE]A sound exegesis of 1Cor.13:8-13 gives us "where." Tongues ended when "that which is perfect was come," which I believe to be the completed Word of God, completed in 98 A.D. with the Book of Revelation. The Old English word "perfect" simply means "complete," as it also does in the Greek. The Bible was complete at the end of the first century.
"When that which is perfect." The pronoun "that" is in the neuter gender. It cannot refer to Jesus Christ, for then it would have been in the masculine gender. It refers to the Word. The context of the three chapters 12-14 are the discussion of spiritual gifts. In this context Paul shows how love is greater than all the spiritual gifts put together in chapter 13:1-7. In 13:8 to the end of chapter 14 he continues his discussion with spiritual gifts, this time in particular reference to those gifts which have direct bearing on revelation. All three of the gifts mentioned in 13:8 have to do with the revelation of God's Word. The discussion of tongues and prophecy in chapter 14 has to do with the revelation of God's Word. This is the context now. When the revelation of God's Word is complete we will no longer have need of these spiritual gifts mentioned in 13:8. They are temporary; love is not. Love endures forever. It is a contrast. They ended when the Word was completed. Love continues forever, though the Word is completed. Faith and hope mentioned in 13:13 are not as great as love for they also will end. They will end when we see Christ. We walk by faith and not by sight. When se see Christ we will have no more need of faith. Christ is our hope. When Christ comes, we will have no more need of hope. But these temporary sign gifts ended before then--when the Word of God was completed. They are contrasted as being of less value than faith, hope, and love, for they ceased far before the time that faith and hope will cease, and love never ceases.
DHK
DHK

 

According the United Pentecostal Church "Speaking in tongues symbolizes God's complete control of the believer. " So if you are in complete control of your tongue, then, according to the UPC God isn't. " When God tames a person's tongue, that person comes under God's full control. He is in the hands of the Almighty. He has been conquered by Christ, endued with a spiritual force from on high, and empowered for God's service." ( http://www.upci.org )

~Lorelei

 

But that's not normative among the charismatic movement.

If you believe it is, then I would invite you to go into your average charismatic church and watch what happens when someone speaks a word that is contrary to the Bible.

In my church, the pastor would call them out on it and demand that the person demonstrate where in scipture such a message is found. The common view is that God speaks but will not say anything that doesn't confirm His word as given in the Bible.</font>[/QUOTE]If this is true, how does your pastor know what the tongues speaker is saying. Does he always have an interpreter? If so, how do you know the interpretation is correct? The interpretation may be of the devil and most, if not all in your congregation wouldn't know the difference. Does the person speaking in tongues speak in an actual real language? If so what languages do they speak in? How many languages are spoken in your church, and what is the reason different languages are spoken in your church? Do you have any unsaved Jews in your church? Do women speak in tongues in your church?
DHK