So "approaching legalism" is the semantic equivalent to "Trump is literally Hitler"?? Really?I don't have to know you personally to recognize when a kind of thinking approaches legalism any more than I have to know personally the stranger who says to me "Trump is literally Hitler!" before I can say that he is expressing very poor thinking.
I'm a fundamental, independent Baptist. People call us "legalists" all the time, and it's insulting. Most evangelicals don't even know the true meaning of the word. Here's a theological definition: "Legalism is a slavish following of the law in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law.” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 908.).
This is not what I believe, and you have no way to make my examination of a Charismatic website equivalent to this.
You are sidestepping something. I was only referring to the Holy Spirit in reference to revival theology. It should be patently obvious that when I lecture on the Holy Spirit I am not over-emphasizing Him over Christ, just teaching about Him.This assumes what I'm wondering about, namely that there is a too-far point in thinking and speaking about the Holy Spirit. Is there? Where is this point, exactly? Who determines where it is, and how do they do so? By what right do they assert this boundary upon others?
I think I've been very clear. Any emphasis on the Holy Spirit over Christ is wrong. And I gave an objective revealing of such an emphasis on a blasphemous Charismatic website, yet you reject my objective point.??? I'm just asking questions and thinking through what you've asserted. How is this "insulting"? Are you not used to folks offering challenge to your statements?
Everyone who's been here for a while knows I try to stay objective.
??? Uh, what? Where have I done any such thing? Again, you're assuming a standard or boundary for which you have yet to offer a good biblical basis or reasonable justification. So far, all you've done is point to an extreme and say, "That's too much Holy Spirit talk!" Okay. I agree - especially when that talk is unbiblical and blasphemous. But what if there's lots of talk of the Holy Spirit that isn't either of these things? What then? How do you establish a boundary on such talk, exactly?
Of course not.I'm sorry if such questions are a bother and seem insulting to you but I didn't realize you were expecting fellow posters to just adopt everything you're proposing about revival.
So, then, what is your standard? Do you have an objective standard to show how someone over-emphasizes the Holy Spirit in reference to revival? Or do you believe that to be impossible?Okay. But what is "lifted up over Christ" in a non-hyper-charismatic situation of revival? Sometimes, the extreme or the exception is used to form a rule, which I think is very dangerous. In my sixty years in the Baptist denomination, I've seen this happen a number of times with Baptists who establish standards for their fellows that have a...strained basis in Scripture. And so, I've asked the questions that I have. I'm not intending to attack you, though. I'm just thinking aloud about the matter you've raised.
How would you like me to interact with this verse? Does it set a standard for how often the Holy Spirit is mentioned in a revival? No.
I stand by my original statement. If a so-called revival emphasizes the Holy Spirit more than it preaches Jesus, it is false fire. You are welcome to disagree.I have no quibble with the truth that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, will glorify Christ. But this doesn't preclude, as far as I can see, speaking freely and often of the role of the Holy Spirit in spiritual living and revival events.
I'm not sure you know what a "strawman" argument is. I've not set up any strawmen, but simply pointed out an over-emphasis on the Holy Spirit in one particular ministry.This verse says nothing about the degree of emphasis that Holy Spirit might give himself in the mind of a believer. As the lesson outline on the Holy Spirit that you offered a few posts ago demonstrated, the Bible has a good deal to say about the Holy Spirit. If what the Bible says about him is spoken of a lot in a revival, where is the harm? John 14:26 offers no clear answer to this question, it seems to me.
Great!
??? I'm not advocating for Charismatics. In fact, I think I've done quite the opposite in my last few posts. I'm sorry to hear they were sabotaging your efforts in Japan but their doing so doesn't justify your Strawman remarks, here.
Charismatic historians call original Pentecostalism the "first wave." The origin of the Charismatic movement in 1960 attributed to Dennis Bennett launched a whole different movement, the "second wave." The Toronto Blessing is part of the "third wave." So, I assume you are calling the Third Wave "hyper-Charismatic," but that's the first time I've ever heard that term.I distinguish mainstream Pentecostals from hyper-charismatic people. Folks like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, Mike Bickles, et al are hyper-charismatics with whom the mainstream Pentecostal pastors that I know want nothing to do.
Last edited: