So "approaching legalism" is the semantic equivalent to "Trump is literally Hitler"?? Really?
No. Please read again what I wrote. Your question suggests a Strawman of what I actually indicated.
I'm a fundamental, independent Baptist. People call us "legalists" all the time, and it's insulting.
But I didn't call you a legalist. I spoke to
a kind of thinking that came
close to legalism, it seemed to me, but I haven't gone so far as to declare, "JoJ, you are a legalist!" As you've pointed out, I know virtually nothing about you, so I cannot say what is the truth about you personally. But I can recognize kinds of problematic thinking which are apparent, not because I know the human source of the thinking personally, but because I know something of how to reason well.
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.
The definition you've offered ought to include the pharisaical imposition of man-made rules by one Christian upon another.
In any case, I haven't done anything like what you assert here with the Strawman of my remarks that you've put forward.
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.
But this is side-stepping of your own, here. What you've written in this quotation entirely ignores, actually, the questions I asked.
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.
Everyone who's been here for a while knows I try to stay objective.
You've been consistent and clear in what you're asserting, yes, but my questions aren't concerned with your clarity or consistency of statements about the Holy Spirit, but about the legitimacy of asserting a "too much Holy Spirit" standard upon fellow believers. Again, what is "too much"? And who gets to say for everyone else what "too much" is, exactly? On what grounds of authority do they propose to do so? You've offered an extreme example of what "too much" is but, as I've said, this example isn't helpful in establishing a standard for other kinds of revival where the Holy Spirit is spoken of frequently but without the blasphemous, sensual nonsense of the hyper-charismatic.
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?
Great questions. They are, in fact, essentially the questions I've been asking you. And so far, you've not been able to offer a good biblical standard for how much is too much reference to the Holy Spirit in a revival. I think this is because no such standard exists, which ought to suggest to us that we ought not to attempt to fashion one for ourselves that we then assert to others. This isn't to say that the extreme instances of the blasphemous mentions of the Holy Spirit in hyper-charismatic revivals can't be observed and criticized - they can - but only to say that extrapolating from these extreme instances a particular standard for all other revivals isn't possible.
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'm not disagreeing with the general principle you've offered above; I'm just wondering about its application. You seem to have an unspoken ratio of mentions of the Holy Spirit to mentions of Christ that I see no basis for in Scripture. I could see some Baptists taking up this principle and making hard-and-fast rules about it, specific standards of how much the Holy Spirit is mentioned in revival, and then relegating any revival ignoring this standard to the "false fire" pile. They would do this, though, without any actual, clear basis in Scripture. Hence, my questions on this line.
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.
Oh, I know very well what a Strawman is. Which is why I see them so plainly in your remarks. Their presence in your replies makes me wonder if
you know well what a Strawman is.
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.
Okay. Not sure what the point of all this is... I've told you what I mean by "hyper-charismatic." So long as I'm clear about what I mean, what others might use as terms for the same is...interesting, I guess?
Take care, everyone. @Tenchi. I do enjoy having you here on the BB and this thread. Sorry if it hasn't seemed that way occasionally. You have a good knowledge of revival.
I'm not put off, or troubled, by anything I've encountered on BB. It's all very much what I've encountered in every other Christian forum in which I've posted. I have a direct, unadorned way of communicating on forums but I've got a very thick skin after all the years of posting I've done and don't get in a fluff about strong disagreement with my viewpoints. "Iron sharpens iron," and all that.
Believe it or not, I've actually enjoyed the back-and-forth between us. It's been stimulating, prompting me to contemplate the matter you've brought up about speaking of the Holy Spirit in revival, which I've not done before. So, thanks.
