What is it Charismatics believe?

[DHK]

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

1 John 2:3-5 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

A true believer, one who is born again, will have that desire to study God's Word. That is how God communicates with us--through His Word. We know His commandments by the study of His Word. 1Pet.3:15 also says:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

We are to know God's Word so well that we are able to give an answer to every man that asks a question or reason of the hope that is in us. There is no excuse for not knowing what the commands of the Lord are; no excuse for a believer to not be familiar with the teachings of Jesus. All that one has to do is read the Gospels. You can do that in one night.

Salvation is not dependent on works. It is not dependent on "repenting from all my sins." That is a misconception, and it is an impossibility for anyone to do. Salvation is based on faith in the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast."

Repentance is a change of attitude toward God. I repent from my old sinful ways, and I repent unto God. That is I change my attitude toward God. I was once living a sinful life for the world and the devil; now I will be living a life of holiness and Godliness for Christ my Saviour.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Change, for a new believer, does not come all at once, but gradually. We change slowly--growing in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. The gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1Cor.12 are totally unnecessary for this. However as we grow the Lord will give us the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Gal.5:22,23

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

This is what we should all be striving toward.
DHK

 

[time like this]

DHK
Jesus fulfilled whole law at calvary and during the last week of his life as far as sacrifice for sins. Man can not do this in himself. However a man must acknowledge his sins are in the way of his relationship with GOD. In the spirit of a person there has to be an acceptance of GODs word and moral character. If this principle is removed you will have a nation of people beleiveing sin is ok. look at Luke 13:3,Acts 2:38.

 

[time like this]

When we show people verses that say beleive in GODs word, are we explaining what that word says about GOD and about our separation from him? This is not an attack but recently this question was asked of me. The person knew the scripture said to trust in his word, they reconize Jesus as the savior, but have no idea what GODs word is or what they should follow no idea of what Jesus fulfilled. They claimed to be saved lived in fornication drank, liquor, lies. They were told all the should do is beleive Jesus is Lord and died for their sins. This greatly saddens me.

 

[Jesus is Lord]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
I heard one famous TBN evangelist say "shaka zulu" while "speaking in tongues.

Was that Creflo Dollar?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by time like this:
When we show people verses that say beleive in GODs word, are we explaining what that word says about GOD and about our separation from him? This is not an attack but recently this question was asked of me. The person knew the scripture said to trust in his word, they reconize Jesus as the savior, but have no idea what GODs word is or what they should follow no idea of what Jesus fulfilled. They claimed to be saved lived in fornication drank, liquor, lies. They were told all the should do is beleive Jesus is Lord and died for their sins. This greatly saddens me.

I have encountered many Charismatics with this type of problem, mostly because they are relying on an experience (like speaking in tongues), rather than the message of the Bible (the gospel) for their salvation. You cannot be saved unless your salvation is based on the Christ of the Bible. The moment a person is truly saved, the Holy Spirit enters that individual and begins to change that person.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1 John 3:8-9 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Those that are saved do not live lives of sin. They do not continue in a pattern of sin. A man (or woman) who is truly saved; his life will show the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal.5:22,23), not the works of the flesh.

Take into consideration the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20).
Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The Great Commission involves teaching. It involves discipleship--not only winning a person to the Lord, but discipling them, baptizing them, and then teaching them some more. Thus there is no excuse for knew believers not to have a minimal working knowledge of the Bible if we are carrying out our duty--discipleship.
DHK

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
John MacArthur explains how there were the Pentecostals that came at the beginning of the 20th Century, and then the Charismatics in the 1960's, and finally in the 80's came the Third Wave. Here is a description of their similarities and their differences:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Now, just a brief history. Historically, the Charismatic movement is the child of the Pentecostal movement. That began about 1900 and it went along for about 60 years and the Pentecostal Churches were primarily the Assemblies of God, the Four Square Church, and then there were some other smaller groups, the United Pentecostal group and so forth. But they were basically off to themselves. People used to call them the "Holy Rollers." They were a kind of a unique group that did not mainstream at all in Evangelical Christianity because of their strange beliefs.

In 1960 a remarkable thing happened. In 1960, not far from here, in Saint Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California, Rector Dennis Bennett supposedly got the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And what happened was Pentecostalism jumped out of its own box and landed in Episcopalianism, and for the first time it transcended its denominational definitions. Since that time it has moved through the major denominations like a flood. It went beyond historical Pentecostal denominations and has continued to do that. That second movement is called the Charismatic Movement. They borrowed that concept of Charismatic because it is associated with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit given to the believer.

But the Charismatic Movement can't be defined doctrinally. Why? Because it involves Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, anybody and everybody. So it resists, and has resisted any kind of doctrinal definition that is too rigid. What they all hold in common is an experience which they will call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And they wrongly define the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a post salvation experience that adds something to your Christian life that you previously didn't have, and is usually is accompanied by signs and wonders, most particularly speaking in tongues. And we are going to talk much more about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Tongues at a later time. But once you have had that experience, you have sort of jumped into this new level of spiritual awareness, and you have reached the level of the Charismatic.
The term the "Third Wave" was coined by C. Peter Wagner who is a Missions professor at Fuller Seminary and the author of several books on church growth. He is really the leading proponent of the Third Wave philosophy and methodology. According to Wagner, he said, "The First Wave was the Pentecostal Movement, the Second Wave was the Charismatic Movement, and now the Third Wave is joining them." And by that he means an inundating wave of the power of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself in visible ways. And while acknowledging the Third Wave's spiritual ancestry, that is, that it is the third of those three, Wagner nonetheless rejects the label "Charismatic and Pentecostal." In fact, most of the people in the Third Wave don't want to be identified in that way. Wagner says,

The Third Wave is a new moving of the Holy Spirit among evangelicals who for one reason or another have chosen not to identify with either the Pentecostals or the Charismatics. Its roots go back a little further but I see it as mainly a movement beginning in the 1980's and gathering momentum through the closing years of the 20th century. I see the Third Wave as distinct from, but at the same time, very similar to the first and second waves. They have to be similar because it is the same Spirit of God who is doing the work. The major variation comes in the understanding of the meaning of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" and the role of tongues in authenticating this. I myself, for example, would rather not have people call me a Charismatic, I do not consider myself a Charismatic, I am simply an Evangelical Congregationalist who is open to the Holy Spirit working through me and my church in any way He chooses.


He refuses the label "Charismatic," not primarily because of any doctrinal distinction, but primarily because of the stigma attached to the name. It's important for me to mention that to you because if you talk to someone in the Third Wave they might endeavor to distance themselves from classic Pentecostalism or more contemporary Charismaticism, but the fact is that they are basically the Third Wave by their own admission of the very same kind of theology. It is accurate then to see the Third Wave as part of the whole Charismatic movement as we know it. While it is true that many who identify with the Third Wave will avoid using the term "Charismatic" and they'll even avoid using Charismatic jargon when writing or speaking about Spirit Baptism or other issues. Basically, the theology is the same. The terminology may change; the theology is for all intents and purposes identical. Most Third Wave teaching and preaching that I have listened to, that I have read, echoes standard Charismatic theology, and therefore in evaluating the Third Wave, we would assume that it is safe to say that the other issues that we have been discussing, that we find unbiblical in the Charismatic movement, are generally true of this movement as well, although there may be some individuals in the movement who would vary from that.

So at its very core it is an element of the Charismatic movement. At its core is an obsession with sensational experiences, a preoccupation with the "Charismata" that is, tongues, healings, prophecies, words of knowledge, visions, and ecstatic experiences, and that is, of course, where we find the indisputable link between the Third Wave and the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. In all three movements there is a major absorption with these supernatural, sensational kind of power encounters or power displays as they like to call them. They de-emphasize what you and I would know as the traditional means of spiritual growth: prayer, Bible study, the teaching of the Word, and the fellowship of other believers. They don't intend to do that and they wouldn't do that in statement or even in print. But because of the very surpassing emphasis on the sensational experiences, those matters tend to get pushed significantly, if not all together, into the background. Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Third Wavers, all will affirm that any Christian who is not experiencing some supernatural events, some supernatural giftedness, some kinds of healings, some kinds of prophecies, words of knowledge, or manifestations of the Spirit of God, in visible tangible ways, is really stuck at a low level of spiritual progress; is denying the full power of God and denying himself the blessing of God.

Charismatic Chaos

Hope that helps.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]So if John Macarthur says it, That must mean that it is settled?
Should we build a shrine to Johnny Boy?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
So if John Macarthur says it, That must mean that it is settled?
Should we build a shrine to Johnny Boy?

John MacArthur researched the history out and wrote it down on paper and posted it. The same history can be found in dozens of books and/or websites. What would you like to do? Contrive your own history? History is history. There doesn't have be a bias against MacArthur just because he posts the facts of history. Check it out for yourself if you are so skeptical.
DHK

 

[atestring]

DKH&lt;
There are other books that give documented history besides those by Johnny Boy.
You might try reading a book by Eddie Hyatt entitled 2000 years of Charismatic History.
Another Book by Vinson Synan called The Century of The Holy Spirit.
A few others are
They Speak With Other Tongues by John And Elizabeth Sherrell,
Nine O Clock in the Morning by Dennis Bennett,
Quenching The Spirit by Ron DeArtega.
Awakened By The Spirit by Ron Phillips.
You will find that Johnny Boy is not all knowing or omnipresent.

 

[atestring]

Correction. The Book Quenching the Spirit was written by Ray Deartega.
In his book he writes about how the Ministry of Jonathan Edwards Was fought by a man by the name of Chancey. (The Johnny Boy of His Day). Chancey still has a following in a church known as the Unitarian Universalist.
The book show throughout history that those who quench the Spirit leave people with nothing but dead religion.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
Correction. The Book Quenching the Spirit was written by Ray Deartega.
In his book he writes about how the Ministry of Jonathan Edwards Was fought by a man by the name of Chancey. (The Johnny Boy of His Day). Chancey still has a following in a church known as the Unitarian Universalist.
The book show throughout history that those who quench the Spirit leave people with nothing but dead religion.

I have read doctored books written by Charismatics, who have done a poor job of "documenting" history, by having one to believe that just because one is filled with Holy Spirit, they have spoken in tongues. Those assumptions are made by Charismatics especially when quoting from church fathers. I prefer to read more neutral and reliable sources, not Charismatics like Sherril who have an agenda to push the Charismatic movement and will change history to do it.
DHK

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atestring:
Correction. The Book Quenching the Spirit was written by Ray Deartega.
In his book he writes about how the Ministry of Jonathan Edwards Was fought by a man by the name of Chancey. (The Johnny Boy of His Day). Chancey still has a following in a church known as the Unitarian Universalist.
The book show throughout history that those who quench the Spirit leave people with nothing but dead religion.

I have read doctored books written by Charismatics, who have done a poor job of "documenting" history, by having one to believe that just because one is filled with Holy Spirit, they have spoken in tongues. Those assumptions are made by Charismatics especially when quoting from church fathers. I prefer to read more neutral and reliable sources, not Charismatics like Sherril who have an agenda to push the Charismatic movement and will change history to do it.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I believe tht Johnny boy has doctored his books!!!!
Sherrell did not start out as a charismatic. he was an independent jounralist covering the Charismatic Movement. If you hasd read his book you would know that!!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
I believe tht Johnny boy has doctored his books!!!!
Sherrell did not start out as a charismatic. he was an independent jounralist covering the Charismatic Movement. If you hasd read his book you would know that!!

Here are two other sources for you to look at:
August 13, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - We believe the Bible teaches that certain sign gifts were given to the Apostles and others in the early churches for a temporary purpose (2 Cor. 12:12). With the death of the Apostles, these sign gifts passed away. Among the temporary sign gifts were tongues and the gift of healing. 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 plainly says tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews. We believe in divine healing and have experienced it in our own lives, but we do not believe that the "gift of healing" is active in the churches today in the same sense in which it was evident in the ministry of the Apostles. We have developed these thoughts in many of our writings and have shown the Scriptures upon which we stand, and we will say no more here. [See, for example, the book The Laughing Revival from Azusa to Pensacola, available from Way of Life Literature.]

It is a fact of history that the sign gifts passed away in conjunction with the passing of the Apostles. The exceptions are found among strange heretical groups that have arisen from time to time. The Pentecostal movement actually traces its roots back through the Roman Catholic mystics ("saints") of the Dark Ages. Consider this quote from Pentecostal Vinson Synan’s book In the Latter Days, which gives the history of the charismatic movement. Synan is one of the most influential historians of the Pentecostal movement today:

"The overreaction to MONTANISM, which led to a belief that the charismata ended with the apostolic age continued until modern times. Although the Roman Catholic church left the door open to miracles in the lives of CERTAIN SAINTS (a few of whom were said to speak in tongues and produce miracles of healing), the church tended more and more to teach that the miracles of the apostolic age ended with the early church" (emphasis added) (Synan, In the Latter Days, page 28).

The chapter from which this quotation is taken is "The Gathering Clouds," and in it, Synan attempts to trace the history of the charismatic movement back to the first century. His mention of the Montanists of the second century and of the Catholic saints during the Dark Ages is significant.

Notice that he does not tell his readers that these Montanists and Catholic mystics were apostates who were following deluding spirits of devils. He contends that the same spirit which now controls Pentecostalism controlled the strange Roman mystics of the Dark Ages. In fact, we believe he is correct in this, but we believe that this spirit is not the Holy Spirit of Truth.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/rootsof.htm

From its inception the "latter rain" Pentecostal movement has been characterized by doctrinal heresy, exaggeration, and deception. I realize these are hard words, but the documentation is irrefutable. This is because the first century messianic and apostolic miracles simply are not being performed by Christians today. Those who claim that the apostolic Pentecostal signs have been restored are forced to accept occultic/hypnotic phenomenon such as spirit slaying and drunkenness and soothsaying (which they often call "the word of knowledge) as apostolic signs, or they are forced to exaggerate and prefabricate the alleged signs. This is exactly what we see occurring in the latest manifestation of the latter rain movement, the Laughing Revival. The latter rain movement of the 20th century is literally strewn with the wreckage of spiritual confusion, error, and deception.

Some will protest that we are using exceptions to paint the entire movement. Please note, though, that the following people are recognized leaders within the Pentecostal movement. They are not exceptions. All of them are listed in the authoritative Dictionary of Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements and in many other histories of Pentecostalism which are in my library. Further, the Lord Jesus Christ warned that we are to judge teachers by their fruits (Matt. 7:15-18). A movement which claims to be the very fullness of the Holy Spirit but which is literally strewn with false teaching, duplicity, immorality, and lunacy is to be rejected.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/strange1.htm

I encourage you to go to the links provided and read the articles in their entirety. They provide well-documeted historical facts.
DHK

 

[atestring]

Cultist David Cloud has the right name. He is spoke about in Jude verse 12.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
Cultist David Cloud has the right name. He is spoke about in Jude verse 12.

I don't know atestring. You say you attend a Baptist Church, but don't seem to have much respect for Baptists. That's kind of unusual don't you think? I give you a source from John MacArthur and you demean him. Then I refer you to a couple of excellent, well-researched articles by David Cloud. But you throw those out the door because he's a "cultist."
I fear that if I quote any Baptist work it will be in vain; it won't be good enough for you.

You want to hear Charismatic history from Charismatics--who have revised their history, just like the Catholics have revised theirs.
Did you know that the Mormons can trace their genealogy all the way back to Adam?? They know their history too.
DHK

 

[atestring]

DKH
Not all Baptist churches demand that you listen to John macartruer
DAvid Cloud is known to put down Southern Baptist Preachers like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and others.
Is it wrong to hear Charismatic history from Charismatics?
If I wanted to know what Methodist believe shouldn't I study John Wesley? Or should I study somene that hates MEthodist?
I do not believe that David Cloud represents mainstream Baptist thinking and more important He does not represent Solid Biblical Christian Thinking.

 

[qwerty]

Vineyard has a position paper responding to the book Charismatic Chaos.

http://www.vineyardusa.org/publications/position_papers/chaos1.htm

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
DKH
Not all Baptist churches demand that you listen to John macartruer
DAvid Cloud is known to put down Southern Baptist Preachers like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and others.
Is it wrong to hear Charismatic history from Charismatics?
If I wanted to know what Methodist believe shouldn't I study John Wesley? Or should I study somene that hates MEthodist?
I do not believe that David Cloud represents mainstream Baptist thinking and more important He does not represent Solid Biblical Christian Thinking.

You are being too close-minded. I never said that David Cloud represented mainstream Baptist thinking. I don't agree with all of his theology: for example, his views on the KJV. But that doesn't mean I throw out all of his research. The research that he has done on cults is excellent. Read the material that he has put out on the Seventh Day Adventists, for example. He uses primary sources, quoting from the work of Ellen G. White herself. It is well researched, well organized and very thorough. He gives an accurate history of the movement as well. Have I any good reason to reject the man's research on the SDA movement? No. Does his view on the KJV, fundamentalist issues such as his stand against Billy Graham, affect his history of the SDA movement? No.

The same is true for the Charismatic movement--a cult like movement having its roots in many heretical cult leaders. Again he goes into the history of each of these individuals and shows how they contributed to origin of the movement. What did William Branham believe, the founder of the Branhamites, and how is he involved? How about Kathryn Kuhlman? Does David Cloud's theological positions "cloud" his judgement to study the history of a movement that has taken grievous unorthodox positions that are contrary to the Bible? If not then why the slander, and why the reluctance to study his works?
DHK

 

[qwerty]

An excerpt from the Vineyard response to Charismatic Chaos:

This book, however, is particularly difficult to read for a number of reasons. MacArthur has the unfortunate weakness of exaggerating his opponents' faults. Not only is the bizarre and the quirky repeatedly emphasized, but MacArthur rarely acknowledges a mainstream view within the charismatic or Pentecostal movements that's balanced, Biblical, and mature. MacArthur, moreover, rarely admits that the Pentecostal/charismatic movement -- now over 400 million strong -- has borne tremendous fruit for the kingdom of God. He simply does not permit himself to acknowledge positive contributions by this enormous and varied movement.

Excessive dogmatism is another fault of MacArthur's book. He lumps heresies, such as the view that human beings can share the deity of Christ, together with questions that should be open for discussion, such as "does the gift of tongues exist today?" Since MacArthur is dogmatic about virtually everything he says (something is either "Biblical" or "patently unbiblical" in MacArthur's book), he leaves absolutely no room for the reader to disagree and yet still be viewed as orthodox.

Indeed, in MacArthur's world, there does not seem to be any legitimate debate about almost any theological issue within Christian orthodoxy. This leads to the troubling conclusion that either MacArthur is unaware of most of the church's history and the legitimacy of differing Biblical viewpoints other than one's own, or he believes that he has received some special revelation regarding what is the truth about all matters. In either case, who can fault the reader for being turned off by MacArthur's excessive dogmatism?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by qwerty:
An excerpt from the Vineyard response to Charismatic Chaos:

This book, however, is particularly difficult to read for a number of reasons. MacArthur has the unfortunate weakness of exaggerating his opponents' faults. Not only is the bizarre and the quirky repeatedly emphasized, but MacArthur rarely acknowledges a mainstream view within the charismatic or Pentecostal movements that's balanced, Biblical, and mature. MacArthur, moreover, rarely admits that the Pentecostal/charismatic movement -- now over 400 million strong -- has borne tremendous fruit for the kingdom of God. He simply does not permit himself to acknowledge positive contributions by this enormous and varied movement.

The entire critique is built on its own strawman. When writing about the doctrinal errors of Islam does one necessarily have to go out of their way to "acknowledge positive contributions by this enormous and varied movement?"

 

[qwerty]

DHK,
On the surface, your response is troubling. You might want to clarify, and you might not want to.

1. Are you equating Islam with the Charismatics?
2. Is Islam a false religion? Is the Charismatic movement a false religion?
3. Are Charismatics Christians?
4. Is there ANYTHING good that Charismatics do for the Kingdom of God?