Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-19-2018 10:51 AM
264 online now:
CosmicChimp, frako, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 260 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,456 Year: 19,279/29,783 Month: 1,224/2,043 Week: 269/507 Day: 17/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Christian conversion experience: descriptions/analysis/links: input invited
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 121 of 199 (219662)
06-26-2005 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
06-25-2005 7:32 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
One other thing, the author makes a major error in understanding.

It is not heresy, imo, whether one is premillenial, postmillenial, or amillinial. Making such issues, which are very complicated in the Word, into questions of whether one is a "heretic" or not is completely false.

Most of Church history, no one believed in the pre-Trib rapture. If he wants to believe it fine. Men like Calvin and Luther were actually post-millenialists.

If you accept that Jesus will return, I think you shouldn't demonize a man just because he has a different eschatology than you. The author seems to think disagreeing with the Pre-Trib Rapture is heretical. That is unfounded and incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 06-25-2005 7:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 4:49 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 122 of 199 (219663)
06-26-2005 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
06-25-2005 7:32 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
OK, I have to add more while reading page 2.

First off, he is just wrong claiming all or nearly all River ministries or whatever you want to call employ practices like empty your mouth. I personally conducted a prayer meeting for years with a group of believers where these wild manifestations occurred, and we never did that, not once.

He is just looking at large ministries, movement leaders, and yes, there are a lot of issues, but they had these issues before. They may well be copying a technigue they saw in a meeting, just as men of God did before and still do in other doctrinal camps.

On the transferable anointing, he's just wrong. Laying on of hands by believers for others to be healed and receive an impartation of the Spirit of God is biblical, and frankly something his own church believes in. Every Pentacostal and Charismatic movement before this world-wide acted in the exact same manner. He's just wrong on that.

But I think he misses the heart of the message. The message that of God in giving us a transferable anointing is that we, God's people, can do the work of God in making disciples and ministering to people. We don't have to rely on super-Christians and ministers.

He mentions tongues, and I speak in tongues, but the fact speaking in tongues is less emphasized is, imo, evidence the whole thing is more biblical and making more of a correction in the Church than a departure into a counterfeit spirit. Tongues are real and for today. The teaching the gifts went out with the New Testament is bogus since the Bible teaches the imperfect passes away when the perfect comes, which is the coming of Jesus, when we will no longer see through a glass darkly.

The idea that the New Testament is somehow more perfect, in terms of being the word of God, than the Old is itself heretical. The covenant is better, but it's all the word of God, and either way, we still see through a glass darkly as long as we need to read the Bible.

One day we will see Him face to face.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 06-25-2005 7:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 3:22 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 4:18 AM randman has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 123 of 199 (219668)
06-26-2005 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by randman
06-26-2005 2:59 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Good grief, man, I didn't get half of that out of the article. I guess I'm going to have to reread it. I thought he was quite fair myself. Well I don't have time now but later I'll give it some more thought.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 2:59 AM randman has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 124 of 199 (219671)
06-26-2005 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by randman
06-26-2005 2:59 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Second thought. I don't think he said half those things. Really. You really need to quote him. Trying to figure out what you think he said is a big order.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 2:59 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 4:08 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 125 of 199 (219675)
06-26-2005 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by randman
06-26-2005 2:42 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Third thought.

It is not heresy, imo, whether one is premillenial, postmillenial, or amillinial. Making such issues, which are very complicated in the Word, into questions of whether one is a "heretic" or not is completely false.

Most of Church history, no one believed in the pre-Trib rapture. If he wants to believe it fine. Men like Calvin and Luther were actually post-millenialists.

If you accept that Jesus will return, I think you shouldn't demonize a man just because he has a different eschatology than you. The author seems to think disagreeing with the Pre-Trib Rapture is heretical. That is unfounded and incorrect.

I searched the piece for anyplace where he discussed any kind of millennialism. There are exactly TWO places in the entire document where he uses the term "millennial" at all and these are in the context of discussing a sudden doctrinal sea change in the Assemblies of God of Australia. He is discussing the influence of the revivals on his own denomination, and how without consulting the congregations changes were made to established A/G doctrine to conform them to the beliefs of the revivalists. He identifies a number of heresies the A/G had avoided until then, one of which is the Latter Rain Movement which is definitely heretical on far more than its amillennialism, which is now being forced onto the A/G. This is the ONE place he mentions ONE eschatological view as heretical and he is right -- their version of amillennialism or Kingdom Now or Dominion theology is heretical. You have completely misrepresented his point.

Here is what he says:

http://www.intotruth.org/brn/overheads.html

Under "We Need Leaders" about 4/5 through the first part:

In the early years of the modern Pentecostal movement, there were a number of excesses and abuses of doctrine. As they came to the surface, the Assemblies of God fell on the right side of these issues, and rightfully declared many as heresy. The oneness movement, Signs and Wonders, and Charismatic movements, as well as the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God movement along with its Gnostic and Amillennial (known in some cases as Kingdom Now, or Dominion Theology) leanings were all basically rejected by the Assemblies of God. These movements, their doctrines, practices, and maybe we could even say "culture," did not disappear. For some reason, in some way, it seems that the errors in the Charismatic and Latter Rain movements have crept up on, and in some cases overtaken the Assemblies of God. The "River Revival" movement seems to be a resurgence of many of these past errors, re-packaged to be more appealing in our day. If you do some research on these movements/doctrines I mention, you will see many parallels. ....

The River Revival and the errors that preceded it, has brought the Australian Assemblies of God to the point that they are willing to embrace and accept "Kingdom Now or Dominion Theology." Specifically, the leadership of the Australian A/G forwarded that proposed at their General Council in May of 1999, that the words imminent and pre-millennial be removed from the doctrinal statement relating to the Second Coming of Christ, and the entire tenent relating to the millennium be removed from their Constitution. The Australian Assemblies of God will also be changing their name to the Australian Christian Churches, as well as a number of other controversial changes. This change was not being promoted by a small faction within the church, but from the top leadership. In the end, these doctrinal changes were never presented to the Fellowship, but the leaders did ask for and get approval and permission to ordain those who hold differing views on the second coming of Christ, and the Millenium.

Again, only ONE eschatology is identified as heretical, Kingdom Now, and it is in fact considered heretical by orthodox churches.

I'm also not a pre-millennialist but on the other hand I'm holding all that with a very light hand as I think there's something in most of the various views. Nevertheless his point wasn't to defend pre-millennialism so much as to point out that established A/G doctrine was summarily changed to conform to the revivalist views by a highhanded attitude of leadership which he identifies as a characteristic of the revivals.

This message has been edited by Faith, 06-26-2005 04:52 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 2:42 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 3:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 126 of 199 (219762)
06-26-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
06-26-2005 4:49 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Faith, you have to understand more of where rhe A/G is at and where he is coming from.

He specifies:

The River Revival and the errors that preceded it, has brought the Australian Assemblies of God to the point that they are willing to embrace and accept "Kingdom Now or Dominion Theology." Specifically, the leadership of the Australian A/G forwarded that proposed at their General Council in May of 1999, that the words imminent and pre-millennial be removed from the doctrinal statement relating to the Second Coming of Christ, and the entire tenent relating to the millennium be removed from their Constitution.

First off, what he calls "Dominion Theology" is not heretical, and the clue is the term he uses amillenial. A better term for what he is talking about is coventantal theology which is what Calvin and Reformed theologians believe. It is not heretical as he claims, and it is not really "Kingdom Now" in the sense of suggesting that Jesus will not return.

In fact, what he calls "Kingdom Now" and the clue is "or Dominion Theology" is not the heretical teaching that Jesus will not bodily return which his language leans towards implying that. It's what the Puritians believed in for instance. It stems somewhat from Reformed theology and the Great Commision, but imo, probably has a better balance in that some Calvinists bashed Arminianism (despite them being Calvinists too). I could go on, but basically there has been a tendency historically for Calvinists to bash others on not being Calvinist enough whereas these ideas are presented today as more a mandate to live for Christ in every area of life, but not point the finger so much if you had a hard time accepting one of the 5 points of Reformed theology, such as that Jesus only died for the elect, something I think is misleading, but that gets off.

The point is he makes a pretty big deal about it as the quotes you link to suggest, and he is saying it is heresy to drop the whole pre-Trib, premillenial rapture thing.

I used to wonder how anyone could be amillenial, and I am post-Trib premillenial, but amillenialism has some very good arguments. It's not something to break fellowship over.

On the high-handed leadership problems, believe me it goes both ways.

What he does not mention is these same folks were often very hostile towards "the River" initially, and they operated on the same, and imo probably worse high-handed tactics, and now the tide has turned, he's complaining about it.

Well, let's all take the mote out of our eye first. If you don't like the high-handed tactics of denominationalism, well, neither do I.

But I don't see any real call for repentance there, just a complaint that now the leadership in a denomination has adjusted their views, that they are maintaining control over the organization in that nation.

That's how denominationalism works. What may be happening is an age-old pattern. The new wine folks of the revival are criticized by the old wineskin folks that developed denominations out of past revivals. The new idea eventually tends to form into it's own denomination, either taking parts of the old with it, or just going our on it's own. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should just denounce all denominations, even the A/G as "heretical" compared to the biblical standard.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-26-2005 03:33 PM

This message has been edited by randman, 06-26-2005 03:35 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 4:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 127 of 199 (219764)
06-26-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
06-26-2005 4:18 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Faith, thanks for your patience.

That said, a careful look at many river revival type meetings will reveal that there is something more than emotion, personality and flesh involved. There is clearly a powerful spiritual dynamic and spirit at work in these meetings. Anyone who attempts to attribute the results, happenings, and errors or questionable manifestations of these meetings simply to emotion and personality has not looked closely enough. The question we must ask is: "What spirit is at work?"

http://www.intotruth.org/brn/overheads.html

Tha quote above is the heart of his argument, and it is a good thing to do. There is no doubt it is way beyond psychological. There is a real, powerful spiritual dynamic, even miraculous, at work.

The whole question is whether it is the Holy Spirit or a counterfeit?

He then lists a number of problems with leaders and the way they have moved in larger meetings.

Here is my point. I agree with much of his criticism of these leaders, and I disagreed with them over such things before they became River people, and at times have been victimized via persecution from such leaders.

The problem is with where these folks came from, not where they are going. The problem is the fakeness within Pentacostalism and other church forms, not the anointing.

The state of the ministry is a mess, and the backstabbing, competition, slanders, and worse are deplorable, and there are questionable practices such as pushing people down in a prayer line to make it seem like they got slain in the Spirit that predated the River.

But all that junk he is talking about, in that regard, did not come from the "River" but from the various beliefs and practices of folks prior to this revival.

Take the oft-quoted argument of there not being that much preaching.

In many of the new Revival/River Revival services, the Word of God is not expounded or proclaimed. In some cases, it is never even opened. While it is referred to and spoken about, the scriptures are rarely read, or clearly proclaimed.

Actually, there is generally quite a bit of teaching, much more than the quote suggests and sometimes at great length, but there is less preaching. Part of that is due to the fact that some of the more prominent places that accepted the River flow, the Vineyard specifically, don't preach. Vineyard churches "talk." They don't emphasize tongues either. They like to keep things excessively simple. There are positives and negatives to their approach, but it has nothing to do with the River anointing.

They preached in Brownsville, and that showed that the same anointing could flow in getting people saved.

It is partly understandable though that there is less preaching in a ministry like Rodney Howard Browne's where the message is on receiving more from the Spririt of God. But even he preaches at his home church.

It could be that there is less preaching and expounding in some churches, including the AG for all I know, because perhaps they were not expounding so well. In other words, maybe their expounding was getting in the way of people coming to God, filling the people with false and religious doctrines and so the Holy Spirit has showed up and quieted them while He helps to get His messages to people. Personally, I think there is a lot of truth to that.

The same outbreaks began to occur in 1991 at a meeting I was at when there was preaching, but maybe the message was more in harmony with what God wanted to do. The message was on the Headship of Jesus Christ, Jesus's covering, and against false "covering."

This message has been edited by randman, 06-26-2005 04:11 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 4:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 8:36 PM randman has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 128 of 199 (219801)
06-26-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by randman
06-26-2005 4:08 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
Randman, you seem to be so identified with this revival that you can't stand any criticism of it.

You are trying to excuse some errors of the revival on the basis of their preexisting the revival. I find that interesting, and unfortunately not a point for your side of the argument. Don't you have to ask yourself how if there were such unholy practices among leadership BEFORE the revival, what exactly it was that brought the revival? Why would God bless a church that is in such a condition -- unless He came to change their hearts? But that didn't happen, the practices are just as bad as ever. The most authentic revivals convict and transform the people.

You are also trying to discredit Stephen Pratel on the ground that he is pushing some peculiar Assembly of God thinking? How so? Sounds to me like he's going against the trend in the A/G at the moment and trying to call them back to what's good in their constitution. And isn't Brownsville A/G?

I think it is very risky to criticize such an obviously supernatural move as possibly not of the Holy Spirit, which is reason for extreme caution. However, he appears to have that caution to me, and he does a good job of spelling out the contradictions with the Biblical standard. The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus Christ, and very little testifying of Jesus in any convincing sense goes on there. While I understand that Jesus is the center in some areas of these revivals, principally the A/G church, Pratel raises a good question if this is really Jesus or a false Jesus who is being accommodated to the practices of the day rather than worshipped as Lord.

You say there is lots of teaching, but you don't say much about it, and as Pratel says, the usual kind of teaching in these circles is on the revival itself, and the Bible is merely brought in here and there to support this or that, but is not preached through in depth any longer -- if it ever was in Pentecostal/charismatic churches. The only Pentecostals I know who preach the Bible faithfully are Chuck Smith and the many pastors he's trained, and it's interesting that these revivals haven't touched his Calvary Chapel congregations -- or at least not that I know of.

This message has been edited by Faith, 06-26-2005 08:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 4:08 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 11:20 PM Faith has responded
 Message 130 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 12:07 AM Faith has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 129 of 199 (219855)
06-26-2005 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
06-26-2005 8:36 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
You are trying to excuse some errors of the revival on the basis of their preexisting the revival.

Not really. I could sit here and make pretty near every single major movement in Christianity to be heretical, and scare people. The Hank Hanegraffs of the world are good at that, and it's not that hard to do.

My point is I want to educate people on what really to look for in false teachers and false prophets, not try to pass off some religiosity as a form of godliness which incidentally lacks the power of godliness behind it.

I am familiar with most of the movements in Christianity, at least here in America. I guess in one way I feel close to them all.

I sort of hoped you would as well?

As far as what brought revival, people and leaders hungering for God helped bring it. Rodney Howard Browne was instrumental, and I like the revival part of his ministry.

That doesn't mean I have to like every aspect of it, nor of the other ministries that received and walked with this revival.

Sounds to me like he's going against the trend in the A/G at the moment and trying to call them back to what's good in their constitution.

What was good about it in the first place? The fact they believe in the Pre-Trib rapture? the fact they consider it worth breaking fellowship with other believers over whether they are premillenial or not? If a minister that is Assemblies of God decides after careful study, he no longer has an eschatological view that is premillenial, I am suppossed to think it's a good thing that they boot him out and brand the man a heretic?

Sorry, but the sooner they drop that kind of thing from the Constitution, the better. It's not like anyone is trying to drop the Lordship of Christ or the Resurrection, or even doing something like ordaining homosexuals into the ministry. Basically, he is in an uproar over tangental doctrine.

If the River folks accept the Nicene creed, that ought to be good enough.

And isn't Brownsville A/G?

It should be "wasn't" since it's in the past in terms of nightly meetings, but yep, it is, and he's preaching against it despite the fact that tens of thousands of people gave their lives to Christ in that revival.

He does do OK calling for errors to be repented of, but suggesting the Spirit at work is a counterfeit spirit goes too far, imo.

The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus Christ, and very little testifying of Jesus in any convincing sense goes on there.

I disagree completely, at least with the River churches and meetings I have attended. Btw, I am not in a River church at present, but think it's a good thing. The problem I saw in many churches was essentially spiritual pride, but that's nothing new for churches, especially ones where a lot of good things happen.

but is not preached through in depth any longer -- if it ever was in Pentecostal/charismatic churches

I think that is uncalled for. I am familiar with just about every sort of church out there, and in general there is more teaching and preaching, even in a systematic manner, in Charismatic and Pentacostal churches than any other church stream I am aware of. Just the fact they make more room time-wise, alone, indicates the level of more devotion to teaching the Bible. Show me the church streams and denominations that do more teaching of the Bible.

But if you want to know the truth, we are called to make disciples not just teach doctrine.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-26-2005 11:22 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 8:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 12:45 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 130 of 199 (219878)
06-27-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
06-26-2005 8:36 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
Don't you have to ask yourself how if there were such unholy practices among leadership BEFORE the revival, what exactly it was that brought the revival? Why would God bless a church that is in such a condition -- unless He came to change their hearts? But that didn't happen, the practices are just as bad as ever. The most authentic revivals convict and transform the people.

Upon rereading your post, I thought maybe I should address this point a little more.

First off, I the claim "the practices are just as bad as ever" is wrong. The writer is making a mountain out of a molehill. Most of "the people" I have known that, for example, went to the Toronto meetings and were involved in that did in fact feel convicted and were transformed, sometimes in quite miraculous ways in terms of changes in character.

As far as what brought the revival, the leaders this guys refers to, in some respects, did not bring the revival. The truth is, often, these same leaders oppossed God bringing the revival in their meetings, and tried to stop it. Most all of them oppossed it in fact, and it was only after the Lord rebuked them, at least that's what they say, did they begin to let loose a little, and let God be head over the people and allow the Spirit of God to have His way.

Imo, the Spirit of God brought the revival.

Now, it is true that as the revival came, some ministers identified strongly with it and made a point of spreading the revival. John Arnott made room for the revival, and God seemed to choose that church to be a watering hole for people.

But it's interesting because, take the "more Lord" thing the guy criticizes. Well, that goes back to John Wimber, not to the River stuff. The writer criticizes that, but the fact is the River stuff began to move the Toronto church beyond the Vineyard thing.

I considered it an upgrading by God, not an error, but some things persist.

In England, at Holy Brompton, I am sure plenty of the Anglican (Episcopal) things persisted there as well. But if we were to criticize the River because the chief center for it in England is part of a denominational communion that just ordained a homosexual, that wouldn't be quite fair.

Imo, the same is true for some of this guy's criticisms.

He is focussing on some very visible aspects of it, but I can tell you about men of God called to the ministry across all sorts of denominations through this move.

I knew a guy that was Baptist, and this River move literally knocked him down on the ground, and he felt God calling him to repent and to the begin to answer a call to ministry (he was lukewarm and a little backslidden). He subsequently attended a very conservative Southern Baptist seminary, and last I heard he just started a new church in New England.

He doesn't speak in tongues, and I think he planned on preaching via an expository method, which was what they emphasized in this seminary.

Now, you won't hear about him in the River thing probably, or maybe you will and his church will move in it, but the River restored the man, and countless men of God who went on to serve God where God placed them.

I can accept that making something a denomination is not a good idea, but believe me, the fruit of the River anointing, as far as I have seen, has restored a great many people to their first love, and called them into service. Most are not serving in "River churches." Many have become missionaries, but you know what? That's OK.

God is about building His people, not protecting denominations and movements.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 12:11 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-26-2005 8:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 1:21 AM randman has responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 199 (219883)
06-27-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
06-25-2005 5:44 AM


Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
I have studied glossolalia and claims of xenoglossolalia (reputed actual speaking in a foreign language) extensively in Australian churches.

I can speak in tongues to the complete satisfaction of any Christian church I have attended (where they are not aware that I am an atheist). I taught myself the process merely by observation and practice. I have also taught non-Christian friends to speak in tongues to the satisfaction of unknowing Christians. It is a very real-world phenomena.

Besides being a process that can be simply taught and learnt, some less conscious triggers are repeating multi-syllabillic words, particularly with certain consonant combinations, "L" sounds particularly (eg: hallelujah, praise the Lord etc), witnessing others performing glossolalia and singing, praying and chanting.

The actual process is semi-reflexive, a bit like nervously twitching in your leg or tapping your hand, except in this case your tongue is flapping. You then project a vocal sound and patterned rhythmic utterings come forth. With practice and some semi-conscious input, you can develop the technique to sound more language like, by adding pauses, inflection and emphasis. You can even try new techniques to get completely different sounds.

Importantly, the process is simply not unique to Christianity. As ifen stated above, some pagan churches tap into the same phenomena. It has also not regularly been practised by the Christian church throughout it's history and manifestations. Now, as in the past, there have been probably more Christian churches who believe it is a sign of demonic possession as there have been churches who believe it is an essential indicator of being spirit filled.

In my experience Xenoglossolalia, or actually speaking in a foreign tongue unknown to the speaker has never been independently documented and resides in the realms of church hearsay and anecdote.

Randman, if you honestly believe that your wife spoke coherently in a tongue unknown to her, are you prepared to have that claim independently verified?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 06-25-2005 5:44 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 1:13 AM Gilgamesh has responded
 Message 136 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 1:32 AM Gilgamesh has responded
 Message 160 by lfen, posted 06-27-2005 11:31 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 199 (219884)
06-27-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by MattAShine
06-25-2005 6:38 AM


Hello Matt
Thanks for your post Matt. It made for interesting reading. Consider yourself fortunate that your were not raised in fundamentalism where you would have found it considerably more challenging to shed the yoke of religiousity and develop critical thinking skills.

I agree with Ifen, that this board will often provide great insight into why your decision is sound.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by MattAShine, posted 06-25-2005 6:38 AM MattAShine has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 133 of 199 (219886)
06-27-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
06-26-2005 11:20 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
I have the same broad familiarity with many different kinds of churches and movements and in my experience the word of God is not systematically preached in the charismatic/Pentecostal groups with the exception of Calvary Chapel. It's not that it is ignored but it is selectively taught, and in my experience with a spin that really started bothering me. Systematic teaching may be received by members of such churches, however, through independent Bible study programs.

I don't agree with Assembly of God on most things but Pratel seems to be calling them back to what is Biblical in their foundation.
The same UK organization that published Pratel also has many articles on Kingdom Now / Dominionism and it's not mere "tangential doctrine." And I admire the discernment ministries. They do the Church a necessary service in confusing times when counterfeits and cults are abounding.

But if you want to know the truth, we are called to make disciples not just teach doctrine.

I know it sounds harsh, and given your commitment to the revival simply wrong, but what good does it do to make disciples to a false Christ or false doctrine? I'd like to believe otherwise. I was very involved in those things and there were reasons for that. The experience of the presence of God is wonderful, and much of that was real, and I don't want dry doctrine, but that's the point, such experience can be intoxicating and when it gets away from the truth people are inclined to rationalize it or ignore it for that reason.

I didn't leave it for frivolous reasons. From everything I've read and everything I've experienced, there is overall more falseness in those revivals and in all the "moving in the gifts" circles than the authentic. I know there are genuine Christians involved in these things and some good teaching, but as we know, the devil is quite willing to serve up a little truth with his lies.

I guess there's nothing else to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 06-26-2005 11:20 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 1:48 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 134 of 199 (219887)
06-27-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Good grief, man, you think that learning to imitate glossolalia enough to deceive trusting people PROVES something? That's REALLY funny!

But I really would appreciate a study of tongues that purport to be genuine languages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 12:27 AM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 1:59 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30263
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 135 of 199 (219888)
06-27-2005 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by randman
06-27-2005 12:07 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
In England, at Holy Brompton, I am sure plenty of the Anglican (Episcopal) things persisted there as well. But if we were to criticize the River because the chief center for it in England is part of a denominational communion that just ordained a homosexual, that wouldn't be quite fair.

No, but if there is no repentance for that within the denomination or withdrawal from that denomination because of their not repenting, then THAT suggests something a little less than would be expected from a genuine move of the Spirit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 12:07 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 1:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018