Christian conversion experience: descriptions/analysis/links: input invited

Faith, you have to understand more of where rhe A/G is at and where he is coming from.He specifies: 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 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-26-2005 03:35 PM

Faith, thanks for your patience. http://www.intotruth.org/brn/overheads.htmlTha 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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

It was verified enough at the time for us. The idea of going about to prove our experience as real seems sort of like the people that asked Jesus to perform a sign. As of this date, I would not be comfortable with that.It's up to people to seek the truth for themselves. If they are seeking and are willing to search, it will come to them as they do.I've thought about doing something similar, documenting certain miracles, but then I realize that's been done in the past, and more recently, and people still reject it. I had never met someone that claimed to speak in tongues, except a boy in school, something like 3rd grade and I had no idea that it was, and never really met anyone that said they prayed and received a miracle, but I found when I was investigating these things, a great many people have received miracles, had visions, etc,...Basically, my experience is all of the things that happened in the Bible are still happening today, and actually probably there are many more miracles today than in the Bible times, as more people have come into the kingdom, but people are fooled by secularism and propaganda into not even being aware of real events in history.

There's a little more to say. The experience of "the presence of God" was "real" and "wonderful."That's what I am trying to get you to hang onto, that faith. What concerns me about these critics of they overblow things to the point that they weaken people's confidence and faith. One of the fruit of the Spirit is faith, and I don't want to point fingers, but quoting heresy hunters like Hanegraff raises a big red flag to me.He wrote about the word of faith movement some 15 or more years ago, and there were very real errors in the word of faith movement, materialism being one of them, but it seemed like nearly every one that read his book was struck with fear, and here is the thing.They weren't just concerned that materialism and stuff like that, which had invaded that movement, was wrong and then with faith, could just repent.No, they were told it was a counterfeit spirit, and there were some counterfeit spirits in word of faith churches (and in every church stream I might add), but people became afraid that what they thought was the Holy Spirit was the devil or something in them, and were confused.I see the same thing with this criticism. Faith, I know this is not the best place to discuss this stuff, but frankly, some of these critics basically find genuine errors, and then also criticize the primary good thing God is doing, and fill people with unhealthy fear.What we need is to understand error and repent, not assume because we see something not right about some people in a movement, that the whole thing is wrong.Paul would be branded a heretic if we adopted those standards, considering how bad his churches fell away from sound doctrine. That's Bible, by the way, not preaching my own doctrinal emphasis.Personally, for example, I think the pre-trib rapture thing is harmful and blocks a real understanding of the Book of Revelation, but I am not going to break fellowship over it.These critics often don't help because they don't properly address the error. They want to say the whole thing is wrong, and thus leave people not really developing any discernment at all because they don't discern the false doctrines leading to error, but just assume if it's not perfect or if offensive to their doctrinal emphasis, the whole thing is the devil.The truth is that's nothing but trumpetting one camp's doctrines over another, and it's been done ad nauseum and is in itself one of the most pernicious and destructive aspects of the false religious spirit. I can nearly guarantee you that a lot of the problems you experienced that were hurtful in the church you came out of stemmed from that root, the root of trumpeting one religion over another.I don't see these critics by and large as doing anything different.What we need to do is repent of the root of the evil, and get rid of it. Slamming what the Holy Spirit is doing is not helpful, and wanting to return to more exacting denominationalism and a factional spirit doesn't help either.

Faith, the more conservative Anglicans are upset over what the liberals are doing, but you are falsely judging them, imo. You say this church should remove itself from Anglicanism because of what the liberal Anglicans are doing, but this is one of the larger and more influential churches within the communion, and many African Anglicans are so upset they are threatening to leave.But who are you or I to tell them when to bolt, or when to remain and try to correct things, and how dare anyone judge the revival of a conservative English Anglican church by what some American bishops do!That is not the right spirit. That may appeal because it seems to be upholding righteousness, but God has to lead all of us, and frankly, we are told in the Word not to judge a brother but to be a doer of "the law" in James.If that church were allowing it within their own church, that's one thing but criticizing them for not having left the Anglican church, imo, is uncalled for.

Gilgamesh, you might want to look a little harder.I took a class in college with a Duke professor visiting on women's studies and religion, and one paper in class was done by a guy on Aimmee Simple McPhearson, who led a colorful life to say the least. This was an upper level class, and maybe graduate level but some undergrads could take as an elective. There were not many students in the class, and it was actually very liberal.Well, I was amazed when the guy studying McPhearson said that doctors and others came out to test her and basically prove the healings were fake, but they were genuine. He treated it as historical fact, and the very liberal professor seemed to agree.He questioned a lot about her, whether she ran off with a man, etc,...but after that I began to look at historical accounts and despite people like yourself under the impression there have been no valid proofs of these matters, I found the opposite is the case.Miracles and healings, and all sorts of things have indeed been put to the test and proven.The simple fact there is an inherent bias among some areas of soceity today. It's not that such things have not been proven, cannot be proven, etc,...but that some people refuse to accept the possibility that these things could be real.There's a reason you can talk to someone from England, who lived near Wales, and yet never heard of the Welsh revival. The amazing level of the glory of God being poured out at times is often reported, but quickly forgotten.I'll stand by my assertion that if you want to know the truth and seek for it, you will find it eventually.This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 02:53 AM

Your initial assertion is wrong, and that sort of makes the rest of your post inconsequential.The idea that there is no intellectual path to God is not substantiated. In fact, quite the opposite for many people, although most people probably do not rely on an intellectual path for much of anything, even those that claim they do!But you are confusing the experience of getting to know God with the path to God. Let me give you an example. Let's say I think a scientific truth can be used to create something new and pretty exciting. I arrived there via an intellectual path, right?But as the process unfolds and the creation of the invention takes place, and it really is something special, what man is there out there that will not have some emotional satisfaction from that?But that emotion does not make the path of evidence emotional.You are misrepresenting how many people arrive at faith.

Also, Faith is right. Spiritual experiences are not tantamount to conversion or conversion experiences. In fact, often the actual conversion is not as emotional and strong as some of the experiences which follow after. In other words, the emotions follow the faith, not the other way around.

But you will just move the goalposts. If someone proves a medical miracle happened at a meeting where the person was prayed for, you will demand a "double-blind study" just as I thought. That is the same spirit demanding Jesus, after He did miracles, to do more to convince them.I feel the same way He does on the matter. You can read the Bible to find out what He said.Btw, McPhearson was a controversial charismatic preacher, a household word in her day and one of the most famous people in the world at that time, with mobs of reporters hounding her. She deliberately employed very sensational technigues, was divorced, remarried, founded the Four-Square denomination, etc,...The fact you never heard of her is indicative that you haven't really taken a study of such things that seriously.Btw, I am making no claims as to whether she was true or not. Frankly, I don't know. I know a lot of well-respected clergy denounced her, but sometimes when they came to her meetings, they too fell under the power, and not because they wanted to.She was controversial for a reason though. She did things like wore a bathing suit on the beach, something fairly controversial back then, was considered to have a lot of sex appeal in her voice on the radio. Hollywood at that time considered her sets for dramatic sermons to be of such quality, creativity and ingenuity that they would come out to see what she had done, and copy her.As far as whether she was true, I don't know, but she was real, as were the healings.

I don't mean you quoted Hanegraff. I referred to the author of the article we were discussing.This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 04:32 AM

I don't know if they are authentic or not, but just as a point of order, your statement is probably not that accurate.The dominant form of Christianity now around the world is Pentacostal/Charismatic. Moreover, the 3rd world nations and what be termed 2nd world are growing to be the dominant centers of Christianity. A lot the debates on what is authentic, etc,...that occur in America are not even an issue around the world.But of course, probably most of these Christians around the world never heard of Branham, Aimmee Simple McPhearson, or Kathryn Kuhleman.Also, those are just some of the more controversial evangelists. There are a lot of men of God working in evangelism, even crusade evangelism, that you don't hear about that much.And there are a lot of smaller outreaches with the same miracles. Some folks from our church, which sponsors some orphanages in India, were over there last year, and some mighty miracles occurred, a man blind all his life was healed for instance. He pretty much praised God and danced in a field all night long, and the whole village and that area knew God did a miracle. There was no hype, no fakeness, just God working through His people.

Well, I don't like holding to personal opinions on such things, but prefer to go to the Bible as a standard. It seems strange, but in the Bible, we see that sometimes when Jesus was casting a devil out of someone, it "tore" the person prior to coming out.If that messes with your idea of Jesus' authority, I can't help that. It's the word of God so that's that.Now, at the same time, I am not saying this woman's story is true. I have no idea who she was, what happened, etc,...If all this commotion resulted in her getting delivered from demons, more power to her, as far as I am concerned. I see no biblical reason to criticize her either for sharing her testimony, from her experience.As far as overemphasizing experiences, that's true. That can be and is an error at times.So is overemphasizing peripheal doctrines, applying our own concepts of godliness and what is "dignified" in judging things. It cuts both ways.In fact, some folks can make an idol out of any good thing, doctrine, careers, heck, even their own spouses and families, but let's don't pretend these things are bad in themselves.The problem with those "discernment ministries" is they don't follow the Word enough in judging matters. God in His mercy has given us a perfect example in the Word of a super-charismatic church that got out of whack, and we can see from the Word the best way to correct such a church and noticeably absent is admonition to abandon spiritual gifts or to consider the anointing counterfeit. Quite the contrary, these things are commended.The Corinthian church is a great example for us to look for in the Word, not some dead, bogus religious tradition. Heck, they were getting drunk at church, using spiritual gifts to show off, but Paul didn't say, hey, you know your gifts and anointing are from the devil.No, he rebuked them properly according to the word of God.Unfortunately, these guys do not, imo.

You can erase. Fine with me. If the end result was good though, it was probably a good thing.Having been involved in that sort of thing, not the tossing part mind you, I can attest that it's not the easiest thing all the time, until one learns and grows more in that arena of ministry.Even the Lord rebuked a devil to leave and it did not go right away, but stayed around and begged Him to be sent to the pigs. So if people have to struggle a little more than Jesus, it's not really unbiblical.Same feeling on healing. Healing is just as important for Americans as primitive people. God has always done miracles, in the Old and New Testament. The cessationist argument is not supported scripturally, and moreover, I would argue that Western agnostics need a touch from God in that arena, both to confirm the gospel and to actually bring healing, just as much as 3rd world people.This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 03:37 PM