Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rejection of the Charasmatics and Biblical Literalism
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 1 of 118 (339581)
08-12-2006 4:53 PM


Here is the back history.
Faith writes:
Jazz, since you are a Christian, don't you ever have doubts about what science says when it contradicts scripture?
Which I suppose is a question stemming from my "strange" hybrid position of both being a Christian and fervently rejecting, and activly attacking, Creationism and Biblical Literalism.
I responded:
Jazzns writes:
Sure. I battle with that all the time. I used to let it get to me. Like you, I came from a bit of a charasmatic background. I was baptized Penecostal although I never could get the whole speaking in tounges thing. I HURT me so bad that I was so open to God and he wouldn't give me the gift that was PROMISED. Then I realized that the charasmatics are mostly a sham. My faith was destroyed for awhile. Then I prayed one prayer to God in Jesus's name to help guide me to the truth whatever that may be. It was the most heartfelt prayer that I have ever prayed. I was begging for my eternal soul. It was the most important thing I have ever done. Since then I feel I have never been closer to God because I abandoned literalism.
Sometimes it is not just that science contradicts the Bible, it is because the BIBLE contradicts the Bible. This happened all the time in Bible study and when I would question it there would be this crazy off the wall explanation for why it wasn't REALLY a contradiction. As soon as that happened though, literalism was abandoned anyway. It just took me to many years to figure that out.
: where I identified my transformation from a Biblical Literalist to what I am today through my experiences in a charasmatic church, in particular the Pentecostals.
Faith writes:
Somehow God answered your prayer in terms of an abandonment of literalism? I don't understand how that happened. You don't really say how God answered you.
I guess you read how I also prayed when in a quandary about some charismatic beliefs, but the answer I got did not contradict a literal reading of the Bible at all. Incident after incident that had confused me was answered with the Biblical teaching that showed its falseness -- just about the opposite of what you say happened to you.
I do think it IS possible to abandon the Charasmatics without abandoning literalism. There are plenty of reasons including many Charasmatic movements that are fraudlent, abusive, exclusionary, etc. I just happened to examine both by involvement with the Charasmatics and Biblical Literalism at the same time.
Jazzns writes:
All I have to base my conclusion on is that I felt better about myself and about God after the fact. No longer did I have to perform mental contortions just to get the Bible to jive with both reality and itself.
I was pulled off the edge of abandonment by the realizations I had found. I also realized that unlike the Penecostals prescribe, the holy spirit DOES infill you without the seizures and babbling. One instance that was noteworthy for me was when I was visiting my Grandmothers old church. The rest of my family started up there as regulars and I went to see my mom give a lesson because it was a special week, childrens week. The lesson was not particularly inspiring but I felt my whole body become washed with a sense of joy and happiness just being there. It had nothing to do with my mom or the service in particular. I just cried in pure happiness. It was one step among many that I believe God has given to me to help along the right path.
I can only speak for my own experiences. As such, I believe that literalism is bankrupt.
This is where the interesting statment by Faith was given.
Faith writes:
Sounds to me like God reassured you that the Holy Spirit isn't tied to charismatic interpretations and you then went on to make the leap on your own that literalism, a whole other subject, was bankrupt, because you had mistakenly lumped it together with the charismatic interpretations.
It is a valid criticism for which I had to take a moment to examine. Did I just throw the baby out with the bathwater? After reflecting for a moment I don't believe that the path I took was invalid and I responded as such.
Jazzns writes:
I would argue that if you are going to be a true literalist that you are going to need to lean on much of what drives the charasmatics. Most other interpretations of the NT by other major denominations of Christianity take a MUCH MORE liberal and interpretive perspective of the Bible. If you care to talk about this in a new topic I would enjoy discussing this issue. Just let me know and I will create the topic or you could do it and I will join you.
For me, rejecting the charasmatics and Biblical literalism goes mostly hand in hand. Granted there are some reasons that the charasmatics are frauds apart that is seperate from the issue of Biblical literalism. The charasmatics are also not the only movement within Christianity that espouse literalism. It was two seperate steps that lead from one to the other. The abandonment of the Penecostals, and then the investigation of what true Biblical literalism was. I had to first abandon the church so that my mind was free to even look at the Bible in that way. I had to make that mental and spiritual change before I could even allow myself to go down that path. I think the same would have been true had it not been a charasmatic church but some other literalist church. As long as the church is based upon literalism, I think it IS valid to notice that both the church and the dogma from which it is founded is bankrupt at the same time.
The bolded part of the quote being what I feel is the fodder for a good debate on this issue. I believe what I said there, that it is reasonable to notice that the church and the dogma are wrong at the same time. Faith abandoned the church, but kept some of the dogma. This is also valid as the Charasmatics do not have sole ownership of Biblical Literalism. My belief though is that the more you move away from a literalist interpretation that drives some of these wacko churches, the less "literal" you actually are. In fact, the moment you introduce rationalization in order to eliminate one of the many Biblical contradictions, you have abandoned TRUE literalism.
So, did I throw the baby out with the bathwater when I ditched both the Charasmatics and literalism?
Comparative Religions or Faith and Belief I feel would be appropriate places for this. I let the mod who looks at this decide which is more appropriate.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 5:59 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 4 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 6:20 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 53 by ramoss, posted 08-13-2006 8:17 AM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-13-2006 12:43 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 118 (339599)
08-12-2006 5:32 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 118 (339614)
08-12-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
08-12-2006 4:53 PM


Sounds to me like God reassured you that the Holy Spirit isn't tied to charismatic interpretations and you then went on to make the leap on your own that literalism, a whole other subject, was bankrupt, because you had mistakenly lumped it together with the charismatic interpretations.
It is a valid criticism for which I had to take a moment to examine. Did I just throw the baby out with the bathwater? After reflecting for a moment I don't believe that the path I took was invalid and I responded as such.
Without getting into whether you threw out the baby with the bathwater yet, I do think you have two different subjects going here that you have confused together. God set you free from the charismatic definition of the working of the Holy Spirit, which I agree is a good thing. It seems that He did this quite directly. But He revealed nothing to you about literalism as such. This is a connection you yourself made. I don't make that connection. When I left the charismatic context I looked for other literalist churches. There are plenty of them out there. (And there are some things I miss from the charismatics I have to admit, although I think they have some major things wrong).
I would argue that if you are going to be a true literalist that you are going to need to lean on much of what drives the charasmatics.
The charismatics are Bible literalists, that is true, but so are many denominations that nevertheless do not agree with one another on other points of interpretation.
Most other interpretations of the NT by other major denominations of Christianity take a MUCH MORE liberal and interpretive perspective of the Bible.
It's always risky to get into estimating how many groups share a particular belief, but just from my own experience, most of the churches I'm familiar with are Bible literalist churches, although many of these I would have doctrinal problems with as far as their interpretations go. At least they declare believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God though.
It was two seperate steps that lead from one to the other. The abandonment of the Penecostals, and then the investigation of what true Biblical literalism was.
OK, that's what I gathered. God set you free from the charismatics but you did have literalism lumped together with the charismatics and went on to investigate literalism as such, but God didn't inspire you in that part of your effort as He did concerning the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
I had to first abandon the church so that my mind was free to even look at the Bible in that way. I had to make that mental and spiritual change before I could even allow myself to go down that path.
What do you mean "abandon the church?" All churches or the charismatic churches or what?
I think the same would have been true had it not been a charasmatic church but some other literalist church.
But if it had not been a charismatic church you would not have been struggling with the charismatic interpretation of the gifts, tongues, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, so if it was a literalist church and you were having THAT problem it would have been a separate problem. God seems to have led you out of the charismatic assumptions, but I don't see His hand in your struggles over literalism.
As long as the church is based upon literalism, I think it IS valid to notice that both the church and the dogma from which it is founded is bankrupt at the same time.
I don't understand this distinction you are making, how you understand what "the church" is or its relation to "the dogma."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 4:53 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 7:20 PM Faith has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 118 (339624)
08-12-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
08-12-2006 4:53 PM


rationalism
Jazzns, just curious to see where you are coming from, do you believe someone can experience the presence of God, or should people always assume that they are merely having an emotional reaction to their own thoughts?
I think most of the Bible writers would say experiencing the anointing and presence of God is a real phenomenon.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 4:53 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 6:23 PM randman has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 118 (339626)
08-12-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
08-12-2006 6:20 PM


Re: rationalism
Jazzns, do you believe someone can experience the presence of God, or should people always assume that they are merely having an emotional reaction to their own thoughts?
Of course I believe that someone can experience the presence of God. I can only attribute what I experienced to God. I rejected the rationalization that I was having an emotional reaction to my surroundings or my thoughts becuase in particular they were not very inspiring at the time.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 6:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 6:26 PM Jazzns has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 118 (339634)
08-12-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jazzns
08-12-2006 6:23 PM


Re: rationalism
Of course I believe that someone can experience the presence of God. I can only attribute what I experienced to God. I rejected the rationalization that I was having an emotional reaction to my surroundings or my thoughts becuase in particular they were not very inspiring at the time.
Personally, I agree, but I think others would argue the basis for your belief is entirely subjective and perhaps even irrational. I bring this up because you seem to have a problem with Charismatic and Pentecostal testimonies of their experiences in God, and yet you yourself claim to have experienced God as well. Are you saying their experiences are not real or not inspired by God, and if so, on what basis?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 6:23 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 6:30 PM randman has replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 6:32 PM randman has replied
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 6:36 PM randman has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 118 (339637)
08-12-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-12-2006 6:26 PM


Experience yes, but charismatic experience is questionable
I bring this up because you seem to have a problem with Charismatic and Pentecostal testimonies of their experiences in God, and yet yourself claim to have experienced God as well. Are you saying their experiences are not real or not inspired by God, and if so, on what basis?
I'll answer this too. Christians certainly have direct experience of God and direct leadings from God, but some of the experiences reported by charismatics just don't hold up as from God, and cause believers much unnecessary anxiety -- the common formula for instance that the evidence of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 6:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 08-12-2006 6:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 14 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 118 (339639)
08-12-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-12-2006 6:26 PM


Literalism
Oh, the other subject here, Randman, is Bible literalism. Since you don't hold to a young earth, do you then claim to find evidence for an old earth in the Bible or do you reject a literal reading of Genesis?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 6:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 118 (339643)
08-12-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-12-2006 6:26 PM


Re: rationalism
Are you saying their experiences are not real or not inspired by God, and if so, on what basis?
I know many of the experiences described to me were not real because of the circumstances surrounding them. Fake crying, fake speaking in tongues. The Bible specifically says that speaking in tongues was not meant to be unintelligible babbling but rather a speech that produced a meaning that could be understood by thouse of multiple nationalities.
I am not saying that all the experiences I saw were fake. I know some very pious Pentecostals who REALLY DID cry and shake. When THEY got up from the alter they had snot all over their face, the eyes were red, and their were all sweaty. Whether or not it was God is not up to me to determine. I can only speak for my own experiences and to those that have enough external evidence to be skeptical of their validity.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 6:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:31 PM Jazzns has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 118 (339646)
08-12-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
08-12-2006 6:30 PM


Re: Experience yes, but charismatic experience is questionable
quote:
I'll answer this too. Christians certainly have direct experience of God and direct leadings from God, but some of the experiences reported by charismatics just don't hold up as from God, and cause believers much unnecessary anxiety -- the common formula for instance that the evidence of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.
But who is in the position to arbitrate which experiences are from God and which ones are produced solely from a person's own mind?
You sound as though you are saying that you are, at least in the case of the "speaking in tongues" thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 6:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 7:03 PM nator has replied
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 7:28 PM nator has not replied
 Message 19 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:36 PM nator has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 118 (339649)
08-12-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
08-12-2006 6:50 PM


Re: Experience yes, but charismatic experience is questionable
But who is in the position to arbitrate which experiences are from God and which ones are produced solely from a person's own mind?
You sound as though you are saying that you are, at least in the case of the "speaking in tongues" thing.
Too many obviously excellent Christians have never spoken in tongues for it to be necessary. I never give an opinion about such things that is only my own. I've read a great deal on the subject. The basis for all experience is the Bible -- if the experience contradicts the Bible it's not from God. Open and shut.
In the case of tongues it simply didn't occur after the first few centuries, and has only been revived as a supposed necessity in the last 150 or so years. There was a reason for it in the early church that no longer applies: When the gospel was a new thing it came with "signs and wonders" to verify that its source was God. After it spread and people believed by faith, such signs were no longer needed. The overall message of scripture is that we "walk by faith, not by sight," faith being superior to evidence except in extraordinary situations.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 08-12-2006 6:50 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 08-12-2006 7:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-17-2006 7:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 118 (339653)
08-12-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-12-2006 5:59 PM


First off, just to clear up. When I made references to "the church" I wasn't trying to mean any church, just my church. Sorry. It is a bit of left over baggage from calling it "The Church" for so many years.
But He revealed nothing to you about literalism as such. This is a connection you yourself made.
It derives directly from the dogma of the church. Unless you can help me find it, there is nothing in Acts or after that specifies that the Holy Spirit will not continue to deliver gifts the same as it did at Pentecost. Paul even enumerates tongues as a gift of the Holy Spirit although Corinthians 12 does stand in stark contrast to the REQUIREMENT of tongues preached by most charasmatics.
Besides that, it all started with a number of minor things that I discovered about the Bible that casts doubt over divine protection of accuracy which is something that most literalists espouse.
The one that stands out in my mind as something that caused my the most shock during my research was the additions put into John 8.
Page not found | Bible.org
Should 7:53-8:11 be regarded as genuine, and if so, should it be included in the Fourth Gospel following 7:52? Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.
I discovered this and immediatly had Revelations 22:18 ringing in my ears.
Slowly but surely I started reading the Bible with new eyes. Eyes that I felt were no longer clouded by a preacher standing over me, gripping my head and commanding the Holy Spirit to enter my lost soul. I was able to read the Bible for myself and I also started to question it more although I DID question it a lot during study when I was still in the church.
Genesis 1 and 2 are undeniabley different and contradictory creation stories. The same is true for the flood account. It was also shocking to me to learn that it was the mainstream academic conclusion that these books were NOT in fact written by Moses. There is very little disagreement that 4 different individuals influenced the creation of those books.
No ONLY did this go against what I had learned from the Charasmatics but the rest of my family who attended much more liberal churches.
In the end, literalism also died by the hands of those working to convince me that, for example, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. You actually have to apply a lot of subjective interpretation to get those books to jive with eachother and furthermore with reality. At that point you have abandoned literalism anyway. REALLY what you are trying to preserve at that point is Biblical "Correctness" and such a thing is entirely subjective not to mention defeating the purpose of a claimed God protected work.
I can't deny that the EvC controversy did not also play a part. I had taken geology in college and enjoyed it quite a bit. A Christian friend of mine bought for me "Young Earth" and "The Answers Book" trying to convince me of a young earth and no evolution. I was shocked when I read them with the total falsehoods and innaccuracies contained within. What I new about even elementary geology was enough to pointout the outright distortions contained within. Once I learned more about evolution I was also able to identify the numerous innaccurate claims about that as well.
While none of that really is direct "evidence" per say against literalism, it does speak to the whole concept of Biblical Correctness rather than Biblical Literalism and the drastic measures being taken by some Christians to maintain that. Lying does not even seem to be a barrier to some in this campaign.
I came to the conclusion that a belief in the "correctness" of Genesis was not necessary for my salvation and I feel that such a belief has been validated. I also don't believe that such a belief is a hinderance to salvation.
In conclusion, and more on topic, I feel that my journey to this place in my spiritual life is deeply rooted in the dogma of literalism espoused by in my case, charismatics. I am sure there are other denominations of Christianity that also espouse literalism and I feel it is equally valid to reject them along with their dogma for similar reasons.
To be fair, I can see how you can reject the charasmatics without rejecting literalism if that is your choice. The falsehoods, the pressure, the financial abuse, the politics are all good enough reasons to say goodbye. In my case though, I questioned not only the external negativites of the church but also the doctrine that drove it.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 9:27 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 118 (339654)
08-12-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
08-12-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Experience yes, but charismatic experience is questionable
quote:
Too many obviously excellent Christians have never spoken in tongues for it to be necessary.
Of course it's not necessary, just like it isn't necessary for a person to give away all of their worldly posessions and wear sackcloth and ashes to be considered an "excellent Christian".
But who in the position to arbitrate that it isn't a God-given experience?
quote:
The basis for all experience is the Bible -- if the experience contradicts the Bible it's not from God. Open and shut.
So, who is in the position to decide on the one definitive, unambiguous, crystal-clear interpretation of the Bible so that we may know exactly what it says?
quote:
In the case of tongues it simply didn't occur after the first few centuries, and has only been revived as a supposed necessity in the last 150 or so years. There was a reason for it in the early church that no longer applies: When the gospel was a new thing it came with "signs and wonders" to verify that its source was God. After it spread and people believed by faith, such signs were no longer needed. The overall message of scripture is that we "walk by faith, not by sight," faith being superior to evidence except in extraordinary situations.
Is this your interpretation?
Are you the one who has the correct interpretation of the Bible, then?
Are you the person in the position to arbitrate who's experience is from God and who's is simply a product of their minds?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 7:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 7:38 PM nator has not replied
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 10:06 PM nator has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 118 (339656)
08-12-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
08-12-2006 6:30 PM


Re: Experience yes, but charismatic experience is questionable
Faith, most Charismatics don't teach that tongues is the primary evidence you have the Holy Spirit, nor that if you don't speak in tongues, that you don't have the Holy Spirit. The bottom line here though is all of the disputed Charismatic experiences are things the early apostles engaged in. I think a rule of thumb is that something that either Jesus did, or his immediate followers taught and practiced as standard Christianity is something that no one should be afraid of today, and certainly the gifts of the Spirit qualify as valid in that regard. It is only be reading something into scripture that isn't there, assuming that the gifts must have passed, can you hold to cessasionist theology.
The simple fact is signs and wonders have always been part and parcel of the move of the Spirit of God, Old Testament, New Testament, Church history and today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 6:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 8:29 PM randman has not replied
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 8:52 PM randman has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 15 of 118 (339657)
08-12-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
08-12-2006 6:50 PM


Re: Experience yes, but charismatic experience is questionable
You can't really say for sure schraf. It is a personal thing. Some people might call the experiences that are legitimatly emotional or physical some kind of pathology. Given the circumstances, I happen to think it was God. I also have my opinion as to what was fake and what was not that I outlined to randman above.
I feel, pretty strongly too, that there are a lot of people claiming Godly infilling and acting out the physical "proofs". There are many pressures to do this. You are not a "real" Christian until God proves that he has saved you by infilling you with the Holy Ghost. A "real" Christian is afforded certain political and social rights. For example, in that environment, a girl would never marry an 'unsaved' man, someone who had not yet spoken in tongues.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 08-12-2006 6:50 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024