| Re: |
With all due respect your post just isn't quiet accurate.
YOU STATED:"The difference was that the Puritans dismissed any "feelings" or "personal experiences" that did not line up squarely with scripture"
I RESPOND: I generally agree. However, it must be said that they dismissed things that did not line up with their interpretation of scripture. Scriptural exegesis and study is only really helpful if we do not put our "interpretive" spin on things. If we read scripture with a mind to make it fit within our beliefs we are certain to never grow. Only as we are willing to let our understanding fit the scripture as opposed to making the scripture fit our beliefs can we truly continue to grow in Him. Whether the Puritans were always accurate is certainly open to debate. However, it is unquestionably true that they weighed things through the grid of scripture as they understood it... as should we.
YOU STATED: "Today the Charismatic movement is not that much concerned with sound doctrine and Biblical exegete. The Puritans were".
I RESPOND: As a person that has been part of and ministered within the Charismatic movement .... and had many, many ministers within it that are friends of mine....... I can with 100% certainly and assurance say that is a false accusation. Are there folks who aren't doing due justice to research and study in the Charismatic movement..OF COURSE! Are there folks in the Southern Baptist fellowship that are not doing due diligence in their research...OF COURSE! In any group..OF COURSE! This particular accusation is a false and slanderous charge. It is simply untrue as to the majority of Charismatic ministries. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding that movement that brings you to say that. Please, if your knowledge is from a couple of high profile TV ministries then just stay silent. You only see 1 piece of a 100,000 piece puzzle and are making a decision based on that. Decisions that I know first hand are mistaken.
YOU STATED: I would not call the Puritans "charismatic" or "Pentecostal" because doctrinally they were not.
I RESPOND: I would recommend that you read the writings of Jonathon Edwards. A man most regard as Americas foremost Puritan thinker and theologian as well as being God's instrument in the first Great Awakening. In particular you may wish to consider, "RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS". It remains the gold standard on this topic to this day.
I believe you may find that Edwards was the first Vineyard pastor and Charismatic Calvinist in this country. Regardless, I will tell you this. I have earned degrees from fully accredited universities and also graduated from Rhema Bible Training Center, Ken Hagin's school. The teaching Jonathon Edwards and Ken Hagin Sr. gave on this issue are identical. I know..I was there...I heard it with my own ears. I have also have spent much time reading and absorbing Edwards. They were virtually identical on this matter.
I will close with a published synopsis review of Edwards, RELIGiOUS AFFECTIONS. I believe you will find it to be fascinating reading... and it may well open your thoughts to a much broader Puritan world that you currently are aware of. You may also find it interesting to note the phenomena and manifestations that accompanied the "joy" that happened after the time of conviction and repentance in that wonderful renewal of the First Great Awakening. You may find all of these things have a time and place in which God uses them. Conviction, repentance, renewal, joy, laughter, weeping, heart wrenching conviction followed by joy unspeakable and full of glory... and those may not fit your definition or preconceptions...just keep an open mind is all I am saying. The review follows-
Written in 1746 during the First Great Awakening, Religious Affections remains an important and challenging Christian treatise. Concerned that many people do not display true "religious affections," Jonathan Edwards attempts to "discern...wherein true religion does consist." Balancing between extreme "intellectualism" and extreme "emotionalism," Edwards argues that emotions are an important part of true religion, but that one must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate emotions. He provides both "negative" or unreliable signs of true religious emotions, and "positive" or reliable signs of true religious emotions. Religious Affections is thus profitable for study even today, and many contemporary theologians and pastors have found Edward's work insightful and significant.
| 2011/10/3 12:42||Profile|
| Re: The Pride and Deception of Experience Based Religion|
I don't necessarily agree with the tone of this writing, but it has some good information about experiences and Puritans.
Of course, it is difficult sometimes to interpret "tones" in writing, so just read and judge the material and forget about judging the tone. That is what I did and I got through the whole article. It was enlightening to me.
| 2011/10/3 13:08||Profile|
| Re: |
While I do not have all of your degrees... I did attend a Rhema church (when I say that, I mean the leadership were Rhema grads, and many young people there attended Rhema after high school), so I am very familiar with Hagin.
I also left that church because I found much (VERY much) wrong with "Dad" Hagin's Word of Faith teachings. In fact, he is called the "grandaddy" of WOF.
I consider WOF to be gross error now. I did not before. As I absorbed myself into the Word of God I began to grow in my understanding of scripture and came out of that.
So you and I would disagree on whether Charismatics are concerned about sound Biblical exegete. It is the Charismatic movement that has brought "every wind of doctrine" into the church. The Charismatic movement has brought us clowns like Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Creflo Dollar, etc etc. And Joel Osteen is the logical conclusion to all of that... altho I doubt Osteen is actually the "conclusion". There is more to come.
I'm not picking a fight with you! Please do not think that. I'm just clarifying WHY I said what I said.
I have read Edwards "Religious Affections", and while I would agree with him and with you that emotions and feelings do play a role in our experience with God (He created those things, after all) I would disagree with you that THAT is what makes one a Charismatic or Pentecostal.
There are very distinct DOCTRINAL differences. And you know what they are, or at least you should... since you have all of your degrees and everything. (By the way, I fired a guy with a PhD once. Degrees dont mean much to me. No offense.)
Emotionalism is NOT what makes one a Charismatic or Pentecostal. I been in some services in Fundamental Baptist Churches (as far from Charismatic as you can get doctrinally) and seen much emotionalism.
Doctrine doctrine doctrine. We must have sound doctrine. Thats what Paul preached, thats what Paul exhorted Timothy and Titus to preach. Thats what Paul exhorted the churches in different cities to put into practice...
...and that what people tell us makes one a "religious pharisee" today. Today most Christians exhort other Christians to do just the opposite of what Paul exhorted Christians to in his writings.
Anyway, again... not picking a fight, brother. Just trying to say that doctrine is what makes one a Charismatic or not. Not whether someone exercises their emotions or feelings. And like I said... if our feelings and emotions do not line up with scripture... throw them out and go with scripture.
| 2011/10/3 13:20|
| Re: |
Just a couple of things-
1. I only mentioned "degrees" because I focused on history. It gave me a unique perspective to obtain a history degree with a Christian mindset that looked to see the hand of God moving in the course of Human history. My heart was to find how God had moved historically.. thus my deeper studies of Edwards and The First Great Awakening. My "sheepskins" are buried in boxes somewhere.. haven't seen them in years and years...couldn't care less. I mentioned Rhema because I know first hand. Not hearsay, misinterpreting a writing from a book, prooftexting what I want to find even if taken out of context, or listening to someone who went to school there....I know the truth first hand... and much of what is written against Hagin, Sr.is a flat accusatory lie.
2. You label the Charismatic movement in error. However, as I said, you are looking at a few guys and labeling a massive group of followers of Jesus in error. You did exactly in your post what I said you were doing. You took a few big name tv guys , that have virtually nothing to do with the movement , and label a whole group because of it. Again, I know the people. I know first hand. The accusations you are making are misguided and wrong. It seems you are certainly looking at 1 piece of a 100,000 piece puzzle... and unfortunately that has lead you to some incorrect conclusions. I know first hand that is so.
3. You say emotions do not make one Charismatic or Pentecostal. Who ever said they did? Certainly not me and certainly not my post. It is the belief in and experience of the infilling of the Hoy Spirit with the gifts, power to be witnesses, and blessings that accompany it that makes one experientially a Charismatic/Pentecostal/pick a stripe. In that case I agree with you... it is the doctrinal belief in, and experience of, this infilling/baptism of the Holy Spirit that establishes one as Charismatic/Pentecostal. However, emotions may accompany this in strong doses. They also may not... but they very well may. This does not make one a "heretic" because they experience emotions. God made us with them. I am amazed that you feel comfortable to stand as a self appointed judge as to whether my experience with God and the emotions it stirs in me are "of God". He has no need to ask you for permission to stir anyones emotions as He sees fit. The scripture says virtually nothing about how to judge EMOTIONS so you have basically zero to judge with. As Edwards would have said... you can only tell by the FRUIT in their lives... emotions or manifestations are absolutely of no importance... high emotion or low emotions... doesn't matter .. so quit using them as a means to judge...you really can't tell anything ... good or bad.. . from emotions or manifestations... you have to wait to see the fruit. (Wesley said this to by the way)
4. YOU STATE, "you and I would disagree on whether Charismatics are concerned about sound Biblical exegete. "
I RESPOND: I guess we will. I am Charismatic and extremely concerned over accurate teaching/preaching. I know perhaps another 250 or so ministers that would be considered Charismatic that are as well. Some Calvinists, some Arminians, some a mixture, but they are all excellent exegetes. Your statement is absolutely 100% incorrect. I know so. I know it first hand. You are falsely accusing folks you have no knowledge of. You only see 1 piece of a 100,000 piece puzzle in this case. Please, just hold your tongue. It is in error on this point.
5.YOU STATE: I'm not picking a fight with you! THEN you also say, "While I do not have all of your degrees", and "And you know what they are, or at least you should... since you have all of your degrees and everything. (By the way, I fired a guy with a PhD once. Degrees dont mean much to me" ,
I RESPOND: Someones got an internal issue.....or as Shakespeare said, "Me thinks thou dost protest to much".
Bottom line, I agree with Edwards. Hagin agreed with him as well. I know, I was there, I heard it again and again with my own ears. You are wrongly accusing ministries you know nothing about. You are speaking falsely against hundreds of Charismatic ministers. I know it for a fact. They are friends of mine and I know for 100% sure they are humble minded servants that love their flocks and are excellent exegetes of the scripture. I know it first hand and see it on a weekly basis. Please hold your tongue and quit falsely accusing those you know nothing of. That would be some good fruit to exhibit. IMHO
NOW..to bring the thread back on topic and take it off the hijack circuit...
Yes, there certainly are Charismatic Calvinists. I know many of them. Read Edwards for a look at one of the first and finest IMHO.
| 2011/10/3 14:23||Profile|
| Re: |
You label the Charismatic movement in error.
I did not say that. I said WOF is error. There are many shades of "Charismatic". WOF is not all of "Charismatic", only a branch of it.
It's like saying Presbytarians are in error. There are several types of Presbytarians... which one?
Know what I mean?
| 2011/10/3 14:35|
| Re: |
On post 2011/10/3 at time marker 5:58 you posted ,
"Today the Charismatic movement is not that much concerned with sound doctrine and Biblical exegete"
This is what I was referring to. IE you are labeling the Charismatic movement this way... and that is in error.
In response I stated
I am Charismatic and extremely concerned over accurate teaching/preaching. I know perhaps another 250 or so ministers that would be considered Charismatic that are as well. Some Calvinists, some Arminians, some a mixture, but they are all excellent exegetes. Your statement is absolutely 100% incorrect. I know so. I know it first hand. You are falsely accusing folks you have no knowledge of.
That is specifically what I was referring to. Now... in fairness I will certainly admit that I also know guys in the Charismatic movement that I do not respect because of their laziness in this area.
There are Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, even some Episcopals that I hold in high esteem.... and others who I would never trust. It is like that with all groups. You have authentic people and phonies in every group.... therefore I passionately encourage people to judge by FRUIT and never generalize a group of people.
Nuf' said for my part. Hope we are on good terms.
Blessings Krispy. I just encourage you to cool the judgementalism down and give folks the benefit of the doubt unless they prove you can't. Don't heap groups of people together for blanket criticism. Judge each individual by their own proven strengths or weaknesses.... and remember.... you very well may be wrong in your judgements. No one thinks they are....we all think we are "judging by scripture"... but always be slow to speak as you may be wrong and as of yet unable to see it. Extend the grace to others you would want extended to you if you later found you were mistaken... sincrere.. but mistaken.
Again, hope you have a blessed day Krispy. No hard feelings
| 2011/10/3 15:14||Profile|
| Re: |
Good, glad there are no hard feelings as there shouldnt be. I realize there are many Charismatic brothers. I just think most of them are in error on some important doctrines. I will hold to that.
I did not call them heretics, which is what you are implying.
If I did not think they were in error... I would be one.
Instead I walked away from it.
| 2011/10/3 15:33|
| Re: |
One church denomination that comes to mind is Newfrontiers led started by Terry Virgo. They are more so Pentecostal with active manifestations of the spirit rather then just non-cessationist view as the c.j. mahaney.
| 2011/10/3 16:03||Profile|
| Re: Is there a such thing as Calvinistic Pentecostals?|
I like to use the term hybrid for this issue. If you are familiar with David Wilkerson's preaching, I would consider him hybrid. He comes from Pentecostal roots but I believe his views are not exclusive or extreme on this topic. I believe he preached that we can lose our salvation but it is not as insecure as Armenianism. I think there are a lot of people who believes in a little of both.
As for Francis Chan and his stance on the gifts for today, I think he is a cessationist and holds to it. See his old church's site. What I love about him is his candidness & willingness to examine honestly why he believes what he believes.
I read the Statement of Faith at the school [Eternity Bible College] that Francis founded and really liked the starting sentence which reads "Members of the college board, administrators, and the faculty of EBC recognize that any
statement of faith is a fallible attempt to summarize and systematize an infallible divine
| 2011/10/3 23:40||Profile|