Are you sure it's the devil?

[radorth]

It is fascinating, and frightening, to read the history of revival and how Christians resisted it more than the world did, as when nearly the whole church was dissing Whitefield's preaching. The whole world went out to hear him and hundreds of thousands were saved. He was filling up the churches of those condemning him!

Doesn't it bother those who condemn revivals because of a few weird things, that the devil is bringing all those people out of witchcraft, alternative religions, gangs and drugs to serve God?

How does that work? Didn't Jesus say the angels must separate the wheat from the tares, lest we uproot some of the wheat?

Sure some of those saved fall away, and their are some things that aren't from God, but the devil is plainly the net loser.

Rad

 

[GojuBrian]

What are you talking about specifically?

 

[Vic C.]

What are you talking about specifically?

I don't know either, Brian. There is no way I would compare the Methodist revivals of Whitefield, or Wesley to the charismatic movement of the last 100 or so years. When Whitefield spoke, people were still, mesmerized. Whitefield once said, "I never observed so profound a silence."

 

[stranger]

What are you talking about specifically?

I don't know either, Brian. There is no way I would compare the Methodist revivals of Whitefield, or Wesley to the charismatic movement of the last 100 or so years. When Whitefield spoke, people were still, mesmerized. Whitefield once said, "I never observed so profound a silence."

Hi Vic,

The gist of the OP is that it is surprising to find resistance to revival from within the church.

I read from Charles Wesley's journal that it was the Calvinists who opposed him the most. At other times Charles fled as the crowd turned against him so I would image Whitefield would not have always observed 'the profound silence'. Perhaps most of the opposition occurred early and when the revival took hold the opposition vanished.

The charismatic movement is more recent (possibly 1960's ff) than the older pentecostal movements.

blessings:

 

[Cornelius]

During the 80s there was a renewal. I remember sitting in a Baptist church, while God was filling the people with the Holy Spirit. The pastor did not believe in it, nor tongues, but he just stood and watched as the congregation started to grow and an excitement started to buzz through the people.Miracles started happening and many people were healed . So many testimonies during those days

He resisted , until God filled him too. Then is was as if a fire was lit and it spread. But sadly, when they decided to created rules and a box for God to get into, God left and they were stuck again with religion.

When we grab a move of God, He always leaves.

Today we see many false revivals, where it is about weird manifestations and people are running to it. I am not talking about those.
C

 

[Vic C.]

I read from Charles Wesley's journal that it was the Calvinists who opposed him the most. At other times Charles fled as the crowd turned against him so I would image Whitefield would not have always observed 'the profound silence'. Perhaps most of the opposition occurred early and when the revival took hold the opposition vanished.

Stranger, you do know Whitefield held to many of Calvin's doctrines. He was more of a Calvinistic Methodist.

 

[follower of Christ]

It is fascinating, and frightening, to read the history of revival and how Christians resisted it more than the world did, as when nearly the whole church was dissing Whitefield's preaching. The whole world went out to hear him and hundreds of thousands were saved. He was filling up the churches of those condemning him!

Doesn't it bother those who condemn revivals because of a few weird things, that the devil is bringing all those people out of witchcraft, alternative religions, gangs and drugs to serve God?

How does that work? Didn't Jesus say the angels must separate the wheat from the tares, lest we uproot some of the wheat?

Sure some of those saved fall away, and their are some things that aren't from God, but the devil is plainly the net loser.

Rad

Paul did seem to say something along the same lines,

Some indeed even preach Christ because of envy and strife, and some also of good will. Those, indeed, preach Christ out of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. But these others preach in love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.
What then? Nevertheless, in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached. And I rejoice in this. Yet, also I will rejoice.
(Php 1:15-18)

... but we as believers are also called to sound doctrine. So while we should be careful in the matter, we are to adhere to the scriptures and what they teach.
We cannot become complacent about instruction just because a few sincere followers end up coming to Christ thru the teachings of a heretic.

Yes, heresies are of the devil...but some who are His come to Him thru those false teachings and end up finding the truth. Ive witnessed it myself in a number of believers around me.

 

[follower of Christ]

He resisted , until God filled him too. Then is was as if a fire was lit and it spread. But sadly, when they decided to created rules and a box for God to get into, God left and they were stuck again with religion.

C

Yeah, that 'box' is called 'self control' and like it or not it IS a fruit of the Spirit...

But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
(Gal 5:22-23)

G1466
á¼ÂγκÃÂάÄεια
egkrateia
eng-krat'-i-ah
From G1468; self control (especially continence): - temperance.

Ive been in charismatic churches friend...and Ive seen FAR too much to believe that the lack of control there is of God. Unbridled emotionalism isnt the Spirit, its disobedience.

 

[radorth]

All good replies.

Some relevant points/ historical facts which might help

1. Seymour and Roberts' meetings were generally in order and they experienced very long periods of silence. Seymour is known to have disciplined a few wackos when necessary. Yes they let almost anyone preach, and some boneheads did so, but that is surely more in line with Paul's instructions than one man preaching. Again, how do you know the Holy Spirit can't run a meeting until you let him do it? Roberts asserts the meetings ran themselves without him doing anything.

2. Why is it a problem if a few wackos interrupt the meetings, if people are being saved and healed? Paul seems to say expressly that it is better that way than having a rigid system of control (F of C's quote applies).

3. The Quakers would let anyone at all speak, even if they were children, and their meetings were clearly in order and they had the longest revival I can find in history, over 100 years as far as I can tell. The Quakers changed the world and were the most enlightened people in the enlightenment, but almost the whole church persecuted them.

I think all of the above leaders were very sensitive to the possibility they would persecute the people of God themselves (uproot the wheat) just as they had been terribly persecuted.

It's almost like, if the church is persecuting you and nit-picking, and people are being saved and serving God again , it means God is behind you.

In other words, if the majority of the church is saying it's the devil or its heretical, it must be God. That's what history is telling us I'm afraid.

Rad

 

[Imagican]

ah..........

read below.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[follower of Christ]

All good replies.

Some relevant points/ historical facts which might help

1. Seymour and Roberts' meetings were generally in order and they experienced very long periods of silence. Seymour is known to have disciplined a few wackos when necessary. Yes they let almost anyone preach, and some boneheads did so, but that is surely more in line with Paul's instructions than one man preaching. Again, how do you know the Holy Spirit can't run a meeting until you let him do it? Roberts asserts the meetings ran themselves without him doing anything.

2. Why is it a problem if a few wackos interrupt the meetings, if people are being saved and healed? Paul seems to say expressly that it is better that way than having a rigid system of control (F of C's quote applies).

3. The Quakers would let anyone at all speak, even if they were children, and their meetings were clearly in order and they had the longest revival I can find in history, over 100 years as far as I can tell. The Quakers changed the world and were the most enlightened people in the enlightenment, but almost the whole church persecuted them.

I think all of the above leaders were very sensitive to the possibility they would persecute the people of God themselves (uproot the wheat) just as they had been terribly persecuted.

It's almost like, if the church is persecuting you and nit-picking, and people are being saved and serving God again , it means God is behind you.

In other words, if the majority of the church is saying it's the devil or its heretical, it must be God. That's what history is telling us I'm afraid.

Rad

Im sorry but we do not cast aside order and sound doctrine justifying it by some being saved.
It isnt nitpicking to OBEY the word of God, Im afraid...tho that seems to be the direction things are headed with many churches.
If there are 'whacko's' who are behaving disorderly in the church then if they will not cease they should be removed from the assembly until they learn some self control.

You sound like you simply want to justify disorder in the assembly rather than wanting to know and obey what GODS word teaches us.

 

[Relic]

... Yeah, that 'box' is called 'self control' and like it or not it IS a fruit of the Spirit...

...Ive been in charismatic churches friend...and I've seen FAR too much to believe that the lack of control there is of God. Unbridled emotionalism isnt the Spirit, its disobedience.

Be not unequally yoked.

varieties of flowers, varieties of trees, varieties of terrains, varieties of songs, varieties of races of people, varieties of cultures, varieties of hosues, varieties of praise, varieties of worhsip. Not all are out of line with the ways of our Lord God. If God made us all to be the same in expression, wouldn't that make us boring and robot like? Borg-like, is what I would call it.

I think there are a variety of denominations and chruches because there are many varied ways in which people choose to express their giving of praises and their joy for and in the Lord. And I don't think Our Creator Father God has a problem with the many varieties becuase HE is the creator of all of us who are not all the same. We are people of many colors in more ways than just skin color or the color of our hair, or eyes, or clothes, or what color we choose paint our homes...etc.

And as far as expression goes.... I believe the Good Lord gave us all a variety of expressing our Praises and Thanksgivings for His as well as for others around us. Life would be so boring if we all lived inside that 'box' that some controlling people want us to be confined inside of without regard to freedom of expression. There are limits, yes, those are to be examined by each one of us in terms asking, What is the motive behind and the root of the expression?

King David..... he chose to run around in his underwear expressing his praise and joy. His wife didn't approve of this behvior at all. But King David thought nothing wrong with his choice of unhihibited expression. Was he so wrong in doing so?
What if the whole city then decided to join him in that form of expression.... that is, running around in their underwear praising the Lord and dancing in the streets half naked? Was King David wrong in what he did? Was his wife correct in speaking out against his being an embarrassment?

What about those in the upper room? Some people thought them to be drunk when they were speaking in tongues while they were worshiping and giving praise to the Lord. Was that by their own choosing to express themselves that way?


I believe God is not opposed to recieving a sincere heart. However, it is when people are copy cats and form rituals that are vain/habits, vain/repetions is when they should be taking a closer look at the root cause of the manifestations that come out of them.

So then yes, I do agree to extent that unbridled emotionism isn't of 'Holy Spirit' only when it is manifested from the roots of vanity.

.

 

[radorth]

Im sorry but we do not cast aside order and sound doctrine justifying it by some being saved.
It isnt nitpicking to OBEY the word of God, Im afraid...tho that seems to be the direction things are headed with many churches.
If there are 'whacko's' who are behaving disorderly in the church then if they will not cease they should be removed from the assembly until they learn some self control.

You sound like you simply want to justify disorder in the assembly rather than wanting to know and obey what GODS word teaches us.

Absolutely false. Please read what I said and did not say before questioning my motives. Seymour disciplined people and had them be quiet or be removed. Seymour himself was described as "having no more emotion than that post."

The Quaker meetings were perfectly in order, (and some leaders claim to have spoken in tongues on occasion then, BTW).

At Azusa, Bartleman says a few proud preachers tried to take over the meetings but God took them out himself. In the early years, the meetings were ordered by the Spirit. The meetings went downhill from there until today we have Pentecostal meetings Seymour himself would shun.

I will say this: simply having everybody sit in perfect rows while one person speaks is totally unscriptural and a hindrance to God. There is a meeting that is pleasing to God in which the Spirit himself chooses the speakers. Are such meetings flawed? Probably. Should we disdain them? No, we should deal with each problem as it arises, otherwise we risk hindering God.

I agree that meetings, (like some of those in Lakeland) can get out of order. Absolutely. But generally any meetings which result in a major net loss for the devil should be criticized hesitantly.

I must say I am getting a little frustrated with folks making black or white assumptions about my posts, because in their minds the issue is resolved either this way or that way. In fact this black/white thinking is why we are divided in the first place. No?

 

[follower of Christ]

Be not unequally yoked.

Which, in CONTEXT, is applicable to believers yoking themselves to UNbelievers...it does not apply within the body itself.

varieties of flowers, varieties of trees, varieties of terrains, varieties of songs, varieties of races of people, varieties of cultures, varieties of hosues, varieties of praise, varieties of worhsip. Not all are out of line with the ways of our Lord God. If God made us all to be the same in expression, wouldn't that make us boring and robot like? Borg-like, is what I would call it.

Thats really nice, but the body is called to unity. We are all different as far as individual callings and gifts go, but we are not to disregard sound doctrine.

I think there are a variety of denominations and chruches because there are many varied ways in which people choose to express their giving of praises and their joy for and in the Lord.

I think you need to read your bible again. Paul VERY clearly chastised the Corinthians for their divisions. We are supposed to be united in doctrine and in spirit. The little differences in nonessentials are fine, but we are not to separate ourselves or judge one another over those things.

There are denominations simply because we are spoiled, immature children who dont know how to get along.

And I don't think Our Creator Father God has a problem with the many varieties becuase HE is the creator of all of us who are not all the same. We are people of many colors in more ways than just skin color or the color of our hair, or eyes, or clothes, or what color we choose paint our homes...etc.

There is a huge difference between variances in NONessential areas of doctrine and division in the body. Apples an oranges, Im afraid.

King David..... he chose to run around in his underwear expressing his praise and joy. His wife didn't approve of this behvior at all. But King David thought nothing wrong with his choice of unhihibited expression. Was he so wrong in doing so?

And does that mean that ALL are called to do so ?
As I recall DAVID did not have CLEAR instruction as far as how he was to behave himself in that particular matter....but WE do in scripture. WE are to be orderly and exhibit SELF control, which is a fruit of the Spirit.

What if the whole city then decided to join him in that form of expression.... that is, running around in their underwear praising the Lord and dancing in the streets half naked? Was King David wrong in what he did? Was his wife correct in speaking out against his being an embarrassment?

See above.
Paul did not INSTRUCT David as to how to behave..Paul HAS given US that instruction.

What about those in the upper room? Some people thought them to be drunk when they were speaking in tongues while they were worshiping and giving praise to the Lord. Was that by their own choosing to express themselves that way?

And again tongues was for a SIGN for those who believe NOT. And we see in Acts there that those who believed not were amazed by them.
And please, lets not exaggerate. It was only SOME who were there that accused them of being drunk.

 

[radorth]

... Yeah, that 'box' is called 'self control' and like it or not it IS a fruit of the Spirit...

...Ive been in charismatic churches friend...and I've seen FAR too much to believe that the lack of control there is of God. Unbridled emotionalism isnt the Spirit, its disobedience.

Be not unequally yoked.

varieties of flowers, varieties of trees, varieties of terrains, varieties of songs, varieties of races of people, varieties of cultures, varieties of hosues, varieties of praise, varieties of worhsip. Not all are out of line with the ways of our Lord God. If God made us all to be the same in expression, wouldn't that make us boring and robot like? Borg-like, is what I would call it.

I think there are a variety of denominations and chruches because there are many varied ways in which people choose to express their giving of praises and their joy for and in the Lord. And I don't think Our Creator Father God has a problem with the many varieties becuase HE is the creator of all of us who are not all the same. We are people of many colors in more ways than just skin color or the color of our hair, or eyes, or clothes, or what color we choose paint our homes...etc.

And as far as expression goes.... I believe the Good Lord gave us all a variety of expressing our Praises and Thanksgivings for His as well as for others around us. Life would be so boring if we all lived inside that 'box' that some controlling people want us to be confined inside of without regard to freedom of expression. There are limits, yes, those are to be examined by each one of us in terms asking, What is the motive behind and the root of the expression?

King David..... he chose to run around in his underwear expressing his praise and joy. His wife didn't approve of this behvior at all. But King David thought nothing wrong with his choice of unhihibited expression. Was he so wrong in doing so?
What if the whole city then decided to join him in that form of expression.... that is, running around in their underwear praising the Lord and dancing in the streets half naked? Was King David wrong in what he did? Was his wife correct in speaking out against his being an embarrassment?

What about those in the upper room? Some people thought them to be drunk when they were speaking in tongues while they were worshiping and giving praise to the Lord. Was that by their own choosing to express themselves that way?


I believe God is not opposed to recieving a sincere heart. However, it is when people are copy cats and form rituals that are vain/habits, vain/repetions is when they should be taking a closer look at the root cause of the manifestations that come out of them.

So then yes, I do agree to extent that unbridled emotionism isn't of 'Holy Spirit' only when it is manifested from the roots of vanity.

.

*Rad stops choking*

Ah, what a breath of fresh air! :yes

 

[follower of Christ]

I will say this: simply having everybody sit in perfect rows while one person speaks is totally unscriptural and a hindrance to God. There is a meeting that is pleasing to God in which the Spirit himself chooses the speakers. Are such meetings flawed? Probably. Should we disdain them? No, we should deal with each problem as it arises, for we risk hindering God.

Huh....
And yet PAUL, Christs CHOSEN apostle, says :

(ASV) But let all things be done decently and in order.

(EMTV) Let all things be done properly and according to order.

(ISV) But everything must be done in a proper and orderly way.

(KJV) Let all things be done decently and in order.

(LITV) And let all things come to be done decently and according to order.

(MKJV) Let all things be done decently and in order.

(YLT) let all things be done decently and in order.
(1Co 14:40)

"order"
G5010
ÄάξιÂ
taxis
Thayer Definition:
1) an arranging, arrangement
2) order
2a) a fixed succession observing a fixed time
3) due or right order, orderly condition
4) the post, rank, or position which one holds in civic or other affairs
4a) since this position generally depends on one’s talents, experience, resources
4a1) character, fashion, quality, style



G5010
ÄάξιÂ
taxis
tax'-is
From G5021; regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character), official dignity: - order.

Are you actually claiming that God cannot operate within an ORDERLY environment ????!????
Why is it that some seem to think that the Holy Spirit = DISORDER and CHAOS ????

.

 

[follower of Christ]

*Rad stops choking*

Ah, what a breath of fresh air! :yes

Which is easy to say when someone agrees with you.
Doesnt make it in line with Gods whole word tho...

 

[radorth]

Are you actually claiming that God cannot operate within an ORDERLY environment ????!????
Why is it that some seem to think that the Holy Spirit = DISORDER and CHAOS ????

.

*Rad grits teeth again*

My my my, how many times must I repeat that I think no such thing?

That the Quaker meetings were without an agenda or a main speaker, yet perfectly in order?

The only logical and intelligent conclusion to an unbiased study of Corinthians is that there must be meetings in which anyone can speak, and "you can all prophesy one by one" and yet they are perfectly orderly!!

And anyone who has diligently studied the early Quaker meetings, Pentecostal meetings or the Wales revival knows that orderly meetings were the rule, not the exception.

Why are people having trouble with that? I honestly don't understand.

Rad

 

[radorth]

Notice it is when "all prohesy one by one," Paul says the unbelievers "fall down on their faces."

Not when one person is up there for an hour effectively claiming to be the arbiter of God's will.

Ironically, it seems God and the world both find most churches a huge yawn. When God truly had his way, the world flooded in and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved or changed. Franklin declared the Great Awakening "wonderful to see" while virtually every church leader dissed it.

Sometimes I think the Reformation has only begun and the church itself is the hindrance. The Catholics persecuted the Luthrens, who persecuted the Baptists, who persecuted the Holiness people who persecuted the Pentecostals, etc, etc.

When was the last time any church let people prophesy "one by one"? In the last major revival perhaps? Faithless men in control of the church agenda, claiming anything they don't experience can't be of God. Could that be the problem, then and now? It's fair to ask these questions, no?

 

[follower of Christ]

Why are people having trouble with that? I honestly don't understand.

Because too many charismatics are out of control and demand that the rest of us are unsaved if we dont conform to their childish antics.