Bible Study Is the Charismatic Movement Dangerous and Heretical?

[daninthelionsden]

I dont want to misunderstand you if you have a complaint about how i am writing feel free to message me otherwise dont correct me in that way in public its rude and i haven't been rude to you thanks .

Give yourself and others time to adapt to your particular style of communication and how experiences shaped yours/theirs opinions and questions. I came in here a few years ago mad at the world and at Christians. It took me time to settle down and settle in. I can still get triggered if I'm not careful due to massive abuse, but I hope I have found a spiritual home.

 

[JLB]

It is true that MacArthur exaggerates in his accusations of the Charismatic movement. But the Gospel consists of Jesus dying on the Cross and shedding His blood for our sins and finishing God's plan of salvation. One does not have to believe in the gifts of the Spirit in order to be saved, although I doubt whether he would be of much real use to the body of Christ, having no spiritual tools to work with.

By the way, I have read Calvin's commentary on John's Gospel and 1 John, and haven't found anything that conflicts with Scripture in it. I guess there is a difference between Calvin himself and Calvinism. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he never says that tongues is of the devil. He describes what he would do if he ever spoke in tongues, and it is exactly the same as what Charismatics believe. It is just that he was a man of his time who believed that the gifts had ceased, but didn't think that it was God who made them cease. The problem is that ultra Calvinists have taken his words and adapted them for their own purpose.

It is basically the same as some Charismatics believing and practising lunatic fringe stuff having adapted the Charismatic truth to suit their own purposes. So just because someone calls themself a Calvinist does not mean they are true to what Calvin actually taught.

I gave you a brief outline of what John MacArthur teaches.

If you want to follow his teachings then that is your choice.





JLB

 

[PaulChristensen]

I dont want to misunderstand you if you have a complaint about how i am writing feel free to message me otherwise dont correct me in that way in public its rude and i haven't been rude to you thanks .

I was just giving you useful information, nothing more. Nothing to get your nose out of joint about.

 

[PaulChristensen]

I gave you a brief outline of what John MacArthur teaches.

If you want to follow his teachings then that is your choice.





JLB

I have viewed quite a number of his messages on Youtube. I have taken issue only those ones where he rubbishes Charismatics and teaches Cessationism.

As a divorced and remarried person, I found his two messages on divorce and remarriage very heartening and encouraging. He wasn't as strict as I thought he would be. He seemed very practical in his approach - unlike some who view divorce and remarriage as the unforgiveable sin. I don't intend to open a debate about divorce and remarriage, but just want to show that MacArthur's teaching is mostly quite sound with just a few "bones" that one has to pick out of it.

Every Bible teacher has their faults and shortcomings. I find John Wesley's teaching just as good as any, even though he tends toward the Arminian view of entire sanctification by faith. I have read Arminius himself and find little that I would view as contrary to Scripture.

The only perfect Bible teachers were the Apostles, who were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we have their teaching in the letters of the New Testament. All the rest of us can only view it through the wrong end of the telescope. Therefore it would be arrogance on my part to say that I have the perfect knowledge to dictate which Bible teachers I consider true or which are false.

I think we are going to be surprised about who actually makes it to heaven, and whom the Lord is going to say, "Well done you good and faithful servant." Because I am aware that if I point the finger at someone, there are three pointing back at me, if a Bible teacher is basically sound according to Scripture but makes a few blunders of doctrine on the way, then I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Believe it or not, but reading through Calvin's commentary on John's Gospel and 1 John, I know that the Holy Spirit spoke really faith-building and encouraging things through his words. Therefore I believe his heart was right with God, although some of his ideas about Election and Predestination are suspect and open to challenge - in the same way that MacArthur's similar views are open to the same challenge.

But in saying all this, I am biased. I am a Reformed, Puritan, believer with a Pentecostal theology, but was trained in the ministry of the Spirit by a Spirit-filled Pentecostal pastor with an Arminian Methodist Holiness background.

 

[danryanpi]

I definitely believe we have Apostles and Prophets today, as the scriptures teach we do and will continue to have, until we all come to the unity of the faith.

Can you site scripture references to support the above statement?

Thank you, Dan

 

[jasonc]

so when paul knowing he was going to exit and peter,why didn't they select a replacement ?

 

[JLB]

I have taken issue only those ones where he rubbishes Charismatics and teaches Cessationism.

Yes sir.


Please understand, when a person says about someone who has the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaks in tongues that they are operating by the devil, and that they are demon possessed, that person is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

They are calling the Holy Spirit who is operating through that person, the Devil.


Plain and simple.




I know you understand what that means.






JLB

 

[JLB]

Can you site scripture references to support the above statement?

Thank you, Dan

My statement —

I definitely believe we have Apostles and Prophets today, as the scriptures teach we do and will continue to have, until we all come to the unity of the faith.

Scripture —


And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, Ephesians 4:11-14

• He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith.

JLB

 

[JLB]

so when paul knowing he was going to exit and peter,why didn't they select a replacement ?

Who says they didn’t.

Timothy and others were groomed for carrying on what Paul personally trained them to do.


Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ... Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6







You ever read the Didache?



JLB

 

[jasonc]

Who says they didn’t.

Timothy and others were groomed for carrying on what Paul personally trained them to do.


Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ... Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6







You ever read the Didache?



JLB

yes and there's no mention of the apostles .and also,timothy and silvanus are pastors not apostles .

so the apostles wouldn't tell the church that they should seek out men to keep the unity of the church ?

you claimed the apostles are needed for that

 

[jasonc]

the didache is a guide ,and most charismatic centertainly aren't gonna allow,boring scripted services .

the dudache implies an order to worship ,the high church does it .mine ,the catholics ,the Lutheran and Anglican and reformed follow that pattern of worship.

 

[jasonc]

timothy isn't mentioned in the didache .no one who is against apolostic sucession,is arguing for it .

so two of these modern day apostles would agree totally ,100 percent on,doctrine if so post these. modern day apostles

your definiton of unity is unifornitaruan

 

[GodsGrace]

Today I have been part of a spirited discussion in the John MacArthur Facebook group concerning his quote that the Charismatic Movement is dangerous. Some of the commenters have accused Charismatics of being demon possessed.

I referred to 1 John by way of challenge to say that accusing brothers and sisters in Christ of being heretical, demon-possessed and therefore dangerous to the body of Christ, is expressing a form of hatred for Charismatics in general and therefore falling well below what the Lord requires of the standard of love toward our brothers and sisters in Christ that show evidence of being truly filled with the Spirit.

Jesus said that having even negative and resentful thoughts about others is equivalent to hating them. Of course, the anti-Charismatic folk on the Facebook page accused me of being hypocritical, even though I'm not even a Charismatic, but a Presbyterian in a Union Methodist/Presbyterian church.

So, I asked them how they defined "Charismatic", and so far they have not answered me.

I wonder, what is your definition of "Charismatic"? It would be interested to know what people thought of Charismatics and who they actually are.

HI Paul,
I've read through a little and it's an interesting discussion.

I'm familiar with Catholic charismatics and they believe what all charismatics do ... in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and how the Holy Spirit really works in us - not something every "Christian" seems to believe nowadays.

I believe that calling them heretical is close to blasphemy,,,if it is not blasphemy itself.
Attributing to the devil works of God is what blasphemy is.
If they ARE demon-possessed, then God is managing a house divided and that doesn't even make common sense,
apart from the fact that Jesus said this.
Matthew 12:25
25And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
Jesus had just healed a demon possessed man and the pharisees attributed His work to satan.

As to heresy, I'll have to agree with JLB in his responses.
A heresy, as you certainly know, is just a teaching that is not accepted by the majority, or the ruling portion, of a Christian belief.

Those that agree with calvinist teachings are following heretical teachings since this was never taught by the early church or even after that until the reformed movement in 1500AD.

I've read Calvin and much of his sermons are exegetically correct and are great sermons.
It's unfortunate that he views God as being the producer of all, including evil, by necessity, even if some calvinists will insist that God does not create evil in their understanding and that man is still responsible for his sins.

But, not to change the subject at hand.

Maybe charistmatics have a great need to SEE, VIEW, the gifts of the Spirit?

I was at an Assembly of God gathering here in Italy a few years ago, and when the altar call was made for receiving the gift of speaking in tongues, I noticed that some persons were trying really hard to get the gift. I don't care for this. God will give the gift to whom He will, and if we don't have it, then we'll have other gifts. The bible does not teach that we'll have EVERY gift available.

 

[jasonc]

also one has judged MacArthur as damned and can't be saved ,nor any cessanionist as these knowingly,blaspheme the Holy Ghost

 

[PaulChristensen]

Yes sir.


Please understand, when a person says about someone who has the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaks in tongues that they are operating by the devil, and that they are demon possessed, that person is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

They are calling the Holy Spirit who is operating through that person, the Devil.


Plain and simple.




I know you understand what that means.






JLB

That's what Jesus said. However, if MacArthur is commenting on the likes of Bethel, Hillsong, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, or Joel Osteen, then he could be correct in his identification of them, because it has been made clear that those pseudo-charismatics are not of the Holy Spirit but of a different spirit.

Because in other areas MacArthur does give sound Gospel oriented teaching, means that he can't be blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because some who is blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot give the teaching that he does. Remember what Jesus said to the disciples who saw others preaching the good news who were not of their particular group. He said not to stop them because whoever was not against Him is for Him.

So, John MacArthur may not agree with our party doctrines, but he is for Christ, and therefore not against Him, so we are in no position to discredit him merely because he sees, in the limited experience of the Charismatic that he has, that it comes from a spirit that is not of God. I think he, like all of us, is looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and quite possibly, he is looking through the wrong end of his telescope at the Charismatic movement.

He does make a distinction between what he calls "Reformed Charismatics" and does not put them in the same category as the "charismania" ones. His beef with them is that they don't put more effort into speaking out against the lunatic ones. But he is wrong about that, because some of prominent Pentecostals such as Michael Brown, the late David Wilkerson, John Wimber, Jack Hayford, and Derek Prince, gave clear teaching that the "charismania" was not of the right spirit and that believers should keep well clear of it.

If you are going to say that Calvinists are not of God, you would have to put all the Reformers, Puritans, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and the many others who won thousands to Christ in their time. If it wasn't for John Calvin and his systematic theology, we would not have the churches we have today with the freedom of religion. Remember, it was Calvinist puritans who first settled North America and were responsible for the foundation of the nation.

All my reading of Calvinist puritan literature has shown me that it is totally Christ centred and teaches faith in the finished work of Christ. But then, John Wesley and the Methodist Holiness teachers were Arminian, but also Christ-centred. They preached faith in the finished work of Christ also. So they were for Christ and not against Him. Therefore Jesus teaches us that just because people don't subscribe to our party and its particular doctrines, if they are for Him and not again Him, we should not forbid them, even by accusing them of being against Christ because they are Calvinist, or Arminian, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Amish, or Mennonite or whatever other brand of the Christian faith they are.

 

[PaulChristensen]

HI Paul,
I've read through a little and it's an interesting discussion.

I'm familiar with Catholic charismatics and they believe what all charismatics do ... in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and how the Holy Spirit really works in us - not something every "Christian" seems to believe nowadays.

I believe that calling them heretical is close to blasphemy,,,if it is not blasphemy itself.
Attributing to the devil works of God is what blasphemy is.
If they ARE demon-possessed, then God is managing a house divided and that doesn't even make common sense,
apart from the fact that Jesus said this.
Matthew 12:25
25And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
Jesus had just healed a demon possessed man and the pharisees attributed His work to satan.

As to heresy, I'll have to agree with JLB in his responses.
A heresy, as you certainly know, is just a teaching that is not accepted by the majority, or the ruling portion, of a Christian belief.

Those that agree with calvinist teachings are following heretical teachings since this was never taught by the early church or even after that until the reformed movement in 1500AD.

I've read Calvin and much of his sermons are exegetically correct and are great sermons.
It's unfortunate that he views God as being the producer of all, including evil, by necessity, even if some calvinists will insist that God does not create evil in their understanding and that man is still responsible for his sins.

But, not to change the subject at hand.

Maybe charistmatics have a great need to SEE, VIEW, the gifts of the Spirit?

I was at an Assembly of God gathering here in Italy a few years ago, and when the altar call was made for receiving the gift of speaking in tongues, I noticed that some persons were trying really hard to get the gift. I don't care for this. God will give the gift to whom He will, and if we don't have it, then we'll have other gifts. The bible does not teach that we'll have EVERY gift available.

I have read Calvin's commentary on John's Gospel and 1 John, and I don't see anything that is contrary to Scripture. In that the Holy Spirit has spoken some great things to my heart from the pages of the commentary. It shows me that his heart was right with God. We have to bear in mind that although Luther brought the Reformation to us, Calvin was the one who formed a systematic theology of it. It was the first Protestant systematic theology, a pioneering work, and with all pioneering work, it was not perfect. He was a man of his time and much of his work was in opposition to the heretical teaching of the Roman Catholic church. He was not living in the environment of freedom of religion that we are today. The first three graduates of his Bible school were arrested by the Catholic authorities and put to death. So when people signed up for his Bible college, they were putting their lives on the line. I don't think that many Bible students in our day would be prepared to sign up at a Bible college knowing that when they graduate they will become martyrs for the faith. So we have to understand the times Calvin and his students lived in.

The problem with people 'trying' to receive the gift of tongues is that they are not taught that there are Scriptural steps of faith in order to receive anything from God. If a person is straining and trying to receive tongues, the devil may be right there to give them a counterfeit, because they are not approaching the gift with faith in the Scriptures. If they are wanting to speak in tongues because in that church, "this is the way we do things here", then their faith is in what that church is teaching, and not in God's promises.

The steps of faith are:
Knowing God's will
Asking
Receiving by faith
Believing that you have received it
Doing what you couldn't do before.

The trouble is that in churches like the AOG, people are directed to tongues before they know in themselves that it is the will of God for them. Unless they know within their own hearts that this is what God wants for them, they will not be able to step out in faith and ask, receive and believe that they have received it. Their faith will be in what their church tells them instead of the Scripture.

When I assist people to receive a gift from God, I sit them down and over a cup of coffee, go through the steps of faith in a calm and clinical manner so that they know their faith is in the true Scriptural steps to receive from God. If they are unsure that it is the will of God for them, I tell them to go away and make sure before we go any further. If they receive something because someone has told them they have to have it to progress any further in their church, they may receive something false, and it won't last. There are many ex-Pentecostals who were induced to receive tongues, and then became disillusioned, left the church, stopped speaking in tongues and then taught against it. Why? Because they received a false tongue because the church told them to, instead of knowing the will of God concerning it. And when they left the church, they left the false tongue behind. But when a person receives the true gift through their faith in God, apart from the church, if they leave the church, the gift remains because it comes from God and not from that church.

 

[JLB]

However, if MacArthur is commenting on the likes of Bethel, Hillsong, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, or Joel Osteen, then he could be correct in his identification of them, because it has been made clear that those pseudo-charismatics are not of the Holy Spirit but of a different spirit.

Made clear by whom?

Have you sat down with each Pastor, and person in those congregations you mentioned and ask them what the believe and teach?

Do you know how they live their lives?



JLB

 

[JLB]

Because they received a false tongue because the church told them to, instead of knowing the will of God concerning it.

How do you know if each and every person received a false tongue?


Is there any teaching in the Bible about false tongues?




JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I went to a church where there was rolling in the aisles and drooling at the mouth.
And that was the mild stuff.
I thought they were crazy and that I would never go there.
But I did go there and they laid hands on me and I started speaking in tongues.
I was baptized in the Holy Spirit and my spiritual life took off from there.
Yes, I become am active member for 13 years until I moved away.
Did I ever roll in the aisles and drool from the mouth?
No, but I've done a lot of other things through the years.

 

[jasonc]

How do you know if each and every person received a false tongue?


Is there any teaching in the Bible about false tongues?




JLB

it happens
does your church ,

allow unintereptsd tongues spoken in worship ,persons rolling on the ground in worship ,climbing chairs and proclaiming healing by running to touch the pulpit ?
I have seen that ,its possible what passes as prophecy isn't at all. a bit of skepticism is wise .I spent 10 years in,that .I can't say that church is a heretic but it is wrong on that ,they are very loud charismatic churches that have no order to service at all or very little .pray and the Spirit shows up.

to say that can't go far is bit much .if a oneness pastor says you need the Holy Ghost ,is the Holy Ghost also the Son or the Father given He won't speak(testify) of himself ?

my brother saved in that church is no longer charismatic .doesn't as I do believe in female pastors ,deacons and that church has verifiable miracles.I can mention Herman Stalvey and they will mention the tent revivals ,the healings ,some might mock others I know that we're there will testify .

there are out there charismatics.my church is rented out by a Spanish charismatic church with a female pastor ,elders who are cessonist have allowed them for 17 years .we had fellowship with them for a Seder service and the 25th anniversary of my church.the founding pastor was raised in a Pentecostal snake handling church in Kentucky .I met him as he is ecumenical and preached at mine .I attended his service twice and his Saturday men's fellowship .I didn't know he wasn't a charismatic until last year .he was burned by his childhood experience .yet when he got going about Jesus he jumped,danced .ya wouldn't know he wasn't .