The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum A question regarding Charismatic-ness

Is everything that the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements do wrong or unbiblical? As I've grown and studied the word, I find some things that they seem to have going for them that other groups that are anti-Charismatic or anti-Pentecostal are lacking (and vice-versa of course).

I ask because, in recent days, I've been having discussions with people at school and such, and there seems to be a growing trend of people either totally gung-ho Charismatic or gung-ho Chariamatics are completely wrong. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground anywhere. I am just curious what the people here on The Highway think on this matter.

Could you possibly provide a list of some of the things which you think Charismatics do "right" or believe that is "right" and which non-Charismatics do which is "wrong" or believe that is "wrong"?

Although sometimes going overboard and falling into some pretty bad errors, Charismatics seem to have a desire for interaction with God, whereas non-Charismatics (generalizing) seem to be satisfied with their "salvation experience" and nothing else.

Non-Charismatics are pretty quick to dismiss even genuine miracles of God and attribute them to something natural, whereas Charismatics seem to actually believe in the supernatural things of the Bible.

Non-Charismatics are careful to try and be discerning of various spirits (which is most deffinitely a good thing) whereas Charismatics just assume that anything that happens at church is of God (which is wrong).

Non-Charismatics hold the Bible as the final authority in all matters (at least this is the claim), but Charismatics put more weight on personal experience (which is wrong).

Here's a good short response to the kind of question you're asking by John MacArthur:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/qacharismatics.htm

Also, in his little book The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective MacArthur lists nine positive things evangelicals can learn from the Charismatic movement:

1. Dead orthodoxy can never replace a warm and vital relationship with God.

2. Scripture is alive and active; it goes beyond movements to pierce the hearts of men.

3. Leadership can never forget to lead.

4. Knowledge cannot replace brotherly love.

5. Emotions must be led by the truth but at the same time truth must not suppress emotion.

6. Human effort will never replace the work of the Spirit.

7. All Christians need to be aggressive with the proclamation of the gospel.

8. People need to participate in worship.

9. Christians need to put greater demands on themselves in regard to commitment.

Of course, in the book, which I highly recommend (in some ways I prefer it to his later Charismatic Chaos), John elaborates more fully on each of these, and I think it is a very fair and charitable list. But we need not embrace the Charismatic movement's many errors and heresies in order to restore passion to our worship and engage the affections in our lives as believers.

I am with you 100% on this statement.

Thanks for the article. It was very enlightening. I fear we sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to Pentecostalism. Because some people have taken it too far, we suddenly assume that everything they do is wrong. Of course, people do the same with Calvinism as well.

Nothing that is distinctive about Pentecostalism is worth keeping. Whatever "baby" there may be, so to speak, is common to all of orthodox Christianity.

I think that your "generalization" is a bit overboard, unless of course, you are including the evan-jelly-cal contingency. Most of the professing believers I have met over the years yearn after God and desire more of His presence in their lives, albeit in a decidedly different way than Charismatics/Pentecostals, who seem to want perceptible manifestations, e.g., faint voices, miraculous signs, etc.

I must disagree with this assessment also, unless you are including the Liberal faction which denies the supernatural altogether. Most level-headed non-Charismatics hold firmly to the existence of the supernatural (to deny the supernatural is to deny the very existence of God) and also miracles, but believe that they are the exception in God's providence rather than something to be expected and/or the norm. We would hold firmly that ALL things occur by God's sovereign decree and providence, but by definition most cannot be called "miracle".

In His grace,

I was including the "evan-jelly-cal" people as well.

I have met believers who desire and yearn after God, but a lot of the people professing to be Christians, and even what I hear behind the pulpit at church on some Sundays, leaves me with the idea that (at least in this area) the non-Charismatics are just "doing church" to get their "get out of hell free card" while the Charismatic people are out sharing what they believe and seeking God to move.

As far as your last response, I admit, I was generalizing quite a bit too much, so I take that statement back.

Pilgrim said:

Right you are on that, but I must say that because now you are preaching to the choir. The perception from the other side however, does not see it that way. I am generalizing of course but when I was a Pentecostal, many of those I ran into did seem like they denied the supernatural.
I now see that as more of a perception thing, rather than a reality thing.

Tom

Agreed.... since you are including "evan-jelly-cals". But mind you, I have little regard to those in that milieu who profess to be Christians as they do not represent historic biblical Christianity, IMHO. Now, as to the Charismatic people, which you apparently perceive to be "out sharing what they believe and seeking God to move." I see this as more of a negative thing than a positive one for these reasons: 1) What they are sharing is not biblical truth but rather more self-induced psychological nonsense. But even more detrimental is that they have another "gospel" which cannot save sinners. 2) Their understanding of this "God moving" is another serious error that diminishes and even in some cases denies the fact that believers are to walk by faith and not sight (experience, emotions, etc.) They are dissatisfied with the biblical truth about how God works in the world and by His Spirit in and through believers to accomplish His will. Additionally, and perhaps consequently, their view results in false expectations and constant disappointment, which they try in desperation to override with their idolatrous "worship"; appealing to, invigorating, and manipulating the emotions.

Bottom line here for me is that the Charismatic movement has little to offer and should not be used in any way as a source of reference. If the non-Charismatic community is lacking in some areas, which they are to be sure, the cure isn't going to be found by looking to nor particularly in borrowing from Charismatics as "good examples".

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."

In His grace,

Pilgrim

I wholeheartedly concur. Although there are many true believers who are charismatic, in my case although I didn't realize it at the time, the emotionalism colored the way I viewed the Bible.
It was a great experience when I was going through it, but it leaves the person who starts seeing the real truth, with scars. Believe me when I say that these scars are hard to heal.

Tom

The Charismatic movement was considered "benign enthusiasm" by most non-charismatic churches when it blossomed here in North America a few decades ago. It was considered harmless at worst, but benign, offering some lessons for the rest of the church to make the gospel more relevant to the world around us, blah blah blah.

But the Charismatic movement is no longer the benign, harmless thing it once seemed. Its modern teachings describe a different god than the God of the Bible. Its practices are Gnostic mysticism rather than the ordinances of God.

I know, I was one. Non-charismatic churches have been slow to recognize this shift in charismaticism from "benign enthusiasm" to outright damaging (if not damning) heresy.

Been there, done that,
Robin

This is something I was unaware of. Thank you! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />