Jude 2

I am in the process of listening to the recordings of a conference held in the early 1990s by a group which included John Piper, Wayne Grudem and several others.

The discussion was on the gifts of the Spirit.


One of the discussion panels listed several criticisms of Pentecostals/Charismatics.

I'd like to quote them here for discussion.


1.... Revival [must]have a sound doctrinal basis

2. Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit, to come and go on his own terms.

3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit

4. ........charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This.......is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them

5. Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ

6. Charismatics can easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts that person is thus a good person and is fit to lead and teach.

The spiritual condition at Corinth, in terms of sanctification, was low and yet there was much evidence of divine power.

7. Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture.

8. Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go.

Gerald, with all due respect:

I tire of this.
If you have disdain for pentecostalism, great. Pick a branch of the Christian tree and climb out on it. Be somewhere that will make you happy, if that is even possible.

Yes, there are lots of things wrong with Pentecostalism... man, there are tons of things wrong with Christianity, period... mankind is messed up overall. You have a ton of facts, lots of criticisms, and quotes from guys like Piper who are fine men but wouldn't know an unknown tongue if he heard it from the lips of the Apostle Paul... the one thing you seemed to miss along the way is Philippians 4:8 ---
"Summing it all up, friends, I'd say you'll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious—the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse. Put into practice what you learned from me, what you heard and saw and realized. Do that, and God, who makes everything work together, will work you into his most excellent harmonies." (The Message)

Name the person, movement, event, political party, church, denomination or anything else (you pick it) and I promise you somebody here can and will pick it apart and point out all the failures and shortcomings.

Remember when Michael O. turned every thread into a treatise on why the Income Tax was illegal, and then why the KJV was the only proper Bible, and then why he was certain 9/11 was some government conspiracy? Remember that? Remember how tiresome that became and how we all started to dread reading any of his posts?

I don't want you to be the new Michael O.

Pastor Gary wrote:Gerald, with all due respect:

I tire of this.
If you have disdain for pentecostalism, great. Pick a branch of the Christian tree and climb out on it. Be somewhere that will make you happy, if that is even possible.

I do NOT understand this reasoning.

THis is the same type of reasoning that says to anyone pointing out several serious leaks in a boat To go find their own boat.

Is that what you are saying to me? The same thing my family has said: If you can't be a good Pentecostal go be a good Baptist?

WHY?

Should the "Everything has problems so shut up about ours" REALLY be the line of thinking about WHAT IS SUPPOSED to be a truer more powerful form of Chrsitianity than non-pentecostals????

Are proffessional baseball players held to the same standards as little league?

Why can the problems never be discussed?

Why can the problems never be admitted?

Why do the problems have to be swept under and hushed up?

Why must we be quiet and not warn people of blaspheming Pentecotals in high places?



IN the first post of this thread (if you bothered to read it) were several reasonably discussable points regarding Pentecostalism.

You have equated me with a nut job, a person who denied reality.

Yet in THIS situation am I the one who has latched onto a fantasy?

Or am I the one pointing to the elephant in the room which everyone pretends isnt there?

How quickly one goes from a gift to message boards to being tiring.

A couple of things;

3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, I have run across this particular wrinkle among Pentecostals more often than Charismatics. The A of G insists on "thebaptismoftheholyspiritwiththeevidenceofspeakingintongues" , as if it's al one word. And the United Pentecostal CHurch ("Jesus Only") doesn't even beieve you are saved unless you speak in tongues. Most charismatics are loosey-goosey enough about their beliefs tha they don't necessarily insist on anything doctrinally.


4. ........charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This.......is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them.

Specious logic. It doesn't take into account that there is more than one kind of speaking in tongues; 1- speaking in an earthly language that the person doesn't know(day of Pentecost, the apostles speaking in tongues and being understood by people in a multiplicity of different earthly languages, 2- speaking in a heavenly tongue that is interpreted for edification, exhortation, and comfort of the Body at large, and 3- speaking in tongues that is not interpreted, wherein one is speaking mysteries to God in a language no man understands and therefore cannot be interpreted. Paul could have been talking about any one or all of those types of glossolalia without there being a basis in logic or fact to assume one cannot speak to God in tongues as often as they want to.

Also, it could reasonably be assumed that Paul is saying that he thanks God he is more obedient God in using the gifts he has been given more often than the Corinthians, who were definitely messed up in a lot of ways.

Lastly, Gary is right, Gerald, this seems to be an obsession with you, and that's sad because you didn't always seem this obsessed with it. To paraphrase what Gary said, I hate to see you go so overboard that you seem flaky. When you start saying things like

Or am I the one pointing to the 300 lb elephant in the room which everyone pretends isnt there?

Oh come on, Gerald. "Everyone pretends (it) isn't there" except you? Isn't it just a bit much for you to claim to be the lone crusader here?

I had questions about the pentecostal/charismatic experience a few years ago, and I still believe that is plenty of reason to be watchful and cautious about the gifts of the Spirit, but scripture enjoins us to that, and the book of Corinthians makes it plain that abuses of the gifts have been around almost as long as the Gifts. That doesn't negate them or the people who practice them. In fact, it could logically be said that the fact that the enemy works so hard at tempting people to abuse the Gifts is evidence that they are real and necessary. If they weren't, there wouldn't be a need to produce counterfeits or misuses of the real thing.

I still believe there is need for a reformation in the body of Christ, but not only the pentecostal/charismatic side. There are plenty of problems in the non-charismatic/pentecostal church too. Anytime you get people together to do anything, they are gonna screw it up somehow. But problems are not the only topic worthy of conversation.

If you'll take a suggestion from someone who loves and appreciates you, and who finds substantial agreement with much of what you say, maybe you should declare your own moratorium on posting about this stuff for a while, at least unless you are responding to someone else's post on it? It might go a long way towards preserving your credibility...

Gerald Creasy wrote:...
One of the discussion panels listed several criticisms of Pentecostals/Charismatics.

I'd like to quote them here for discussion.

1.... Revival [must]have a sound doctrinal basis

this is a criticism? am I missing something?

2. Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit, to come and go on his own terms.

actually, this orthopraxic paradigm is much more prelevant in the more "liturgical" Christian traditions. sounds like someone is on a "witch hunt"

3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit

I have seen this a LOT. I have never found any sound scriptural basis for it, though. I believe that speaking in tongues (Glossolalia) is AN evidence, not THE evidence. but hay, that's been discussed in teh doctrine forum.

4. ........charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This.......is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them

I have heard this as well. though the scriptural reference debunk is hardly a valid refute. When it comes down to it (another perhaps part of the above thread for discussion in the doctrine forum), "whenever they want" isn't probably the case.

5. Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ

yes, this too happens far too often, in my opinion. seeking the emotional "goose bumps up and down my spine", is something that I could never understand. It happens, but it is not something that many pentecostals "seek" (including myself).

6. Charismatics can easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts that person is thus a good person and is fit to lead and teach.

I am guessing that this one is a major reason you posted this. And I have to agree. I have seen a pastor use materials to teach from, from one of those "good people", completely because they had a big church and if it works for them.... bah.

7. Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture.

yes, again, unfortunately, I am going to agree. there are too few Pentecostals that are more interested in teh chill in their spine than in sound doctrine. but the majority ("Characteristically")? I have to say whoa there. I have seen this, but I personally do not think it is a majority at all, again, it appears to be a witch-hunt.

8. Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go.

shouldn't this be said of "Christianity"? can anyone say Trinity? how about Hypostatic Union, and Communicatio Idiomatum? resurrection from the dead, anyone? talk about encouraging a lack of "their" reasoning!

Thank you RamboP for responding to the issues presented:

RamboPreacher wrote:

Gerald Creasy wrote:...
One of the discussion panels listed several criticisms of Pentecostals/Charismatics.

I'd like to quote them here for discussion.

1.... Revival [must]have a sound doctrinal basis

this is a criticism? am I missing something?

I'm not sure about you but revival in my experience has always been defined by how loud the services were, how out of control the people got, and how many people claimed healing.

For instance: A minister came to our local and there was much hype. The church was packed 300...extra chairs were put out. People were loud. People claimed to be healed etc etc. The minister was found to be using decepteive methods to pump up the crowd (I.E. He FAKED things)

WHY can't revival be a renewed fire for the Word of God and what it says?
Where People have a hunger for learning and study

WHY is revial in Pentecostalism SO DEPENDANT upon the emotional experience??

Maybe this is a tad different from having a "doctrinal basis" but it seems to me that study of the word has more of a foundation than the subjective experience of seeing someone claim an unprovable healing, or in cases that I have experienced where the Minister manipulates a crowd into believeing they have seen a miracle.

Mike Vande wrote: Most charismatics are loosey-goosey enough about their beliefs tha they don't necessarily insist on anything doctrinally.

(bold added to "most" for emphasis)

Mike,

I am not exactly sure what your definition of charismatic is or what groups fall into your understanding of this description, but your usage of most seems to be a stretch. I have witnessed some quirky constituents of various church groups through the years, but they are usually the exception and not the rule.

pa

Gerald Creasy wrote:Thank you RamboP for responding to the issues presented:

RamboPreacher wrote:

Gerald Creasy wrote:...
One of the discussion panels listed several criticisms of Pentecostals/Charismatics.

I'd like to quote them here for discussion.

1.... Revival [must]have a sound doctrinal basis

this is a criticism? am I missing something?

I'm not sure about you but revival in my experience has always been defined by how loud the services were, how out of control the people got, and how many people claimed healing.

For instance: A minister came to our local and there was much hype. The church was packed 300...extra chairs were put out. People were loud. People claimed to be healed etc etc. The minister was found to be using decepteive methods to pump up the crowd (I.E. He FAKED things)

WHY can't revival be a renewed fire for the Word of God and what it says?
Where People have a hunger for learning and study

WHY is revial in Pentecostalism SO DEPENDANT upon the emotional experience??

Maybe this is a tad different from having a "doctrinal basis" but it seems to me that study of the word has more of a foundation than the subjective experience of seeing someone claim an unprovable healing, or in cases that I have experienced where the Minister manipulates a crowd into believeing they have seen a miracle.

I see. your point maybe should have read; the criticism is that "revival" in Pentecostals/Charismatics are emotional based, and LACK sound doctrine. I read it backwards. to me it read as if "our" revivals were based on sound doctrine and they were complaining about it. in any case, yes, unfortunately there are many that must have as I mentioned the chill-bumps, in order to discern or "know" that revival is happening, especially if there is a large number of people that would not otherwise be there for a "normal service".

There are some issues with the organization and denomination that I align myself; however, there are issues with ALL other organizations and denominations as well. In fact, I had very seriously considered being RC, based on historicity. The "Full Gospel" (not that others don't actually have a full-Gospel, but used loosely to cover Charismatics and Pentecostals) groups seem to have a more generally acceptable grasp on sound doctrine (in my opinion) than any other group.

What I mean to say is not that everyone or most of "us" have that more complete understanding, it's more like that in the other groups, there are more soteriological issues that I do not agree with, whether in practice or in officially stated doctrine and dogma.

RamboPreacher wrote:There are some issues with the organization and denomination that I align myself; however, there are issues with ALL other organizations and denominations as well. In fact, I had very seriously considered being RC, based on historicity. The "Full Gospel" (not that others don't actually have a full-Gospel, but used loosely to cover Charismatics and Pentecostals) groups seem to have a more generally acceptable grasp on sound doctrine (in my opinion) than any other group.

What I mean to say is not that everyone or most of "us" have that more complete understanding, it's more like that in the other groups, there are more soteriological issues that I do not agree with, whether in practice or in officially stated doctrine and dogma.

Forgive my ignorance: RC?

Again I have to ask: If there are problems with the organization/denomination why MUST the answer be "Leave casue we aint even gonna admit theres a problem"?

Gerald Creasy wrote:

Pastor Gary wrote:Gerald, with all due respect:

I tire of this.
If you have disdain for pentecostalism, great. Pick a branch of the Christian tree and climb out on it. Be somewhere that will make you happy, if that is even possible.

I do NOT understand this reasoning.

That's because you have overlaid your own interpretation onto what I wrote, as evidenced by...

Gerald Creasy wrote:THis is the same type of reasoning that says to anyone pointing out several serious leaks in a boat To go find their own boat.

Is that what you are saying to me? The same thing my family has said: If you can't be a good Pentecostal go be a good Baptist?

WHY?

Should the "Everything has problems so shut up about ours" REALLY be the line of thinking about WHAT IS SUPPOSED to be a truer more powerful form of Chrsitianity than non-pentecostals????

My point -- that you ran past like a bull in a china shop -- is "WE GET IT." The emperor has no clothes... a lot of pentecostals equate emotion with anointing, volume with effectiveness. "WE GET IT." TBN exhibits the worst of the excesses of the fringe... "WE GET IT."

Now that "WE GET IT" you might consider, now and then, that there are some rational, intelligent, balanced, people here and elsewhere who believe in the power of God manifested through the Holy Ghost, but are not crazy lunatic showmen trying to work people into a frenzy and evoke an emotionally cathartic response. "WE GET IT." You have had bad experiences in your local church (apparently) and have extrapolated that to paint an entire movement as seriously flawed.

"WE GET IT."

Some of us got it 100 posts ago. I have even agreed with much/most of your criticisms of the wacko fringes of our movement. My church is about as open a book as we can make it, and you can listen/watch a pile of weekly services --- find such nonsense there and I will apologize openly for it. "WE GET IT."

Gerald Creasy wrote:IN the first post of this thread (if you bothered to read it) were several reasonably discussable points regarding Pentecostalism.

I read it, and the hundreds of other posts you have made on this single topic. Everybody needs a hobby, I guess, but yours is becoming an obsession.

Gerald Creasy wrote:You have equated me with a nut job, a person who denied reality.

No, I didn't. I tried to get my friend, Gerald, to see that any time a person posts hundreds of times on the same subject, it is evidence of imbalance in their life. You are, I hope, more than a one-trick pony. You know a lot about Kentucky, the Civil War, child-rearing, relationship problems, automobiles... and probably stuff I don't even know you know, yet (the point I was trying to make with a little in-your-face tough-love) you have become as predictable as another well-known single-issue poster. If I see your name on a topic, I can almost skip reading the post, because I know what it will be about --- what they ALL seem to be about.

There's a man at my church who is into astronomy. (Okay, astronomy and heavy metal music.) If he walks toward me before or after church I cringe, because I know he is going to ask me if I read the 42-page pdf attachment he emailed me about some star system or galaxy, or did I listen to the burn CD he made me to prove that heavy metal music has a spiritual message and is not demonic. Every week, every time, every encounter... same subjects. As much as I would like to enjoy his company, I tire of the same subjects. It is intellectual novacaine. HE becomes intellectual novacaine.

That's what I was trying to say earlier. You are very close to becoming the one-trick-pony, single-topic kind of poster people ignore, and you are capable of so much more.

pastorables wrote:I am not exactly sure what your definition of charismatic is or what groups fall into your understanding of this description, but your usage of most seems to be a stretch. I have witnessed some quirky constituents of various church groups through the years, but they are usually the exception and not the rule.

pa

Yes, I have to agree with you, it was a bit more than I meant to say. Thank you for the correction.
The definition I am most comfortable with regarding the diference between a pentecostal and a charismatic is that a charismatic is a member of a mainstream denominational church that doesn't preach the gifts of the Spirit as a normal part of Christianity. Usually, they are people who have been church members for a while, and are often born again people, who seek and find a new dimension to their Christian walk.

A pentecostal, on the other hand, is someone who is a member of a church in which the gifts are preached as a normative experience.

In practice, some charismatics tend to be a bit weak on their doctrinal stances, preferring to go by experience rather than doctrine. I know a lot of charismatics who don't insist on speaking in tongues as the only initial eveidence of Spirit baptism. I have known some that are loose enough about doctrine to be easy prey for false teachers and fake revivals.

Pastor Gary wrote:["WE GET IT."

Okay.

What is the responsibility of a COGOP minister/teacher/benchwarmer when he hears the same type of stuff rearing it's head in assembly preaching?

In other words IF WE AGREE what do we do to keep our organization safe and sane? Already, you hear the occultic teachings of Kenyon rearing their head in the Assembly.

How do we stop it? How do we correct it?

I would love to see the COGOP become the MOST Berean of ANY Pentecostal organization.

How can that happen? Is it an unreal Idea?

Gerald Creasy wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:There are some issues with the organization and denomination that I align myself; however, there are issues with ALL other organizations and denominations as well. In fact, I had very seriously considered being RC, based on historicity. The "Full Gospel" (not that others don't actually have a full-Gospel, but used loosely to cover Charismatics and Pentecostals) groups seem to have a more generally acceptable grasp on sound doctrine (in my opinion) than any other group.

What I mean to say is not that everyone or most of "us" have that more complete understanding, it's more like that in the other groups, there are more soteriological issues that I do not agree with, whether in practice or in officially stated doctrine and dogma.

Forgive my ignorance: RC?

Again I have to ask: If there are problems with the organization/denomination why MUST the answer be "Leave casue we aint even gonna admit theres a problem"?

Roman Catholic=RC Roman Catholic Church= RCC.

I have to assume the last question wasn't directed to me, as I freely admit there are challenges in the organization and pentecostalistic views. But that doesn't mean that they are completely and absolutely incorrect.

Pastor Gary wrote:There's a man at my church who is into astronomy. (Okay, astronomy and heavy metal music.) If he walks toward me before or after church I cringe... As much as I would like to enjoy his company, I tire of the same subjects. It is intellectual novacaine. HE becomes intellectual novacaine.

I hope this guy doesn't have internet access... or at least doesn't know about Jude2!

Gerald Creasy wrote:

Pastor Gary wrote:["WE GET IT."

Okay.

What is the responsibility of a COGOP minister/teacher/benchwarmer when he hears the same type of stuff rearing it's head in assembly preaching?

In other words IF WE AGREE what do we do to keep our organization safe and sane? Already, you hear the occultic teachings of Kenyon rearing their head in the Assembly.

How do we stop it? How do we correct it?

I would love to see the COGOP become the MOST Berean of ANY Pentecostal organization.

How can that happen? Is it an unreal Idea?

Being out of the loop per say what is "kenyon"?



Pastor Gary said:

Name the person, movement, event, political party, church, denomination or anything else (you pick it) and I promise you somebody here can and will pick it apart and point out all the failures and shortcomings.

I agree totally