|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/16/2008 2:13:04 PM
|
|
|
BlackCapnHarlock
Posts: 375
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline
|
I grew up in the Charismatic movement from sixth grade until pretty much a few years ago (I'm in my early 30s) and the last few months have been rethinking some of my spiritual experiences.
I have been reading this week 'Charismatic Chaos" by John MacArthur and man it's hitting home.
I have done a lot o foolishness in the past in GOD'S name that wasn't even sound doctrine just foolishness.
From the Benny Hinns and Kenneth Hagins of the world to lesser known folks who turned out to be false prophets and mystics.
Is anyone other than John MacArthur preaching out against the foolishness like pets going to heaven and visions of JESUS while shaving???
Maybe I need too . . .
_____________________________
Ezekiel 16:6 Eze 16:6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/16/2008 3:06:27 PM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1136
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is anyone other than John MacArthur preaching out against the foolishness like pets going to heaven and visions of JESUS while shaving???
There are actually many articles, authors, and groups 'out there' that have confronted the doctrinal error and unBiblical practices of the charismatic movement. And I see people speaking out against it right here on Crosswalk. 
_____________________________
Aperture Science. We do what we must because we can.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/16/2008 5:33:59 PM
|
|
|
PastorPatricia
Posts: 184
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline
|
The charismatic movement has had a lot of bad press and there has been a whole lot of nonsence in the name of God but we don't need "to throw the baby out with the bath water." I am "Spirit filled" and am a very quiet christian. The excessives are just that, there will always be those who get carried away but the Holy Spirit filling has enriched my life in a way that has blessed me and the churches where I minister. I guess the bottom line is if you haven't tried it don't knock it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/16/2008 6:13:30 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Right on, real58! If "charismatic" refers to infilling with the Holy Spirit, then count me in and pray that bunches of other Believers would come to understand and seek the gracious experience of second blessing holiness. If "charismatic" means showing off mystical powers and self-centered legalism, then count me out and preach it down, brother!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/16/2008 10:18:12 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2750
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
Every believer should be charimatic in the sense of being filled and controlled by the HS and operating in His gifts,. In terms of being a mystic it lies in while acknowledging the basics of the faith summarized by the historic creeds/confessions, there are some aspects to our faith the rational mind cannot comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/18/2008 12:18:49 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
The weirdest wackiest and most off-the-wall doctrines have come from pentecostals and charismatics. That said, there are also many pentecostals and charismatics that are among the most doctrinally orthodox christians I know.
I suggest you read the collected writings of either Derek Prince or Charles Simpson and compare them to first the bible and then to main stream christian church doctrines.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/18/2008 1:15:37 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5586
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
The weirdest wackiest and most off-the-wall doctrines have come from pentecostals and charismatics. That said, there are also many pentecostals and charismatics that are among the most doctrinally orthodox christians I know.
I do agree with the above statement, but think the same applies to Messianics as well.
Thsnks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/18/2008 3:26:05 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
Most messianics are at least somewhat charismatic..... but we drift OT.....
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/18/2008 3:33:41 PM
|
|
|
Soxfan
Posts: 1510
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
...second blessing holiness.
Scripture please?
_____________________________
"This would be the first step in apostasy; men first forget the true, and then adore the false.".......C.H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/18/2008 3:46:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Scripture please? Better start a new thread. My point was that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement came directly out of Wesleyan/Holiness tradition and thus I view "charismatic" in a specific historical context somewhat differently than most posting on these Theology forums. I think both real58 and DaveW hinted at the "extremes" of modern charismatic doctrine, some of which I disagree with strongly.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/18/2008 7:57:56 PM
|
|
|
Sammy_S
Posts: 544
Joined: 10/6/2007
From: Brampton,Ontario
Status: offline
|
sigh..I was raised in a pentecostal church but after my salvation and a heart after God's word by his grace i believe that I am hearing a lot of baloney in my church.The only thing keeoing me there right now is that I am waiting on the Lord.
_____________________________
Christ saved you from the wrath of an almighty God. Hell is just a revelation of that. I always tell people this. God saved you from Himself, God saved you for Himself and God saved you by Himself."
Paul Washer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/19/2008 6:40:24 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 978
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
The weirdest wackiest and most off-the-wall doctrines have come from pentecostals and charismatics. That said, there are also many pentecostals and charismatics that are among the most doctrinally orthodox christians I know. I dunno... I kind of find Dispensationalism and Cessationism pretty weird and wacky...
Nobody has to tell me that there is bad doctrine taught in the Charismatic movement. Nobody has to tell me that there is bad doctrine in Christian Mysticism. However, I think it would serve us well to remember that there is bad doctrine taught in Evangelicalism and Liturgical churches as well. Guess what? Anywhere you go, any denomination... if it has a human pastor, there is bad doctrine. This is why the loss of the Apostolic Office is such a blow to Protestantism as a whole. In fact, the main apologetic for the "rightness" of the Catholic church is that there are more than 5000 different denominations of "Protestants"... ranging from the most stoic Lutheran church you have been to, all the way to the most chaotic and "out of (human) order" Latin American Pentecostal church you can imagine. I'm no Catholic, and I really fall inbetween denominational lines as it is...... for that reason, I'm not really that shaken by bad doctrine. May God reveal to me where I am screwing up so badly as whoever I want to finger at the moment.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/19/2008 7:01:54 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
I dunno... I kind of find Dispensationalism and Cessationism pretty weird and wacky... Perhaps. But that in no way rises to the level of error that is routine stuff for many charismatics. Like saying that the Father has a Father Son and Holy Spirit; as do the Son and Spirit, thus rendering the Trinity into a 9-in-one deity. Or saying that we have authority to command God to do our own will. Or saying that unless you speak in tongues you cannot be saved.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/19/2008 11:35:05 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
May God reveal to me where I am screwing up so badly as whoever I want to finger at the moment. That's a fine sentiment for all of us, FGWL! But how does "loss of the Apostolic Office" adversely affect us Protestants in seeking and following God's revelation? Indeed, I would think just the opposite! Why bother with God when the infallible Pope makes up just as good doctrine as the Bible?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/21/2008 4:08:35 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 978
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
Dave... In the list you gave, I see a couple WoF talking points (that I have only heard once or twice from a few individuals), and an uber-oldskool Pentecostalist creedo. Basically, I don't see anything strictly Charismatic in your objection. So answer me this... what is whackier? The idea that God periodically changes the rules of the game and that miracles were for ignorant know-nothings that couldn't discern truth if it slapped them... or the idea that God is still active in the affairs of mankind and still cares about our physical well-being?
drmark. You confuse my sentiment with a pre-understood diatribe. Don't worry, you aren't the first, and I doubt you will be the last. The one advantage that the hierarchical structure has is that there is one person who is recognized as being in authority... meaning they have the power to deal with error in doctrine (provided they are humble enough to deal with true error and not mere misunderstanding). How much different would our world look if Calvin and Arminius had a mediator over them both that would have rendered a conclusive judgement about their disagreement? That is part of the purpose of the Apostle. Because of the reformation, we have a tendency to go as far in the opposite direction as possible from the Catholic church, which means there is pretty much zilch as far as authority structure, accountability for false doctrine, and purity of the faith. That is why the loss of the Apostolic Office is such a blow to Protestantism as a whole. As I have said, I am no Catholic... neither will I defend the Catholic church about much... but there is a reason why the church formed around those who had authority to lead. If you want to see a full discussion of it, feel free to read my "Decentralization of Theology" post on my blog. Luther's revolution (note, were I Catholic, I probably would have said "heresy") was a very good thing and very necessary... except that we have gone from two gigantic forms of Christianity with some error (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) to a multitude of smaller forms of Christianity ranging from those with some error to those with massive error. You would think that if we truly held to Sola Scriptura we would agree a lot more than we do, eh?
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/21/2008 10:37:00 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2143
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I dunno... I kind of find Dispensationalism and Cessationism pretty weird and wacky...
I don't have a problem with cessationism as much as I have a problem with how it's presented. When it is used in the same sentence as heretic, heresy, blasphemy, unbiblical(really isn't 1 Corinthians 12-14 in our bibles without some footnote that says "some texts say blah blah contradicting etc.?"), etc. it grows old. I'm not impressed with some of the arguments either.
quote:
This is why the loss of the Apostolic Office is such a blow to Protestantism as a whole.
I won't argue that. Unfortunately I fail to see where any of the big namers who claim to be such are actually such. It isn't that I believe it is a gift that ceased I just don't believe I've seen someone who actually operates in it. Honestly though if we were christians first the divisions wouldn't be near as bad as they are.
quote:
I have been reading this week 'Charismatic Chaos" by John MacArthur and man it's hitting home.
I'm going to give it a try starting today probably. I can usually handle those making cessationist points much easier than I can some of the junk that Hinn or Copeland spews out. It's much easier to read a Swindoll and skim over the cessationist points than it is to read a Hinn and skim over the goofy points. I have a Galatians study written by hMacArthur that is really good. However doing some web searching I came across what I think was a message transcribed in which he goes off on a I walked into a charismatic church and what I witnessed first thing was unbiblical. My first thought was "I walked into a non charismatic church and their investment portfolio lists and their hiring procedures for their daycare weren't biblical either so what's the point?" We'll see how far I get on it.
quote:
Is anyone other than John MacArthur preaching out against the foolishness like pets going to heaven and visions of JESUS while shaving???
Many are. What is starting to bother me though is that charismatics aren't or I'm not aware of it. If we're going to talk about things like the validity of prophecy we really need to do a much better job of sorting out the wheat from the chaff as far as discernment. Just because someone says they can prophecy, just because they give a word that they claim is prophecy that doesn't make it a prophecy or a correct word. That is becoming my complaint. Same thing with miracles- don't go claiming that you or your church or get together is involved in the miraculous when they aren't. So instead of us cleaning up our own house (which isn't the best or right way to word this since we're still a part of the Body of Christ) we have the MacArthurs, Haanegraafs and Earthless' to do it for us. ; )
If you believe in visions though does it matter if you are shaving, sitting down or singing a hymn in church if you have it?
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/21/2008 10:52:12 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
You confuse my sentiment with a pre-understood diatribe. I have no idea what "pre-understood diatribe" you think I'm confusing, but you're gravely misinformed about the presence of "zilch authority structure" in the early Protestant denominations. It's only been in the last few decades of explosive growth in the non-denominational megachurches that the loss of accountability among leadership has occurred. Indeed, that has often led to false doctrine and impurity of the faith, but do not label "Protestantism as a whole" with such undeserved criticism!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/21/2008 10:03:06 PM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 978
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
I won't argue that. Unfortunately I fail to see where any of the big namers who claim to be such are actually such. It isn't that I believe it is a gift that ceased I just don't believe I've seen someone who actually operates in it. Honestly though if we were christians first the divisions wouldn't be near as bad as they are. Very much agreed. Most of the people that claim to be an Apostle really aren't. If we had some actual meekness and humility we wouldn't be as divided as we are.quote:
I have no idea what "pre-understood diatribe" you think I'm confusing, but you're gravely misinformed about the presence of "zilch authority structure" in the early Protestant denominations. It's only been in the last few decades of explosive growth in the non-denominational megachurches that the loss of accountability among leadership has occurred. Indeed, that has often led to false doctrine and impurity of the faith, but do not label "Protestantism as a whole" with such undeserved criticism! You miss my point, sir. The point is that we started with a couple of guys who were Catholics, who suddenly had no authority over them. So when they began disagreeing (I'm thinking specifically of guys like Huss and Zwingli), they began parting ways. So, yes, it is very new that there has been an explosion of denominations, but it is a problem that is traceable all the way to Luther. So rather than it being an "undeserved criticism", modern protestantism deserves words much harsher than mine. The "generational curse" of the Protestant church is it's constant bucking of authority. Why is it so popular to believe that the Apostolic has ceased to be? Because then there isn't a governing authority in the church. I am not specifically championing the cause of the Pope, I am championing the idea of having authoritative, definitive revelation of truth.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/22/2008 12:57:16 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2143
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have been reading this week 'Charismatic Chaos" by John MacArthur and man it's hitting home.
I just started it today.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/22/2008 8:33:57 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, yes, it is very new that there has been an explosion of denominations, but it is a problem that is traceable all the way to Luther. So rather than it being an "undeserved criticism", modern protestantism deserves words much harsher than mine. Obviously, FGWL, you have missed my point. There is no "problem" when Luther (or any other God-fearing, Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christian) identifies false doctrine in the "Apostolic hierarchy" and sincerely attempts to reform it from the inside. Unfortunately, the hierarchy has felt threatened many times in the past and prefers to excommunicate rather than act on godly criticism. The explosion of Protestant denominations has brought an equal explosion of converts to the Kingdom, something I doubt very much would have occurred if the hierarchy remained in self-aggrandizement mode. The only direction we should point harsh criticism is toward those manipulate doctrine for their own personal gain and that occurs way too much in both the Charismatic Movement and the RCC!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/23/2008 4:19:41 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 978
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
Obviously, FGWL, you have missed my point. There is no "problem" when Luther (or any other God-fearing, Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christian) identifies false doctrine in the "Apostolic hierarchy" and sincerely attempts to reform it from the inside. Unfortunately, the hierarchy has felt threatened many times in the past and prefers to excommunicate rather than act on godly criticism. The explosion of Protestant denominations has brought an equal explosion of converts to the Kingdom, something I doubt very much would have occurred if the hierarchy remained in self-aggrandizement mode. The only direction we should point harsh criticism is toward those manipulate doctrine for their own personal gain and that occurs way too much in both the Charismatic Movement and the RCC! Yet, once again, I find myself clarifiying a position that is relatively easy to understand.
(1) I am not criticizing the happening of the Reformation. It was good and necessary, because the Catholic church was very much abusing it's authority.
(2) Luther did not originally intend to start an entirely new branch of Christianity, but merely to reform the Catholic church. Due, in large part, to the council at Worms, he had to leave all his influence within the Catholic church to save his own life.
(3) Abuse of authority does not necessitate the stripping of all authority at all times. It is because of the newfound liberality in "personal revelation" of doctrine that new denominations spring up like weeds. Basically, the further removed from Apostolic authority you go, the more forms of doctrine you find. That is my basic point.
(4) The Apostles of the New Testament spent much time combating errors in doctrine within the churches that they themselves planted. That is why the loss of the Apostolic Office is such a blow to the purity of doctrine.
(5) Before pointing out the speck in your brother's eye, remove the plank from your own. Evangelical and Reformed churches need to examine themselves for error just as much as the "eeeeeeevil" RCC and Charismatics. While the influx of new converts in the "Third World" is very encouraging, the divisiveness of denominationalism is crippling the church in the Western World... and no answer lies in sight because we believe that there is no such thing as Apostleship, and Pastors have been given free-reign to declare whom they like as heretics for it. Basically, through our denominational borders, the Body is not growing into unity... we just keep adding parts and hope that they might learn to walk. Harsh criticism is most appropriate for all who would follow their doctrine at the expense of their brother... be they Catholic, Charismatic, Reformed, or Evangelical.
Once again, please consider that you might be talking to someone who has felt their opinion out for some time.
Adam
PS, for clarity's sake, I should probably say that I believe that Luther was an Apostle. Now that that is out of the way, perhaps we can avoid the catholic portion of this debate.
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/23/2008 9:19:07 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yet, once again, I find myself clarifiying a position that is relatively easy to understand. I understand your position, Adam - and I mainly disagree with it!
quote:
(1) I am not criticizing the happening of the Reformation. It was good and necessary, because the Catholic church was very much abusing it's authority. We agree on this historical fact.
quote:
(2) Luther did not originally intend to start an entirely new branch of Christianity, but merely to reform the Catholic church. Due, in large part, to the council at Worms, he had to leave all his influence within the Catholic church to save his own life. We agree on this historical fact.
quote:
(3) Abuse of authority does not necessitate the stripping of all authority at all times. It is because of the newfound liberality in "personal revelation" of doctrine that new denominations spring up like weeds. Basically, the further removed from Apostolic authority you go, the more forms of doctrine you find. That is my basic point. I basically agree with the overall thrust of your opinion here. However, new denominations do not automatically "spring up like weeds" solely due to personal revelation. Indeed, the most egregious errors of doctrine in modern Protestantism are found in the non-denominational proliferation of liberal mavericks who deliberately avoid aligning with traditional denominational hierarchy, thus removing any accountability for their possibly faulty theologies. This is my basic point.
quote:
(4) The Apostles of the New Testament spent much time combating errors in doctrine within the churches that they themselves planted. That is why the loss of the Apostolic Office is such a blow to the purity of doctrine. "Purity of doctrine" does not require "Apostolic Office" for its preservation. The Holy Spirit is more than capable in guiding us in all truth! - John 16:12-15
quote:
(5) Before pointing out the speck in your brother's eye, remove the plank from your own. Sorry, Adam, but this disagreement has nothing to do with specks and planks! It is you who has made sweeping and grandiose pronouncements on the perceived "problem" of denominationalism in the Church while the vast majority of growth in the worldwide Church comes from this very mechanism.
quote:
Evangelical and Reformed churches need to examine themselves for error just as much as the "eeeeeeevil" RCC and Charismatics. Churches are not inherently evil, only the hearts of those individuals who constitute them. History shows that doctrinal error develops more readily in systems with extremes of leadership, such as the RCC and non-denominational megachurch mavericks. That is precisely why most Evangelical and Reformed churches have governmental structure which ensures accountability through checks and balances.
quote:
Once again, please consider that you might be talking to someone who has felt their opinion out for some time. I appreciate the effort you have put into this issue, Adam. My only concern is that you examine your motives before rejecting all aspects of denominationalism.
quote:
PS, for clarity's sake, I should probably say that I believe that Luther was an Apostle. Now that that is out of the way, perhaps we can avoid the catholic portion of this debate. Personally, I would add Arminius and Wesley to the short list of "modern" Apostles. Neither one of them had any desire to break away from their lifelong denominational affiliation either, but God apparently had different plans for their followers!
I've said my piece and have no real purpose in continuing to debate what appears to be an issue we must agree to disagree on. Please have the final word, Adam, if you wish.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charismatics = Mystics??? - 8/24/2008 4:28:01 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 978
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
I understand your position, Adam - and I mainly disagree with it! A most respectable proclamation, indeed... I shall use the same amount of candor in my response... skipping past the parts we have already agreed on, of course.quote:
I basically agree with the overall thrust of your opinion here. However, new denominations do not automatically "spring up like weeds" solely due to personal revelation. Indeed, the most egregious errors of doctrine in modern Protestantism are found in the non-denominational proliferation of liberal mavericks who deliberately avoid aligning with traditional denominational hierarchy, thus removing any accountability for their possibly faulty theologies. This is my basic point. A couple of points to be made here. Firstly, I did not make a judgement of all denominationalism or new denominations, for that matter. What I did say is that multitudes of new denominations because of a disagreement over doctrine (such as infant baptism, speaking in tongues, that kind of thing) that generally involves some kind of "special revelation" or new system of study... or, perhaps, a reclaiming of a Biblical truth.
Secondly, if the most egregious errors of modern protestantism appear exclusively in the "nondenominational" denomination, why are there more kinds of Baptists than Baskin Robbins ice cream? (Pardon my southern referrences) If the referenced statement was true, wouldn't it make sense that the Nondenominational crowd would make up the largest group of Christians in the world? But the Pentecostals and Baptists seem to have claimed that title.
Thirdly, it is incredibly easy to go from "disagreement with your denomination" to "starting a new denomination". All it takes is convincing a few disgruntled Neurotics that you are more correct than the all-powerful denominational hierarchy, and bang... a new denomination is born. I believe this is where the "grasshopper king" line would be most helpful...
quote:
"Purity of doctrine" does not require "Apostolic Office" for its preservation. The Holy Spirit is more than capable in guiding us in all truth! - John 16:12-15 Indisputably true. However, how many Christians actually listen to the Holy Spirit's guidance instead of their pastor? How many Christians believe they have heard the Holy Spirit's leading, and then run off into gross error? The fact is that God is very capable of leading people into all truth. The fact also is that people are not as intelligent as they give themselves credit for. The Apostolic is a referee of sorts for doctrinal discussion. Because of their spiritual office, they have the ability to kick people back into play when they start to go out of bounds. That is what Paul did in the letters to the Corinthians. So, the Apostolic office is not "required" for doctrinal purity... just like gloves aren't required for Baseball, and the lane bumpers aren't required for bowling. It isn't "required" proper, but it sure makes things easier.quote:
Sorry, Adam, but this disagreement has nothing to do with specks and planks! It is you who has made sweeping and grandiose pronouncements on the perceived "problem" of denominationalism in the Church while the vast majority of growth in the worldwide Church comes from this very mechanism. I am going to make an educated guess that the growth in the Worldwide church comes from God drawing all men to himself. To put the nail in the coffin, in Brother Yun's book about the revival in the underground church in China, he said specifically that things began to fall apart when denominations began chartering the shipments of Bibles to them... not because they had Bibles, but because the denominational leadership that chartered these Bibles were adding in leaflets featuring the denominational doctrines. The leaders of the churches became so divided over the doctrines they were learning from these denominations that they were starting to not work with each other or even commune together because they were convinced that each other were decieved. (To see more, read "The Heavenly Man" by Brother Yun).
Because of this, and because of personal experience, I fully believe that denominationalism divides the body. If this be true, denominationalism causes more trouble than it solves.quote:
Churches are not inherently evil, only the hearts of those individuals who constitute them. History shows that doctrinal error develops more readily in systems with extremes of leadership, such as the RCC and non-denominational megachurch mavericks. That is precisely why most Evangelical and Reformed churches have governmental structure which ensures accountability through checks and balances. Not really. Have you read Paul's epistles recently? All of the letters written to the churches address various errors that have appeared in their doctrine... and these are churches that are directly under the authority of the Apostles. John's letters in particular show a fracturing of the early church into various groups. Error happens because people have an amazing tendency to falter. Your statement is very "Americanized"... which the Bible, and indeed, the first century church were not. Admittedly, no church government is going to be perfect until the Millenium, but what we have right now is tearing the Western church apart way faster than it claims to be building the Body together. How do I justify this statement? Just look at how fast the church is hemorraging members to other religions... be it Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism.quote:
I appreciate the effort you have put into this issue, Adam. My only concern is that you examine your motives before rejecting all aspects of denominationalism. I am not rejecting denominationalism wholesale... yet. What I am rejecting is the current American incarnation of denominationalism. At first, you had the church... then the church split into the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox around 300-315 AD. Then came the Anglicans. Then came the Lutherans and the Protestants. Then came all the various Orthodoxies (Russian, Greek, etc.). The church has a bad habit of splitting over what actually amounts to very little. This is what I am addressing.quote:
Personally, I would add Arminius and Wesley to the short list of "modern" Apostles. Neither one of them had any desire to break away from their lifelong denominational affiliation either, but God apparently had different plans for their followers!
I've said my piece and have no real purpose in continuing to debate what appears to be an issue we must agree to disagree on. Please have the final word, Adam, if you wish. I don't think I would add Arminius to the list... unlike Luther, he didn't revolutionize both sides of his doctrinal coin. Luther kicked off his thing, and the Catholic church had the counter-reformation as a result. But w/e. If you insist on ending the discussion, I will not insist on continuing said discussion.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
