S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
I guess you do want to have fun with this? Please rememember not to grieve the Holy spirit in our conversation.
- Status
V
Vitus
Guest
There aren’t many mentions of speaking in tongues in the early church (guess it wasn’t as wide spread as Charasmatics would have you believe), but we have the following (bolding mine):
Chrysostom on tongues in Corinth “This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by the cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.”
Augustine “In the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,’. . .These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit. . .That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.”
Origen, Justin Martyr and Clement all spoke of tongues (and the charims) being unique to the early church and having ceased.
Were the early church fathers incorrect? If so, why? And also, why if these gifts have returned did they do so more than 1500 years after the early church fathers said they passed away and in Catholicism 60 or so years after they suddenly appeared in the Protestant movement?
J
JimO
Guest
Vitus,
Thanks for the concrete information. Beng is so bent on his crusade to point out others’ faults that he missed the point of my posts. As I stated before, I no longer attend Charismatic functions and haven’t in a long time. I’m not comfortable with much that I saw in the Renewal. I did note that groups with appropriate pastoral care did not exhibit the extreme behavior that is so commonly focused on in discussions like this. I did once attend a nondenominational charismatic church with a friend and it was bizarre. I would not try to defend some of the behavior I saw there, so I understand where you are coming from.
The group I attended was pretty sedate and basically spent a hour or so each week singing, praying for others, and studying Scriptures. I reiterate that this group met as a supplement to and not in place of Mass and the Sacraments. In the life of the Parish it functioned much as a Bible study group would. Nobody was forced, or coerced, or subjected to peer pressure, to pray in tongues and it wasn’t even discussed much. Some people’s “prayer tongue” was nothing more than humming a tune to themselves while they sat quietly in meditative prayer.
My big beef on this thread has been the self-righteous tone of some posts and the suggestion that personal interpretation (literal or not) of Scripture verses taken out of context rise to the level of infallibility. You have not engaged in this type of argument and that is why I am happy to continue to dialogue with you and fully accept that my understandings, interpretations and opinions may be wrong. You pointed out yourself that Scripture verses cannot be taken out of context. This works both ways. Folks in the Renewal often read a lot into certain key verses and critics often do the same. Interestingly, both sides use the same Chapter in I Cor to make their arguments.
The most important point you have made is that, according to Church Fathers, the practice of tongues was not present in the early Church. This is the type of concrete information I was looking for, not a response that says essentially, “I’m right, you’re wrong, so there!” I still don’t agree with the opinion that the Renewal has been a bad thing that God used for the good of some (like someone asserted - equating it to David producing Solomon - by the way, the baby that resulted from the adultry died, it wasn’t Solomon). I’m not convinced that it wasn’t a good thing that went off the rails in many places due to poor pastoral oversight and leaders whose intentions were questionable.
Blessings,
Jim
Thanks for the concrete information. Beng is so bent on his crusade to point out others’ faults that he missed the point of my posts. As I stated before, I no longer attend Charismatic functions and haven’t in a long time. I’m not comfortable with much that I saw in the Renewal. I did note that groups with appropriate pastoral care did not exhibit the extreme behavior that is so commonly focused on in discussions like this. I did once attend a nondenominational charismatic church with a friend and it was bizarre. I would not try to defend some of the behavior I saw there, so I understand where you are coming from.
The group I attended was pretty sedate and basically spent a hour or so each week singing, praying for others, and studying Scriptures. I reiterate that this group met as a supplement to and not in place of Mass and the Sacraments. In the life of the Parish it functioned much as a Bible study group would. Nobody was forced, or coerced, or subjected to peer pressure, to pray in tongues and it wasn’t even discussed much. Some people’s “prayer tongue” was nothing more than humming a tune to themselves while they sat quietly in meditative prayer.
My big beef on this thread has been the self-righteous tone of some posts and the suggestion that personal interpretation (literal or not) of Scripture verses taken out of context rise to the level of infallibility. You have not engaged in this type of argument and that is why I am happy to continue to dialogue with you and fully accept that my understandings, interpretations and opinions may be wrong. You pointed out yourself that Scripture verses cannot be taken out of context. This works both ways. Folks in the Renewal often read a lot into certain key verses and critics often do the same. Interestingly, both sides use the same Chapter in I Cor to make their arguments.
The most important point you have made is that, according to Church Fathers, the practice of tongues was not present in the early Church. This is the type of concrete information I was looking for, not a response that says essentially, “I’m right, you’re wrong, so there!” I still don’t agree with the opinion that the Renewal has been a bad thing that God used for the good of some (like someone asserted - equating it to David producing Solomon - by the way, the baby that resulted from the adultry died, it wasn’t Solomon). I’m not convinced that it wasn’t a good thing that went off the rails in many places due to poor pastoral oversight and leaders whose intentions were questionable.
Blessings,
Jim
B
beng
Guest
That is not an answer.I guess you do want to have fun with this? Please rememember not to grieve the Holy spirit in our conversation.
Why are you avoiding? Got something to hide?
B
beng
Guest
I’ve seen none of your post that is adressed to me goes unanswered.
You have not give me alternate possible interpretation on the verse.
Do you expect the magisterium to interpret every perfectly self explanatory verse?
What is their interpretation on 1Cor 14:27-28?
Don’t talk vaguely, give proofs.
J
JimO
Guest
“Why are you avoiding? Got something to hide?”
Arrogant, self-righteous comments like this do nothing to convince someone of your point. If you speak like this to unbelievers, it would hardly attract them to the faith.
Arrogant, self-righteous comments like this do nothing to convince someone of your point. If you speak like this to unbelievers, it would hardly attract them to the faith.
V
Vitus
Guest
beng, I understand your ire and as you see, we are on the same side of the arguement. And it is difficult for me not to get throw down, table turning angry myself. But if I may, can I say your approaching this wrong. As an ex-fundamental, trying to counter with biblical interpretation and ONLY biblical interpretation is a no-win situation. Because of the level of self-interpretation that conincides with the current all-but-silence on the particulars of the Catholic Charismatic movement by the Vatican, using select verses will not work. They will counter with their own interpretation, with their own experiences, with their own feelings and with their perceived lack of your personal experience in the movement.
You are not only dealing with people’s minds (which are hard enough to change) but with people’s emotions. Deeply personal emotions that their meetings and get togethers foster. It’s a very uphill battle, and taking an offensive position only leads in their retreat.
People want to be closer to God. They seek it out in many ways and under many guises. That is a good thing. When they think they’ve found a better path, it’s damn near impossible to get them off it. Telling them sternly to check their map when their heart’s compass is leading them isn’t going to work.
Personally, I don’t think the Charismatic movement is genuine. Too many thinks counter it. Knowledge of what was going on in Corinth and why Paul was saying the things he did, what the early church fathers said on the subject, the lack of tongues and such for over 1600 years only to manifest itself in Protestantism in the 1900s, the lack of linguistic evidence that this glossoholia resembles any type of real language (in words or structure) and the relative newness in Catholic circles (40 years in a 2000 year history isn’t much) all run counter to this movement. Yes, many of these Charismatic meetings run counter to 1 Corinthians, yes the idea of a “personal prayer language” runs directly against what Paul said tongues were about, but there is much, much more to it than that.
I hope this doesn’t upset you too much or seem like I’m taking a holier than thou attitude. Far from it. But when fighting the good fight, I just want to make sure my companions have all their weapons at hand and know the best way to use it.
There is a better way.
You are not only dealing with people’s minds (which are hard enough to change) but with people’s emotions. Deeply personal emotions that their meetings and get togethers foster. It’s a very uphill battle, and taking an offensive position only leads in their retreat.
People want to be closer to God. They seek it out in many ways and under many guises. That is a good thing. When they think they’ve found a better path, it’s damn near impossible to get them off it. Telling them sternly to check their map when their heart’s compass is leading them isn’t going to work.
Personally, I don’t think the Charismatic movement is genuine. Too many thinks counter it. Knowledge of what was going on in Corinth and why Paul was saying the things he did, what the early church fathers said on the subject, the lack of tongues and such for over 1600 years only to manifest itself in Protestantism in the 1900s, the lack of linguistic evidence that this glossoholia resembles any type of real language (in words or structure) and the relative newness in Catholic circles (40 years in a 2000 year history isn’t much) all run counter to this movement. Yes, many of these Charismatic meetings run counter to 1 Corinthians, yes the idea of a “personal prayer language” runs directly against what Paul said tongues were about, but there is much, much more to it than that.
I hope this doesn’t upset you too much or seem like I’m taking a holier than thou attitude. Far from it. But when fighting the good fight, I just want to make sure my companions have all their weapons at hand and know the best way to use it.
There is a better way.
B
beng
Guest
JimO said:
Let him answer the question without any additional emotional bagage from you.
B
beng
Guest
Vitus said:
I’m trying to corner him because he keep avoiding.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Beng, Quote} Im trying to corner him because he keeps avoiding me. The problem with you Beng is you dont understands Gods Word. What I said was perfectly clear, Maybe you should pray that God will reveal revelation truth to you. It doesnt matter what man says, what matters is what God says.
N
NateHarburg
Guest
check out:
davenevins.com/loveofgod/top…matic-gifts.htm
presentationministries.com/brochures/Tongues.asp
The gift of tongues is available to all! I personally have found the gift VERY beneficial in building my relationship with God. I highly recommend you read the above links!
davenevins.com/loveofgod/top…matic-gifts.htm
presentationministries.com/brochures/Tongues.asp
The gift of tongues is available to all! I personally have found the gift VERY beneficial in building my relationship with God. I highly recommend you read the above links!
A
agname
Guest
The Charismatic Movement is just Montanism revisited.
As far as the movement originating from Apostolic times…that’s a stretch. Granted, the Bible and the early Christians noted a gift of the Holy Spirit…known as “speaking in tongues.”
I would say the Charismatic Movement…or, as I call it – Neo-Montanism…was founded centuries and centuries later.
I do know that Paul preached…
"Tongues-speaking is only edifying in the Church if it is interpreted. "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church." First Corinthians 14:5, 27, 28
History shows that glossolalia (tongue speaking itself) did occur within the early Church…and I also do know the early fathers were incredibly divided. Chrysostom disapproved and Augustine was mixed…Ignatius believed in speaking in tongues, but believed also in its limited usage. The Montanist movement (which holds great similarities with the Charismatic Movement) of the late second century included prophetesses, speaking in tongues, etc… was declared heretical by 99% of the church (even though, Tertullian loved the movement)…it got so bad that excommunication became involved (Serapion, bishop of Antioch spoke out against it greatly). The Canon of Moratori (the oldest list of authorized New Testament books…written in Rome circa 170 AD) mentions Montanism among heresies and rejects its teachings and writings. Speaking in tongues was extremely rare within the church after this time.
The fact is…just as cancer has signs…so does this movement.
P.S. I believe it was Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus who wrote in “Panarion” a whole chapter on Montanism. He stated that Montanists receive the Bible in full… the Trinity…the resurrection of the dead…etc…but they mislead in their teachings on gifts.
The only reason the Charistmatic Movement is being allowed right now…is to attract Protestants to the faith.
As far as the movement originating from Apostolic times…that’s a stretch. Granted, the Bible and the early Christians noted a gift of the Holy Spirit…known as “speaking in tongues.”
I would say the Charismatic Movement…or, as I call it – Neo-Montanism…was founded centuries and centuries later.
I do know that Paul preached…
"Tongues-speaking is only edifying in the Church if it is interpreted. "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church." First Corinthians 14:5, 27, 28
History shows that glossolalia (tongue speaking itself) did occur within the early Church…and I also do know the early fathers were incredibly divided. Chrysostom disapproved and Augustine was mixed…Ignatius believed in speaking in tongues, but believed also in its limited usage. The Montanist movement (which holds great similarities with the Charismatic Movement) of the late second century included prophetesses, speaking in tongues, etc… was declared heretical by 99% of the church (even though, Tertullian loved the movement)…it got so bad that excommunication became involved (Serapion, bishop of Antioch spoke out against it greatly). The Canon of Moratori (the oldest list of authorized New Testament books…written in Rome circa 170 AD) mentions Montanism among heresies and rejects its teachings and writings. Speaking in tongues was extremely rare within the church after this time.
The fact is…just as cancer has signs…so does this movement.
P.S. I believe it was Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus who wrote in “Panarion” a whole chapter on Montanism. He stated that Montanists receive the Bible in full… the Trinity…the resurrection of the dead…etc…but they mislead in their teachings on gifts.
The only reason the Charistmatic Movement is being allowed right now…is to attract Protestants to the faith.
A
agname
Guest
The following is also a good read…
“Paul addresses the matter of ‘speaking in tongues’ as a possible problem in the church at Corinth. Although he acknowledges that the ability to speak in ‘various kinds of tongues’ and the ability to interpret these tongues are ‘spiritual gifts’ (1 Cor. 12:10), he is aware not all are to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30), and advises his readers to seek ‘the higher gifts’ (1 Cor. 12:31). In 1 Corinthians 13, he makes it clear that he thinks of love as the greatest spiritual gift. Love is contrasted with speaking ‘in the tongues of men and of angels’ (1 Cor. 13:1); love endures, while tongues will cease (v. 8).”
"In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul gives a number of directions about the use of glossolalia. Speaking in tongues is not helpful to the community, he says, because it is incomprehensible (14:2). Only when there is interpretation is there edification (v. 5). When the community convenes, no more than three should speak in tongues, each in turn, and there must be an interpretation (v. 27). Paul feels that uncontrolled and uninterpreted speaking in tongues does not edify the community and that it gives outsiders the impression that believers are mad (v. 23). Yet, he allows this activity to take place, so long as it is done in orderly fashion and is accompanied by interpretation."
“Acts 2 contains a narrative about the events of the first Pentecost after Easter. On that day, the apostles gathered together, and, after hearing a sound like wind and seeing tongues like fire, they began ‘to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance’ (Acts 2:4). The author of Acts goes on to list various nationalities of persons who heard the apostles speak, all hearing in their own languages. Although the story may suggest that the apostles spoke an incomprehensible language (v. 13), the truth is that they were speaking known foreign languages.”
“Paul addresses the matter of ‘speaking in tongues’ as a possible problem in the church at Corinth. Although he acknowledges that the ability to speak in ‘various kinds of tongues’ and the ability to interpret these tongues are ‘spiritual gifts’ (1 Cor. 12:10), he is aware not all are to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30), and advises his readers to seek ‘the higher gifts’ (1 Cor. 12:31). In 1 Corinthians 13, he makes it clear that he thinks of love as the greatest spiritual gift. Love is contrasted with speaking ‘in the tongues of men and of angels’ (1 Cor. 13:1); love endures, while tongues will cease (v. 8).”
"In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul gives a number of directions about the use of glossolalia. Speaking in tongues is not helpful to the community, he says, because it is incomprehensible (14:2). Only when there is interpretation is there edification (v. 5). When the community convenes, no more than three should speak in tongues, each in turn, and there must be an interpretation (v. 27). Paul feels that uncontrolled and uninterpreted speaking in tongues does not edify the community and that it gives outsiders the impression that believers are mad (v. 23). Yet, he allows this activity to take place, so long as it is done in orderly fashion and is accompanied by interpretation."
“Acts 2 contains a narrative about the events of the first Pentecost after Easter. On that day, the apostles gathered together, and, after hearing a sound like wind and seeing tongues like fire, they began ‘to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance’ (Acts 2:4). The author of Acts goes on to list various nationalities of persons who heard the apostles speak, all hearing in their own languages. Although the story may suggest that the apostles spoke an incomprehensible language (v. 13), the truth is that they were speaking known foreign languages.”
A
agname
Guest
The gift of tongues is not granted to every individual.
1 Cor 12:30 – “All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?”
Second, Paul states (1 Cor 14) that there should be no more than 3 people speaking in tongues at a given time…and there must be an interpretation given to the community…and that if there isn’t an interpretation, etc…the individuals should remain silent. He also goes on to say to seek the “higher gifts”…the gift of love.
S
snuffy
Guest
Wow!!
I’m Catholic and I’ve been baptized by the Holy Spirit…Ha! I’ve got it all. Praise God. These words are mine but they are also the words used by Alex Jones (a former Protestant minister, now Catholic)…
I also have the gift of tongues to Praise God in the highest. I’ve personally never received messages in tongues, just have the gift of Praise. (ohh sooo bad)…
The prayer group I belong to are beautiful people…who are striving for holiness. (and this in wrong)??
You now better than the Pope???
God wants us to be open to ALL the gifts he has for us…And I thank Him for allowing me to be open to the Holy Spirit…
My arguement is that alot of people just don’t understand who the Holy Spirit…Let me tell you…I’ve for many years belong to a little Church in the country…Well there are 3 of us in the Parish that have been baptized by the Holy Spirit…And regretfully I say…that the 3 of us are soooooo into the Mass, and Praise Our Lord all the way through…Well let me say…we have more respect and reverence in our little finger…than the rest of the 100 people or so who attend. So we’re wrong and all you pompous people who are in another world at Mass, are right…Afraid not.
Us charismatics (that I know) would and HAVE sat through Charismatic Masses for 3 hrs… and loved every minute of it…and not looked at our watches every 5 min to see how long this Mass will be.
I’m sorry but there are times when Catholics get upset when Mass is longer than 45 min…Us Charismatics would gladly be there for hours…
Anyway I’m not usually so pushy but people who have no idea who the Holy Spirit is…always condemn, because they just don’t get it…Do Not Judge…
Snuffy
I’m Catholic and I’ve been baptized by the Holy Spirit…Ha! I’ve got it all. Praise God. These words are mine but they are also the words used by Alex Jones (a former Protestant minister, now Catholic)…
I also have the gift of tongues to Praise God in the highest. I’ve personally never received messages in tongues, just have the gift of Praise. (ohh sooo bad)…
The prayer group I belong to are beautiful people…who are striving for holiness. (and this in wrong)??
You now better than the Pope???
God wants us to be open to ALL the gifts he has for us…And I thank Him for allowing me to be open to the Holy Spirit…
My arguement is that alot of people just don’t understand who the Holy Spirit…Let me tell you…I’ve for many years belong to a little Church in the country…Well there are 3 of us in the Parish that have been baptized by the Holy Spirit…And regretfully I say…that the 3 of us are soooooo into the Mass, and Praise Our Lord all the way through…Well let me say…we have more respect and reverence in our little finger…than the rest of the 100 people or so who attend. So we’re wrong and all you pompous people who are in another world at Mass, are right…Afraid not.
Us charismatics (that I know) would and HAVE sat through Charismatic Masses for 3 hrs… and loved every minute of it…and not looked at our watches every 5 min to see how long this Mass will be.
I’m sorry but there are times when Catholics get upset when Mass is longer than 45 min…Us Charismatics would gladly be there for hours…
Anyway I’m not usually so pushy but people who have no idea who the Holy Spirit is…always condemn, because they just don’t get it…Do Not Judge…
Snuffy
V
Vitus
Guest
Not suprising since the modern Charismatic movements has it’s roots in Protestantism.
Received messages in tongues? Exactly what does that entail. And what exactly is the gift of Praise?
Please give ONE instance where anyone said that striving to be closer to God is wrong.
How very unbiblical and unhistorical.
Are you suggesting that others aren’t?
I am offended by this statement. Who are you to say what other’s understanding of God is?
How very, very judgemental of you. So now not only don’t people understand, but they are disrepectful and pompous?! And here I thought only God sees the hearts of men!
Out of the mouth comes what is in the heart. I see this Charismania has done you wonders.
If you are so into Masses why are you noticing other people and their actions? How many Catholics are you talking to in your “little church in the country”?
Open up your dictionary and look up the word “hyporcrite”.
J
JimO
Guest
Interesting combination of comments Snuffy. I was involved in the Charismatic Renewal and have had a lot of good things to say about it on several threads, but I just have to comment on this. Just because Charismatics are more demonstrative in no way means that they are more respectful and reverent. I know some very godly people whose prefered mode of worship is contemplative in nature. In Mass these folks might appear to the average Charismatic as stilted and stuffy, but I learned the hard way a long time ago that nobody knows the heart. I’ve also known some irreverent Catholic Charismatics.
I used to think I had my spiritual “ducks in a row” (Your comment “I have it all” sounds familiar) until some tragedies came along and reminded me that I am a work in progress.
Humility is always the way to holiness regardless of how you prefer to worship.
A
Anthony
Guest
hmmm…i’ll come out and say that i am charismatic catholic and a recent convert to catholicism to boot.
i won’t say that there aren’t any problems within the charismatic movement and i will agree that the theology behind the baptism in the spirit is problematic and requires some quality discernment from the church proper.
i will say that the charismatic has many benefits: for one it turned me from a heathonistic life into a humble catholic who lives most everyday in wonder and awe towards our Lord’s beauty, love, and mercy. it does lead people to increase their devotion and commitment toward attending mass every sunday and it provides faithful people an opportunity to share the scriptures with prayerful discussion.
as an observer, i will admit that the charismatic movement does often lead people towards what i would call spiritual immaturity. this is often displayed with the attitude that the renewed charismatic “has it all” and that the charismatic way is the only way for our Lord’s people. a newly “baptized in the spirit” catholic tends to be so full of the excitement from the experience that they may forget what they look like from the outside. these are characteristics of any immature person, be they spiritually immature or socially immature. i am willing to say this because i have been there myself.
as an active participant in a charismatic community i will say that spiritual immaturity is not the definitive end-all for the individual who has been baptized in the spirit. with immaturity there lies the potential for growth, development, and a deepening and matured faith life.
i thank all of you who post on these threads about the charismatic movement. please, instead of leading an emotionally driven crusade that really has no impact on someone who may not be mature enough to hear you, please offer your prayers for all catholics, including our charismatic brothers and sisters, that the Lord will bless us with his wisdom and discernment to follow his ways above our own.
i won’t say that there aren’t any problems within the charismatic movement and i will agree that the theology behind the baptism in the spirit is problematic and requires some quality discernment from the church proper.
i will say that the charismatic has many benefits: for one it turned me from a heathonistic life into a humble catholic who lives most everyday in wonder and awe towards our Lord’s beauty, love, and mercy. it does lead people to increase their devotion and commitment toward attending mass every sunday and it provides faithful people an opportunity to share the scriptures with prayerful discussion.
as an observer, i will admit that the charismatic movement does often lead people towards what i would call spiritual immaturity. this is often displayed with the attitude that the renewed charismatic “has it all” and that the charismatic way is the only way for our Lord’s people. a newly “baptized in the spirit” catholic tends to be so full of the excitement from the experience that they may forget what they look like from the outside. these are characteristics of any immature person, be they spiritually immature or socially immature. i am willing to say this because i have been there myself.
as an active participant in a charismatic community i will say that spiritual immaturity is not the definitive end-all for the individual who has been baptized in the spirit. with immaturity there lies the potential for growth, development, and a deepening and matured faith life.
i thank all of you who post on these threads about the charismatic movement. please, instead of leading an emotionally driven crusade that really has no impact on someone who may not be mature enough to hear you, please offer your prayers for all catholics, including our charismatic brothers and sisters, that the Lord will bless us with his wisdom and discernment to follow his ways above our own.
A
agname
Guest
Here are some thoughts…that a friend of mine posted on another board…I agree with them.
–
"I am no fan of the “renewal” either.
I believe, the two biggest problems with the charismatic movement are:
Following Protestant (Pentecostal) doctrine,
The spirits are not tested, everything is attributed to the Holy Spirit, when in fact 99 % of the time the “prophecy” comes from either the human spirit, or an evil spirit,
Attributing human actions during the prayer meeting to the Holy Spirit, (somebody flips open the Bible and reads… and everyone ejaculates a “praise God!”
Superstitious practices, randomly opening up the Bible to get a message from God,
Trivializing God (the Holy Spirit gave me the parking space)
God told me to tell you,
Emphasis on tongues as a universal gift and a sign for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
Tongues is a technique that is thought and has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit,
Tongues are seldom tested, and no way of knowing if the individual actually praises God or is blaspheming.
The laying of hands is a free-for-all, also free to transfer evil spirits,
Claims that people will be healed if they have sufficient faith,
Claims that people who are not healed have insufficient faith,
Claims that people need to proclaim they have been healed before they are actually healed,
Emotionalism,
Tendency to seek out signs and wonders,
Looking for the “latest”, there are fashion trends…a recent one is the “Prayer of Jabez”,
Addiction to spiritual highs,
Spiritual sensual ism,
Abuses of the liturgy during Charismatic Masses,
Sharing the Body and the Blood of Christ with those from other faiths,
Mass hysteria."
–
"I am no fan of the “renewal” either.
I believe, the two biggest problems with the charismatic movement are:
- this renewal came from outside sources and not from within the Church,
- the charismatics hold up the Corinthians as the example to follow, when in fact the Corinthians were one of the most disobedient group among the churches in Paul’s time. Go figure… we are to copy their behavior!
Following Protestant (Pentecostal) doctrine,
The spirits are not tested, everything is attributed to the Holy Spirit, when in fact 99 % of the time the “prophecy” comes from either the human spirit, or an evil spirit,
Attributing human actions during the prayer meeting to the Holy Spirit, (somebody flips open the Bible and reads… and everyone ejaculates a “praise God!”
Superstitious practices, randomly opening up the Bible to get a message from God,
Trivializing God (the Holy Spirit gave me the parking space)
God told me to tell you,
Emphasis on tongues as a universal gift and a sign for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
Tongues is a technique that is thought and has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit,
Tongues are seldom tested, and no way of knowing if the individual actually praises God or is blaspheming.
The laying of hands is a free-for-all, also free to transfer evil spirits,
Claims that people will be healed if they have sufficient faith,
Claims that people who are not healed have insufficient faith,
Claims that people need to proclaim they have been healed before they are actually healed,
Emotionalism,
Tendency to seek out signs and wonders,
Looking for the “latest”, there are fashion trends…a recent one is the “Prayer of Jabez”,
Addiction to spiritual highs,
Spiritual sensual ism,
Abuses of the liturgy during Charismatic Masses,
Sharing the Body and the Blood of Christ with those from other faiths,
Mass hysteria."
- Status