Eastern Orthodox Charismatic movement?

[JesusforMadrid]

Nice argumentum ad populum there, JesusforMadrid. Too bad that everyone and their mother doing it wouldn’t make it a sound practice.

Not at all. If you read my post rather than fallacy hunt, you will see that my argument is positive, not normative as the fallacy to which you refer would require.

It is quite indisputable that the RCC has a different approach to the charismatic movement from that of the Orthodox. And yes, the number of RCC adherents is relevant support for that fact.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Some problems with your source and your assumption:

1. 
   *]The following Church Fathers are listed: Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Saint John Chrysostom. Of these, two are Western/Latin Fathers - only two are Eastern Fathers.
   *]Look at the footnotes: all of the sources are second-hand, ie. the writer of the article took another author’s word for it and did not bother to cite the original source. The book is also one of the only sources cited by the author to prove his point - in high school the teacher would have taken points off for that.
   
   Also, Chrysostom’s idea of what “charismatic” gifts were is also not entirely compatible with modern ideas regarding the theology.
   
   To another prophecies; and to another discernings of spirits. What is, discernings of spirits? the knowing who is spiritual, and who is not: who is a prophet, and who a deceiver: as he said to the Thessalonians, despise not prophesyings (1 Thess 5:20-21): but proving all things, hold fast that which is good. For great was at that time the rush of the false prophets, the devil striving underhand to substitute falsehood for the truth. To another various kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. For one person knew what he spoke himself, but was unable to interpret to another; while another had acquired both these or the other of the two. Now this seemed to be a great gift because both the Apostles received it first, and the most among the Corinthians had obtained it. But the word of teaching not so. Wherefore that he places first, but this last: for this was on account of that, and so indeed were all the rest; both prophecies, and working of miracles, and various kinds of tongues, and interpretation of tongues. For none is equal to this. Wherefore also he said, Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and in teaching (1 Tim 5:17). And to Timothy he wrote, saying, Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to teaching; neglect not the gift that is in you (1 Tim 4:13-14). Do you see how he calls it also a gift? [Homily 29 on First Corinthians]
   
   This is compliant with the Orthodox theology regarding such gifts, in fact the language he uses here is dangerously symbolic rather than literal: discerning of spirits means attempting to discover who is holy and who is not (which monks were taught to do in the early days of ascetism, and which they are still taught today), and from the interpretation of tongues (which Paul stresses in the original text) Saint John Chrysostom puts teaching above all else, and elaborates this to mean any kind of teaching is the most important.
   
   Furthermore:
   
   Therefore Paul says, that the love which we are speaking of is the mother of all good things, and prefers it to miracles and all other gifts…Recollecting therefore in our minds all these things, both those of God and of men, let us emulate these high deeds, and possess ourselves of the love which is above all gifts, that we may obtain both the present and the future blessings… [Homily 32 on First Corinthians]
   
   Saint John Chrysostom tells us exactly what Paul says, which is that supposed “gifts” mean nothing without that love which Christ told us to emulate, and that a person wouldn’t have to do anything except show that Divine Love in order to be one with God.
   
   Charismatic gifts of the Spirit? If an Orthodox Church has love in it, or its members show love to guests or one another, then it has the greatest gift of the Spirit. If a Christian has that love but no “charismatic gifts,” they are still filled with the Holy Spirit, as stated by both Paul and Church Fathers such as the blessed John Chrysostom. Would the saint lament? I think he’d be proud.
   
   Oh, do you happen to have the Saint Athanasius quote I asked for earlier?
   

   I think there are two plausible reasons for the decline over time in the use of the charismatic gifts. First, Montanism, whose New Prophecy movement placed prophecy over Holy Scripture, showed the danger of abuse of the charismatic gifts and may have led to their decline.

   I think Protestant scholar John MacArthur, who wrote the excellent Charismatic Chaos, has a better notion that most Orthodox would agree with: the “gifts of the Spirit,” seen in such large numbers at Pentecost and around the time period, were for the purpose of solidifying the Church. Once this was done, there was no need for this. Even Saint Paul writes that, contrary to some Charismatic teachings, instead of revival there will be a great falling out and a sorting of wheat. Even today the strength of Christianity is in her faith in God and the witness of her martyrs.
   

   Second, ever more homogenized liturgies, used to preserve orthodoxy in the face of heresy, did indeed leave little room for the spontaneous use of charismatic gifts such as prophecy.

   And thank goodness for it, because while “spontaneous use” of “prophesy” may be good on paper, in execution they are seen as being just as bad as the Montanists. Very few times does any one verify what the person says with scripture or history; it’s taken as verifiable because it’s assumed that it’s a gift of the Spirit. Likewise, many Charismatics freely claim to talk to angels or see angels, without seeming to remember Paul’s warning about demons. There seems on average to be little accountability for a person’s actions.
   

   There are millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of charismatic RCs in the world and certainly more charismatic Roman Catholics in the US than all American Orthodox believers put together.

   Numbers do not prove anything. There are also more Mormons than Orthodox - I suppose, by this logic, Mormonism is a correct theology as well.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

This is true; I was speaking mainly of the Church as described in Acts. We all crave and need structure, so I don’t have a problem with liturgical aspects of worship. However, I believe we have programmed God out to some degree.

God cannot be “programmed out,” even to “some degree.” To suggest so would mean He is a victim of fatalism and at the whim of mankind’s will.

I believe that on the whole, most low churches and most high churches are missing something due to the extreme, unbalanced nature of their worship.

Trust me - there is nothing missing. 2000 years of Church Tradition cannot be missing anything Neither is there anything “extreme” or “unbalanced” about it - please demonstrate what you mean by this if you wish to make this argument.

Yes and no. There are two forms of speaking in tongues in the NT. One is a miraculous sign proclaiming the Gospel without borders in known tongues at Pentecost, another is described by Paul as more of an unknown prayer language. And unlike at Pentecost, Paul didn’t want people speaking in tongues (the second form described) in front of unbelievers as they wouldn’t understand it (it needed to be interpreted into their language). The gift of (unknown) tongues is a valid gift of the Spirit used in the Church today.

Yes I’m well aware of different forms of glossolalia, the Corinthian version being entirely different than the version at Pentecost. While Paul does not outright ban the practice, he limits it - if someone speaks in tongues, someone has to translate it. You can’t just go crazy and speak in whatever tongues you want. Saint Paul instructed that a man speaking in tongues without any one translating edifies no one.

I might also add Paul criticized using “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as a form of superiority, which seems to be done here.

I don’t know of any charismatics who talk like that. There are always people who takes things to unhealthy extremes.

Listen to Charismatic preachers. The two quotes I cited were from Benny Hinn and his wife, which I admit are extreme examples, however I had heard similar heretical things said by even common preachers. One preacher at a church I visited discussed being “drunk in the Holy Spirit.” I find it rather blasphemous to say that God can get you drunk, especially when Paul says that one of the fruits of the Spirit is “self-control,” sometimes translated as temperence (Gal 5:23).

Now granted, I am not attacking Charismatic preachers as a whole, but I am attacking how some modern Charismatic practices and beliefs have been distorted from the original definition of the word and are now being attempted to be portrayed as official doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit, when no such beliefs or practices existed back then (again, Paul didn’t list “holy vomit” as one of the gifts of the Spirit).

Do you see controlled worship or free worship in Acts? What is it about “controlled” worship that so appeals to you?

What I find so appealing about controlled worship is that it is how the apostles worshiped. If you read First Corinthians you find Saint Paul laying down rules, regulations, and suggestions on how to worship and use the Eucharist - you find this throughout the New Testament, in fact. The apostles also prayed at given hours as per Jewish tradition (Acts 10:9), something maintained in Orthodoxy.

Also, there are some Catholic priests and monks through the ages who have had some pretty charismatic experiences. It was quite shocking to me, but they give “charismatics” a run for their money.

Reading Fr. Seraphim Rose’s take on Roman Catholic mystics versus how Orthodoxy has always defined such incidents shows a far more discerning voice of theological reason.

 

[dzheremi]

If you only know the caricature of charismatic faith, then you don’t know much about it.

I may not know as much as you do, but I’d like to think that I know enough about charismata not to claim that they everywhere “Charismatics” claim they are. Whatever happened to the discernment of spirits? I was always told that this is one of the classic “gifts”, but it does not seem to be gifted very often to modern Charismatics, who seem content to take anything as a gift without so much as a thought as to its source.

I could also come to you with caricatures of Catholics and assume that there are no real or good Catholics. But I won’t do that.

That’s good, especially since that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about in this thread. Who is talking about “real” or “good” Catholics or Orthodox? Frankly, as you are a member of neither tradition, you are in no position to judge those of us who are. So thank you for not doing that.

Also, there are some Catholic priests and monks through the ages who have had some pretty charismatic experiences. It was quite shocking to me, but they give “charismatics” a run for their money.

That’s immaterial. Your retroactive identification with those priests or their experiences as being in line with your own vision of the “charismastic” movement carries about as much weight with me as Muslims’ identification of Jesus with their own tradition. Anyone can claim anything as being from God. That’s the problem that we’re discussing here in the first place.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I think Protestant scholar John MacArthur, who wrote the excellent Charismatic Chaos, has a better notion that most Orthodox would agree with.

Interesting source for orthodox scholarship.

OK, a few questions:

Does the Orthodox Church generally embrace a cessationist position, as does John MacArthur? If so, how do you square that with the anointing with oil for healing found in the liturgy on the final Wednesday of Great Lent?

Do you think Fr. Eusebius Stephanou and others in his ministry are heretics? How about the significant number of Coptic orthodox charismatics who follow Fr. Zakaria Butros?

Would you consider anyone in the Orthodox church who uses their charismatic gifts to be schismatic, for example, members of the Romanian Lord’s Army?

Finally, would you ask those CEC churches who are considering entering Orthodoxy via the Western Rite to renounce their belief in the charismatic gifts?

Thanks.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m not quite certain what these questions have to do with the points in my last post, but I will address them.

Does the Orthodox Church generally embrace a cessationist position, as does John MacArthur? If so, how do you square that with the anointing with oil for healing found in the liturgy on the final Wednesday of Great Lent?

I’m sorry, but it appears you have ignored what I’ve written before regarding the Orthodox Church and the belief regarding how the Holy Spirit (ie. God) works within the Church. Anointing with chrism is part of Holy Unction, which is some of the Holy Mysteries I discussed before. Also, it is not a practice only done during Great Lent, but whenever someone is sick (as instructed by the apostle James). However, the Church does not believe in widespread Pentecost-style “revivals” or “movements of the Spirit,” at least in the same manner that we supposedly see at such revivals.

John MacArthur furthermore does not deny healing nor the divine power of God to heal, but rather the practice of some Charismatic groups of faith healing through Ernest Angley-like methods. He explains this fully in the book, differentiating between real sicknesses, apparent sicknesses, and sicknesses people think they have.

Do you think Fr. Eusebius Stephanou and others in his ministry are heretics?

Whether or not he is, his opinion does not reflect Orthodox thought.

How about the significant number of Coptic orthodox charismatics?

The Coptic Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Also, explain how they are charismatic. Some might say the Orthodox Church is charismatic, but again this definition is different than the Charismatic (capital “c”) churches use.

Would you consider anyone in the Orthodox church who uses their charismatic gifts to be schismatic, for example, members of the Romanian Lord’s Army?

It would depend on the individual circumstance - some of this was already discussed in terms of Orthodox Christians who seem to forgo the teachings the Church for modern practices and ideals upheld by Evangelicals and Charismatics.

Finally, would you ask those CEC churches who are considering entering Orthodoxy via the Western Rite to renounce their belief in the charismatic gifts?

Again, define these charismatic gifts - if you refer to the practices at Pentecost, if they were behaving like Pentecostals, I would wonder if they were even part of their original Church to begin with.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I always thought folks went to the Orthodox because they’re trying to GET AWAY FROM charismatic movements! lol

 

[JesusforMadrid]

.Whether or not he is, his opinion does not reflect Orthodox thought…

I understand that Fr. Eusebius Stephanou is an Orthodox priest in good standing. His website shows he receives fulsome praise from both his superiors and colleagues for his decades long ministry in Florida. Yet he doesn’t represent “Orthodox thought”. That doesn’t sound very charitable, frankly.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I understand that Fr. Eusebius Stephanou is an Orthodox priest in good standing. His website shows he receives fulsome praise from both his superiors and colleagues for his decades long ministry in Florida. Yet he doesn’t represent “Orthodox thought”. That doesn’t sound very charitable, frankly.

No single Orthodox represents the belief of the entire Church - again, reading on Orthodox theology and ecclisiastics would explain this. The Orthodox belief of Church Infallibility does not mean every single church or priest is infallible but that the Church and its teachings as a whole are orthodox (with a little “o”).

There are believed to be about 250,000,000 Orthodox worldwide. Eusebius Stephanou is 0.000004% of that. So yes, his opinion alone does not represent what the entire Orthodox Church believes Likewise, having fans or supporters, high or low, does not constitute right thinking nor legitimate theology. According to this, Arius and Nestorius were OK people because they had the support of laymen and bishops.

I am also not quite certain what the topic of Fr. Eusebius Stephanou (which was only a small part of my last response) has to do with what we were previously discussing regarding patristics and Orthodox tradition in regards to modern definitions of charisma.

I always thought folks went to the Orthodox because they’re trying to GET AWAY FROM charismatic movements! lol

We had a nice woman who had been born Orthodox, left due to marriage (long story), and was now coming back. She had tried several Evangelical and Charismatic churches, and recounted how stressful she felt in some of the Charismatic ones. She was forced to fake “gifts of the Spirit” in order to be accepted.

 

[preacher_girl]

Whatever happened to the discernment of spirits? I was always told that this is one of the classic “gifts”, but it does not seem to be gifted very often to modern Charismatics, who seem content to take anything as a gift without so much as a thought as to its source.

I wish all Christians would value the gift of discernment more highly.

That’s good, especially since that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about in this thread. Who is talking about “real” or “good” Catholics or Orthodox? Frankly, as you are a member of neither tradition, you are in no position to judge those of us who are. So thank you for not doing that.

You were painting a picture of charismatic faith using the most extreme examples. My point is that I could do the same with Catholicism, which I don’t want to do, and I don’t think you would appreciate. If I need to make my point plainer: please do not base your discussion of the charismatic Church on its extreme examples. I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but will seek to be respectful. Please do the same for that which you are not part of.

That’s immaterial. Your retroactive identification with those priests or their experiences as being in line with your own vision of the “charismastic” movement carries about as much weight with me as Muslims’ identification of Jesus with their own tradition.

Except, I share faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, as do you and your spiritual fathers, correct? So, you don’t want Protestants to have their faith formed by Catholics?

 

[preacher_girl]

God cannot be “programmed out,” even to “some degree.” To suggest so would mean He is a victim of fatalism and at the whim of mankind’s will.

Not of fatalism, but of choice. God allows us to choose or reject him, even in the Church. How many Christian groups have failed Christ through entering into heretical teachings? Or through gross sin and betrayal? Or abandoning the love we had at first (Rev. 2)?

Trust me - there is nothing missing. 2000 years of Church Tradition cannot be missing anything Neither is there anything “extreme” or “unbalanced” about it - please demonstrate what you mean by this if you wish to make this argument.

Some of the unbalanced aspects of the charismatic churches have been dealt with; in the Protestant Church, there is too little value of sacraments; in the Catholic Church, as I have seen in practice, too many members seem to put more faith in attending a service than in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe church tradition to be infallible?

Yes I’m well aware of different forms of glossolalia, the Corinthian version being entirely different than the version at Pentecost. While Paul does not outright ban the practice, he limits it - if someone speaks in tongues, someone has to translate it. You can’t just go crazy and speak in whatever tongues you want. Saint Paul instructed that a man speaking in tongues without any one translating edifies no one.
I might also add Paul criticized using “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as a form of superiority, which seems to be done here.

You have said nothing to indicate that tongues is not a gift for today. Paul said he wished all could speak in tongues and that he spoke in tongues more than all the rest.

What I find so appealing about controlled worship is that it is how the apostles worshiped. If you read First Corinthians you find Saint Paul laying down rules, regulations, and suggestions on how to worship and use the Eucharist - you find this throughout the New Testament, in fact. The apostles also prayed at given hours as per Jewish tradition (Acts 10:9), something maintained in Orthodoxy.

I don’t believe their order was as involved as what we see in Catholicism today. Can you indicate otherwise?

Reading Fr. Seraphim Rose’s take on Roman Catholic mystics versus how Orthodoxy has always defined such incidents shows a far more discerning voice of theological reason.

Can you summarize his thoughts? And do you think his views trump that of other Catholics? It kind of seems like you are picking and choosing who you want to agree with, rather than taking all Catholic experience into account.

How do you discern that Rose is “a far more discerning voice”?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

No single Orthodox represents the belief of the entire Church - again, reading on Orthodox theology and ecclisiastics would explain this. The Orthodox belief of Church Infallibility does not mean every single church or priest is infallible but that the Church and its teachings as a whole are orthodox (with a little “o”).

There are believed to be about 250,000,000 Orthodox worldwide. Eusebius Stephanou is 0.000004% of that. So yes, his opinion alone does not represent what the entire Orthodox Church believes

Quick, dzheremi, help me: Another argumentum ad populum?

Actually, imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I made an argument, which you criticised, about the great numbers of RC charismatics to show that the charismatic movement has been widely accepted in the Roman Catholic Church. An then, just a few posts later, you use use the same type of argument using numbers to show that the charismatic movement has not been widely accepted in the Orthodox Church. Well done! I can see that my cogent arguments are having impact.

More seriously, your argument that Fr. Stephanaou’s minority view doesn’t represent “Orthodox thought” is highly curious. Is Orthodoxy completely homogenous in all matters of faith? Is it impossible to disagree in Orthodoxy about anything without being outside of “Orthodox thought”? Does the “River of Fire” soteriology represent “Orthodox thought”? How about “Aerial Toll-Houses”, is that “Orthodox thought”? What about those priests who oppose the “River of Fire” and “toll houses”, are these outside of “Orthodox thought”? Is “Othodox thought” what you happen to be thinking? Wouldn’t it be more charitable to call a non-cessationist position at least a “theologoumenon”?

We had a nice woman who had been born Orthodox, left due to marriage (long story), and was now coming back. She had tried several Evangelical and Charismatic churches, and recounted how stressful she felt in some of the Charismatic ones. She was forced to fake “gifts of the Spirit” in order to be accepted.

Again, you are arguing a straw man citing abuses of spiritual gifts. What is next: snake handlers? Is there anyone out there in cyberspace who wants to argue in favour of the abuse of spiritual gifts? I suspect not. However, I do not understand why the abuse of supernatural spiritual gifts should lead you, an Orthodox believer, to embrace Pastor John MacArthur’s cessationist position. Spiritual gifts were abused even in the apostolic time. That is why St. Paul takes time to write to the Corinthians about how to use tongues (I Cor. 12) and prophecy (1 Cor. 14). But he does not say that the church in Corinth shouldn’t practice those gifts, but rather they should do so according to certain guidelines.

St. Paul also says in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22* Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt.Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.*

Do you believe St. Paul’s message is equally valid for the modern Orthodox church as for the apostolic church? What about the many Orthodox saints throughout the centuries who experienced miraculous dreams, visions, encounters with demons and healings (many of whose lives we celebrate in the liturgical calendar). angelfire.com/ga/riggs/SpecialSaints.html Is this further evidence of “Charismatic Chaos” through the centuries? Do I need to list for you the many Orthodox prophets of the 20th century, particularly coming from Russia? More Charismatic Chaos?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Quick, dzheremi, help me: Another argumentum ad populum?

Actually, imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I made an argument, which you criticised, about the great numbers of RC charismatics to show that the charismatic movement has been widely accepted in the Roman Catholic Church. An then, just a few posts later, you use use the same type of argument using numbers to show that the charismatic movement has not been widely accepted in the Orthodox Church. Well done! I can see that my cogent arguments are having impact.

Your bitterness betrays your lack of argumentation.

I made no such logical fallacy. You argued that there are more Roman Catholic charismatics than Orthodox, as if numbers themselves proved anything. When I pointed out the fallacy in this by showing there are more Mormons than Orthodox as well, you did not respond to it.

My argument regarding the number of Orthodox compared to one man was to make the point regarding Church Infallibility as well as to respond to the fact that you were presenting Fr. Stephanaou as if he was an infallible source for Orthodox theology, particular when you seemed shocked that an Orthodox wouldn’t hold him on such high regard as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John Damascene or Saint Gregory Palamas. Your continuation of this rant in the next paragraph seems to suggest that you cannot argue with patristics nor Church Tradition.

Again, you are arguing a straw man citing abuses of spiritual gifts. What is next: snake handlers? Is there anyone out there in cyberspace who wants to argue in favour of the abuse of spiritual gifts? I suspect not. However, I do not understand why the abuse of supernatural spiritual gifts should lead you, an Orthodox believer, to embrace Pastor John MacArthur’s cessationist position.

The abuse of spiritual gifts in our modern society are signs of the inherent flaws within the theology. As I said, there’s no accountability held, and people seem to take visions and supposed miracles for granted without verifying the truth nor researching their scripture or history to see if any of this is true. This seems true for leadership as well, given that many Charismatic preachers have no accountability to any one higher up let alone below. One Charismatic chaplain I spoke to recently lamented that a person would have to become extremely heretical before even being considered kicked out of the church by his bishop.

Furthermore, it was not abuse of spiritual gifts that was the reason I quoted John MacArthur as a source - it was the discussion of why the spiritual gifts stabilized and then decreased after Pentecost. It could not have been the liturgy, as liturgical practices have remained the same throughout most the Church’s history. The Liturgy of Saint James, one of the oldest liturgies known about, is very similar to the liturgies of Saint Basil and Saint John Chrysostom. There also cannot be some conspiracy by early Fathers such as Clement I, Ignatius, Irenaeus or Justin Martyr to “hide” such outpourings of the Spirit. The Church is the way it is because it is the way the apostles and Early Fathers left it.

Also, I quoted John MacArthur not as a source of Orthodox (big “o”) Christian thought, but orthodox (little “o”) Christian thought.

Do you believe St. Paul’s message is equally valid for the modern Orthodox church as for the apostolic church? What about the many Orthodox saints throughout the centuries who experienced miraculous dreams, visions, encounters with demons and healings (many of whose lives we celebrate in the liturgical calendar). angelfire.com/ga/riggs/SpecialSaints.html Is this further evidence of “Charismatic Chaos” through the centuries? Do I need to list for you the many Orthodox prophets of the 20th century, particularly coming from Russia?

Again, you seem to be completely ignoring what I say regarding Orthodoxy and the grace of God and going off on tangents that misrepresent my opinion. I have said many times during this thread that the Orthodoxy believes the Holy Spirit works through people, but that they do not believe the mere presence of such “gifts” to be a sign of anything. Both Saint Paul and Saint John Chrysostom, as I demonstrated before, confirm that love is the most important of all gifts - a person who has love does not require anything else, and it is no longer necessary.

If you read patristics, you’ll find the caution I mentioned before regarding gifts, and it is a consistent one. Saint Diadochos of Photiki, in his On Spiritual Knowledge available in Vol. 1 of the Philokalia, distinguishes between dreams that are from God and from the demons, and makes a statement that I think many modern Charismatics should go by:

And if ever God in His goodness were to send us some vision and we were to refuse it, our beloved Lord Jesus would not be angry with us, for He would know we were acting in this way because of the tricks of the demons. [v. 38]

And another such warning from the blessed Maximos the Confessor, from his Third Century on Theology.

When the demons attack us invisibly in the guise of spiritual friendship, pretending that they want to accomplish the death of sin by means of which in themselves are good, and when they say, “Let us build with you the temple of your Lord,” would that we might always reply, “You cannot share with us in the building of the house for the Lord our God; we alone will build for the Lord of Israel” (1 Esd. 5:70-71). [v. 78]

I highly suggest studying patristics regarding gifts given to us that can also be used against us. and especially the thought of Eastern Fathers, in particular the Desert Fathers who dealt with the deceptions of demons.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Not of fatalism, but of choice. God allows us to choose or reject him, even in the Church. How many Christian groups have failed Christ through entering into heretical teachings? Or through gross sin and betrayal? Or abandoning the love we had at first (Rev. 2)?

Are you therefore arguing that Christ’s church was overcome by Hades, which He said would never happen (Matt 16:18), or that at some point Christ was rejected by His Church, even though He said He would be with the Church always (Matt 28:20)?

Christian “groups” have fallen, I’m sure. His Church, however, has not.

Do you believe church tradition to be infallible?

Church (capital “c”) tradition, yes. After all, the apostles and Early Fathers did.

You have said nothing to indicate that tongues is not a gift for today. Paul said he wished all could speak in tongues and that he spoke in tongues more than all the rest.

He also often belittled their importance, often listing them dead last among the gifts and giving instructions that would contradict most modern Charismatic practices, such as when he said “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor 14:4). Also, you left out part of what Saint Paul said regarding his wish that all could speak in tongues:

I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. [1 Corinthians 14:5; emphasis mine]

Much of 1 Corinthians 14, in fact, attacks the idea of simply speaking in tongues and nothing else. Saint Paul would probably be shocked to find so many Charismatic churches that simply speak in tongues and don’t even bother to interpret or find if there’s any meaning behind what the person is saying.

You also left out part of what Paul said regarding his speaking in tongues:

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. [1 Corinthians 14:18-19]

I don’t believe their order was as involved as what we see in Catholicism today. Can you indicate otherwise?

I am not a Roman Catholic.

Can you summarize his thoughts? And do you think his views trump that of other Catholics? It kind of seems like you are picking and choosing who you want to agree with, rather than taking all Catholic experience into account.

Again, I’m not Roman Catholic - read what my faith is in the upper-right hand corner of my post

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I highly suggest studying patristics regarding gifts given to us that can also be used against us. and especially the thought of Eastern Fathers, in particular the Desert Fathers who dealt with the deceptions of demons.

Since you are fond of patristics (as am I, although I am not fond of typing long quotes from the Fathers), I suggest you read a seminal work on the charismatic gifts and the early church: Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church: An Exploration into the Gifts of the Spirit During the First Three Centuries of the Christian Church
by Ronald A. Kydd (Author)

amazon.com/Charismatic-Gifts-Early-Church-Exploration/dp/0913573094

You still haven’t answered clearly if you think the Orthodox Church is cessationist, like the Pastor John MacArthur you so highly recommend.

I previously inquired from an Orthodox priest about the role of the charismatic gifts in Orthodoxy. He stated the following: “Spontaneous expressions of charismatic gifts wouldn’t be appropriate during the liturgy; nothing is meant to be spontaneous then because its not a time for self-expression. It is when we all come together as one and focus on the Lord. Outside public worship, though, Orthodxoy is full of stories of healings, miracles, and “clear-sight” or “soul-reading,” prophecies of the future, visits of angels, and all that. Since dualism didn’t get a foothold, the assumption is that God is present in earthly matter and earthly life, so of course he is active in his miracles.”

As you can tell, he is absolutely not cessationist in his view of the charismatic gifts.

 

[dzheremi]

You were painting a picture of charismatic faith using the most extreme examples. My point is that I could do the same with Catholicism, which I don’t want to do, and I don’t think you would appreciate. If I need to make my point plainer: please do not base your discussion of the charismatic Church on its extreme examples. I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but will seek to be respectful. Please do the same for that which you are not part of.

This entire thread is about a communion of Churches that I am not a part of (the Orthodox Churches), and their relation to the modern “charismatic” movement that is seen in other churches, so I don’t know why you would feel a need to slander the Catholic Church in the first place here. Furthermore, since my church, the Catholic Church, is one of those churches that is (unfortunately, in my opinon) exhibiting some of this modern “charismatic” behavior, I don’t see why you are drawing the conclusion that it does not concern me. It absolutely does concern me and I will continue to voice my opposition to this “movement” just as I would any movement that I think hurts the faith. If you don’t like it, I would suggest that you avoid my posts, none of which address whatever church you are a part of in the first place (the only example I have brought up so far is that of St. Xenia of St. Petersburg, an Orthodox saint who is a classic example of a “fool for Christ”).

Except, I share faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, as do you and your spiritual fathers, correct? So, you don’t want Protestants to have their faith formed by Catholics?

Leaving aside the obvious response that I don’t want Protestants to be Protestants in the first place, how am I supposed to know anything about the faith of your church? That’s not even the topic of this thread. Is the criterion of “faith in Jesus Christ as Lord”, which is at least on paper shared by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike, a guarantee of orthopraxy on the part of the individual believer or his church? NO. If it were, then we could just as well say that the Mormons, JWs and other clearly heretical non-Christian groups are correct in their practices, since they too claim to have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. As with the idea of charismata among the modern “charismatic” churches, their view of Jesus Christ is widely at variance with either large O or small o Christian orthodoxy.

Also, I take issue with the idea that your faith in any way formed by Catholics because you appropriate some individual incidents in the lives of monks for your own uses, but I digress…I’m sorry, I’m just never going to agree that the modern “charismatic” movement, even within a supposedly Catholic context, is a good thing. See, for instance, this thread.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Since you are fond of patristics (as am I, although I am not fond of typing long quotes from the Fathers), I suggest you read a seminal work on the charismatic gifts and the early church: Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church: An Exploration into the Gifts of the Spirit During the First Three Centuries of the Christian Church
by Ronald A. Kydd (Author)

And I highly suggest you read what the original Fathers say and not continue taking second-hand (or even third-hand) accounts. The four available volumes of the Philokalia are a start, followed by the collections of Desert Father sayings or guides by various Church Fathers and monastics.

You still haven’t answered clearly if you think the Orthodox Church is cessationist, like the Pastor John MacArthur you so highly recommend.

I previously inquired from an Orthodox priest about the role of the charismatic gifts in Orthodoxy. He stated the following: “Spontaneous expressions of charismatic gifts wouldn’t be appropriate during the liturgy; nothing is meant to be spontaneous then because its not a time for self-expression. It is when we all come together as one and focus on the Lord. Outside public worship, though, Orthodxoy is full of stories of healings, miracles, and “clear-sight” or “soul-reading,” prophecies of the future, visits of angels, and all that. Since dualism didn’t get a foothold, the assumption is that God is present in earthly matter and earthly life, so of course he is active in his miracles.”

As you can tell, he is absolutely not cessationist in his view of the charismatic gifts.

You still haven’t grasped what I’ve explained before, and have again ignored any argumentation I made previously.

I think this is perhaps the third or fourth time I’m saying this, but the Orthodox Church does not deny the use of the Holy Spirit (or the grace of God) or that we find ourselves filled with grace and that God uses us for certain abilities. What it denies is the free-style use of it practiced by Charismatic churches, and a complete reliance on it. This is what I mean by controlled - we do not seek it, God grants it to us for our spiritual growth. Yes, there were healings and foretelling of the future and miracles performed, but it was by the grace of God, and it was nothing like the modern charismatics were doing. Saint Anthony the Great chased away demons, and Russian saints in Alaska stopped forest fires, but none of them started speaking gibberish in church, and there was always some form of verification for what they were doing, or that the spirits they spoke with came from the Lord. As the quotes I gave before show, they stressed caution, and that above all else the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit was love.

Again, the large outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was for the foundation of the Church. Even the previously cited John MacArthur (whose book I can only assume you have not read) admits fully that he believes God still works miracles in people’s lives (pg 130-131). He doesn’t deny the presence of the Holy Spirit or such gifts today, what he denies is the extreme practice of it in Charismatic churches and the common abuses inherent in this theology, as well as the demand by many that this is “true” worship, and those who refuse to embrace it are experiencing a kind of false worship that “chokes out God.”

 

[preacher_girl]

Are you therefore arguing that Christ’s church was overcome by Hades, which He said would never happen (Matt 16:18), or that at some point Christ was rejected by His Church, even though He said He would be with the Church always (Matt 28:20)?

The Church has failed in many ways, but also triumphed. It is not yet perfect; God is still working on us. Any one of us can look at examples in our own churches/denominations of success and failure to obey God’s commands. I was responding to your statement that God cannot be “programmed out”. If the Church can fail in certain areas, then it call also program God out at times.

Realize though, I’m not saying the Church has failed completely or been overtaken by evil. I’m saying that we are not yet fully reflecting the image of Christ.

Church (capital “c”) tradition, yes. After all, the apostles and Early Fathers did.

Are you saying you find the church/tradition to be fallible or infallible?

He also often belittled their importance, often listing them dead last among the gifts and giving instructions that would contradict most modern Charismatic practices, such as when he said “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor 14:4). Also, you left out part of what Saint Paul said regarding his wish that all could speak in tongues:

I know what the text says. Paul was bringing balance and setting priorities. He wasn’t prohibiting tongues, however, but I sense that you would.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The Church has failed in many ways, but also triumphed. It is not yet perfect; God is still working on us. Any one of us can look at examples in our own churches/denominations of success and failure to obey God’s commands. I was responding to your statement that God cannot be “programmed out”. If the Church can fail in certain areas, then it call also program God out at times.

I would agree that churches (little “c”) can fail, however the Church (big “c”) cannot. The Church of Christ which He established through the apostles is still alive today, and to claim that it has failed in any way, again, contradicts the promises made by Christ to the Church.

Realize though, I’m not saying the Church has failed completely or been overtaken by evil. I’m saying that we are not yet fully reflecting the image of Christ.

We have a word for that - theosis. And many saints have obtained it. It is not the goal of the Church to be the image of Christ, but mankind, for man was made in the image of God. The Church simply helps him get there, both from the Church Triumphant and Church Militant.

Are you saying you find the church/tradition to be fallible or infallible?

Infallible, because, as I said, the apostles did

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. [2 Thessalonians 2:15]

I know what the text says. Paul was bringing balance and setting priorities. He wasn’t prohibiting tongues, however, but I sense that you would.

I would prohibit any theology that says having tongues or any other special “gift” that modern Charismatics thrive on is the only thing to make you a real Christian, especially when Saint Paul and Church Tradition holds fast that the highest gift is the simple, divine love of God within us for others.