P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Beng,I think neo-charismaticism is dangerous and hereticals.
And I think that lurkers will see the point that I’m trying to make.
NO ONE until now gives enough substantive argument againt the proposal that:
“not taken seriously” will not sway me from telling it like it is. I even considered that a cheap shot, but anyway…
- Tongues in front of believers without interpretation is erroneous
- Baptism by Spirit as understand in the Charismaticism is heretical
If you wanna see my other posts go to apologetic forum and see “Reason… fatih alone” thread or just click “find all posts” on my profile.
I am a “charismatic”, and I agree with your first point. Therefore, I am not going to give an argument against it. We may have somewhat different ideas on how that should be applied.
As for point #2, my personal, unresearched understanding is that there are Catholic charismatics who hold an incorrect view regarding the action of the Holy Spirit in their life, believing that there is some sort of second baptism distinct from the Sacrament of Baptism. However, there are other Catholic charismatics (such as those I am associated with at my parish, including my priest) who may use the phrase “baptism of the Holy Spirit” but do not mean the same thing as the first group of Catholics. I fear that I will not be able to explain it in sufficiently accurate language, but this “baptism” is seen as a cooperation with the graces of Baptism and Confirmation – allowing the Holy Spirit to work more fully in our lives.
Hence, while by “charismatic” people are referring to the “charismatic gifts” of 1 Cor 12, I myself would consider the gifts of 1 Cor 12 to be only a part of living an authentic life in the Spirit. As far as I am concerned, one could be charismatic without any experience of the “charismatic” gifts or even a belief that such gifts are still in operation today.