Charismatic Chaos

Yes. He might have hit on some genuinely unfortunate things going on in the charismatic movement (I don't know about those things - I've never seen any such happenings in real life myself), but his tone, his selective quoting and research, and his attempts to discredit charismatic men and women of God who are/were, while imperfect like the rest of us, totally the real deal (imho)... well, that's all rather ugly and sad.

He, certain teachers like him, and those who avidly follow these teachers can also sometimes have a very narrow, insular, culturally-bound view of what Christianity is and how the Christian faith ought to be expressed.

Having said that, I'm sure there are good things one can learn from the man and that whole Christian "camp".

Well, many non-charismatics seem to still come to the conclusion that Continuationism is heresy and that what charismatics experience is a delusion from the Devil, though they're not quite as vicious in how they express these views as their cessationist brethren were a few decades back.

It is reasonable, if you move in the gifts of the Spirit and regard their continuation as perfectly Scriptural, to regard cessationism as a heretical view. However, that doesn't mean you think all cessationists are heretics or that they aren't genuine believers. I was saved at a Baptist Christian youth camp, and one of the leaders made fun of tongues and none of them were charismatics. I thank these brothers in Christ for introducing me to Jesus and for all their good work, but I've since learned that their views on the Gifts are heretical.(That's quite an unpleasant word, with a horribly inquisitional ring to it... maybe we should think of another?)

Based on what? No verse of scripture says that. No creed, catechism, or confession says this.

So, short or just arbitrarily declaring it a heresy, how did you decide that it's a heresy?

Thank you for your response.

However, I did not "arbitrarily" declare it heresy. The word (and concept) didn't exist when Scripture was written and when these creeds were formed, so I would not expect to find it addressed in that way. But it is heresy by virtue of the fact that the Bible does not teach it!

It is a man-made doctrine borne out of experience - an experience of lack.

For example - do you not consider Catholic views regarding the Pope to be "heretical", even if Scripture and early creeds do not deal with the issue (because it did not exist at that time)?

But perhaps I am misusing terms here. I am no trained theologian, and perhaps "heresy" has a technical meaning I am unaware of. I'd be happy to to hear your views on the appropriate use of such words.

Originally Posted by AudioArtist

But perhaps I am misusing terms here. I am no trained theologian, and perhaps "heresy" has a technical meaning I am unaware of. I'd be happy to to hear your views on the appropriate use of such words.

I would also be interested in hearing an authorative description of the proper use of the word.

I've heard it described as something serious enough to mean the heretic will not be in heaven.

I would reserve the word for serious false teachers/teachings, like not believing in the virgin birth or the trinity, or perhaps an item in the Apostles Creed.

I don't think Baptists should be called heretics for not believing the gifts are for today. It weakens the proper use of the word.

BTW. Many UK Baptists believed in the gifts in the late 19th early 20th century.


peace,
Simon

What, you DON'T believe it's a heresy? How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

~A heresy could be a lot of things. In the case of cessationism, it says that God is a God of changes, clearly in contradiction to the Word of God where it says that God is not a God that changes all the time; Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, etc... The SAME Spirit that raised Christ from the dead is the SAME Spirit by which we are raised from the dead. Hence, since the God and Holy Spirit of cessationism is different than the God and Holy Spirit of the Bible, it is a false teaching that cessationist have and is a heresy.
~ And, as Jim has already alluded to, his reseach is shoddy. If the university students I grade were to produce claptrap like charismatic chaos and submit it as a paper they would fail.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

MacArthur is obvious an intelligent man who has studied the Bible a lot, but this piece of fiction is really garbage. I suppose it is good for having a collection of some of the most extreme Charismatics. The Charismatic movement has no lack of flakes, people with wird doctrines, and con-men. But many examples in the book make the whole movement seem that way, which is a strawman argument.

Here are the two main arguments MacArthur presents, in my own words.

1. Call revelatory stuff 'mystical' and assume that if its mystical its bad.

Plenty of occurrances in the Bible are just as 'mystical' as some of the ones MacArthur calls mystical.

2. The idea that because God did something in the past, He won't do it now.

That's pretty much his argument, as I see it. It's the opposite of the conclusion we should draw. His assumptions are wrong. The idea that revelation was only given during time periods in the Old Testament when a lot of scriptural revelation was given isn't really accurate. Many of the miraculous events described in I&II Samuel and I&II Kings were not apparently written down in these books of the Bible until hundreds of years later.

Plus, the whole assumption the Spirit operates now according to patterns observed in the Old Testament is seriously flawed. We live in the last days when the Spirit is being poured out on all flesh. So it makes no sense to argue that if miracles were confined to certain times in the Old Testament, that they will not occur frequently in this time period.

Really, he doesn't have any Biblical basis for rejecting the direct commands of scripture, especially since he doesn't try to read cessationism into I Corinthians 13 as many cessationists do.

The book kind of had a spiritual heaviness to it, in a bad way. I saw a man on Christian TV interviewed for writing a book on the Holy Spirit, Ortega, I think was his last name, after MacArthur's came out. I happened to see him at a church I was visiting and talked to him about his book and MacArthur's. He said, He commented on the heavinesses (in a negative sense) on that book as well.

Me too, what used to be tongues, and healings, has become a circus, and if one does not hold the party line, one is a "pharisee" or they are against the Spirit, the "move of God". Not only that, I have alot of commentaries by some reputable scholars, and they teach some pretty good stuff.