Is the Pentecostal Church becoming New Age?

Oscarr said:

Yes. But is a concern that many approach God in exactly that way.

Click to expand...

Wasn't it the way of thinking and believing with which the main Pentecostal denominations started? Azusa Street was, as far as I know, an exercise in emphasis on personal experience, spiritual gifts, hearing God speaking to one's self, and impressionistic interpretation of holy scripture.

Oscarr said:

You are correct. But then, the early Pentecostal revival was Pentecostalism in its infancy. No-one had developed a theology of it, and there was no existing theology, so God had to introduce it in the way He did. But as children grow up, so the Pentecostal church matured and teaching was added to make things clearer. John G Lake was Pentecostal, but he was trained in medicine as well. He had a more academic approach, and trained a group of Divine Healing Technicians to support him in his work. He was probably the first Pentecostal preacher to develop any sort of theology that made a start in providing a stable foundation as a alternative to everyone doing what came to them.

The principle of New Age is putting the emphasis on self and humanistic abilities to solve life's problems. Was this the emphasis of the early Pentecostals? I don't think so, Immature as they were, I think they wanted to glorify God, but they wanted to get right away from the Calvinistic attitudes of their church backgrounds. By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, there was division of thought and practice in the Pentecostal movement. Azuza Street was just one branch of the Pentecostal movement, and even some of the other pioneers didn't agree with much that went on there.

Click to expand...

I am inclined to think that what is in the root of a thing is what will show in its growth, branches, fruit, and eventually in its seed. If it started as an exercise in emphasis on personal experience, spiritual gifts, hearing God speaking to one's self, and impressionistic interpretation of holy scripture then it ought not to surprise anybody when its fruit and seed are also an exercise in emphasis on personal experience, spiritual gifts, hearing God speaking to one's self, and impressionistic interpretation of holy scripture. The new age movement has different roots and different fruit will no doubt appear but one cannot help but think that the final fruit will have seed that reproduce according to its kind and the kind is shown in the root and shoots.

Oscarr said:

Something else to add: One of the practices that I disagree with is this "slaying in the Spirit". I believe that it is a counterfeit of the real thing. We don't find any reference to it, as it is practiced in the Charismatic churches, in the New Testament. But what we do see, for example, in the experience of Charles Finney, that sinners were struck down in conviction by the Holy Spirit and many got up converted to Christ. David Brainerd, missionary to the Native Amercian Indians had the experience of the Holy Spirit striking his listeners down in a demonstration of His power. The whole point was to bring a crowd of pagans into the Christian faith. In accounts of revivals there have been similar examples of people being struck down with conviction, leading to them crying out for mercy and then getting saved. What has happened is that some in the Pentecostal movement saw this and thought that having the same experience made them more spiritual. It then became a widespread phenomenon, but I don't believe it is motivated by the Holy Spirit. If people are looking for some emotional experience then the devil is always around to give them one. The only way to be truly spiritual is to obey the commands of Christ and be faithful to the teaching of the New Testament epistles. Anything in the form of hype or bodily fallings or writhings is not reflected in the New Testament and therefore not genuine.

Click to expand...

The above analysis looks a little bit cynical nevertheless I am inclined to agree that what passes for spiritual experience in charismatic meetings today would have a hard time passing muster in any serious revival but I also wonder if some accounts of revival in the 19th and 18th centuries may not have included sham experiences too because differentiating between the sham and a genuine change of heart can be quite difficult.

What happens in charismatic meetings today and over the past thirty five years varies so some of the experiences may be genuine while some may be shams.

i think it's more of a bapticostal thing . the two types of denominations seem to have been intermixing

Oscarr said:

Merely reading an article about Curry Blake's teaching is not enough to get an accurate idea of what he teaches. You need to listen to his three day DHT seminar. Then you will know what he actually teaches.

Click to expand...

This has been a thought provocating thread where I need to apologise for not getting back to your post in particular as I've found this week to be particularly busy. I've copied out your post where I should be able to read through it later today.

Over the past few years I have been looking around my suburb for a good church, I have been in many Pentecostal churches, one Church of Christ. I have also been in Pentecostal churches most of my adult life. All I have found is genuine people genuinely seeking God.

A church is made up of individuals, and people have both genuine, and deceptive experiences, some are alive some are near dead. As a Christian I have been deceived by Satan in the past, I am likely to be deceived in the future. But Christ has caused me to triumph over my past, and my mistakes.

As for the direction of the church, there is nothing wrong with a focus on family or growth (improvement if you will), as that is needed for some. But there needs to be a greater focus on seeking God, seeking His face. For in His presence we are changed. In His presence devine miracles flow.

If a church exists purely to please people, to keep them happy, and not offend them, and leaves God out, then there is a problem.

A lot of pentecostals in my experience admire the work of Napoleon Hill.

Oscarr said:

I agree. It is very easy to generalise. I think that the rule is whether Christ is glorified and sinners are coming to Christ. If that is happening, then it would be difficult to fault.

Click to expand...

While it is true that souls turning to the Lord Jesus Christ and the lifting up of Christ are indeed very significant indicators that good things are happening these cannot be seen as the rule to use to measure a movement and the motives of those in it; truth must be present too. And although truth by itself may seem desiccated to some it is nevertheless pivotal to measuring any movement.

Oscarr said:

I was converted to Christ in a Pentecostal Church in 1966. That church had a strong emphasis on getting people saved, healed, and set free from demons. It also featured tongues messages and prophecies in their worship meetings. People sang the hymns and songs with great gusto, and overall, it was fun to be in those services.

Over the years, I have noticed significant changes. Many Pentecostal churches have stopped having tongues messages and prophecies. They have more of an emphasis on Christian living than getting people saved. It seems that less people are being ministered to for healing and deliverance.

There seems to be a greater emphasis on personal counselling, improving their spiritual lives. This is bringing a greater emphasis on self-improvement, which is definitely a New Age characteristic.

Also, the application of the Word of Knowledge is worryingly similar to that practised by Psychics. Both are delving into people's lives and predicting the future. A word of knowledge in a church and a horoscope can say exactly the same thing about a person. Also, there is a greater emphasis on "voices" and "impressions" where in the past people were directed to the pages of Scripture for guidance.

Viewing a preacher as having special powers to look into the inner lives of people is more allied to psychic phenomena than Christian practice, and yet many Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders give people that impression.

Also, in the healing ministry, the emphasis is placed on a special person having supernatural powers of healing. This is New Age. No person has that power. Christians are directed to lay hands on the sick, but it is Christ who does the healing, not the person laying his hands on a sick person. There is no such thing as the power of the Holy Spirit being some sort of "electricity" that flows through a person. This is more like spiritualism that is practiced in a spiritist church.

Maybe this is why when there are healing meetings, there is a lot of ministry, but very few actual healings. It seems that the talk is still there, but the power has gone. I say this because if there are real healings of actual diseases and disabilities, the newspapers would be full of it, like they were in Wellington NZ when Smith Wigglesworth had his meetings there in 1922 and 1927.

But we don't see reports of healings in our newspapers, because they don't happen in most cases.

It has been reported that over 80 percent of current teaching about divine healing just does not work because it does not line up with Scripture.

The fault is not God's. He is still the healing God, but He will not share His glory with others, and He certainly will not identify Himself with the New Age movement in any of its forms, and if it is invading the Pentecostal church, then it is no surprise that the Holy Spirit has withdrawn.

And yet, most of the churches are like Sampson whose power disappeared when Delilah cut his hair, and he didn't realise it had gone and he went to do what he usually does to defeat the Philistines.

Perhaps many Pentecostal churches are like the Emperor with the new suit of clothes which were actually non existent but he didn't know it and everyone was afraid to admit it. Perhaps many in these churches are afraid to admit that the power of God is no longer there, and that just an empty religiosity has replaced it. They are still teaching the doctrines, but there is no power to make them real.

Food for discussion...

Click to expand...

I can personally relate to a lot of this. I think most is an astute observation.

Oscarr said:

For a start, I listened carefully to his DHT at Minnesota, and a Seattle, and viewed the DHT in Australia. I also bought his DHT manual and have studied it carefully. He clearly states that faith is not required by the sick person for healing, but it is required by the person ministering the healing. He gives the examples of Lazarus who was raised from the dead. He did not have faith, obviously. He also speaks about the lame man in Act 3 who did not have faith, but rather was just looking for money. It was Peter and John who exercised faith to raise the man up. He tells about John Wesley's horse that was healed of lameness. He cheekily says "thank goodness that horse had faith to be healed!" So, hearing him first hand in three contexts, he is very clear about who needs faith for healing and it is definitely not the sick person.

Click to expand...

One of the interesting benefits of a person being either unconscious or even dead, is that even though they may not be able to exhibit even a minimalist amount of faith, there is the benefit that they are at least unable to walk in unbelief.

Even though I prefaced faith in my earlier post with “be it in various forms”, having re-read what I said, I’ve realised that this could mean almost anything where I need to qualify my definition of faith as it being maybe little more than hope or an acceptance that God could possibly provide a healing; dare I say, it could be equated with “if we don’t ask, then we don’t get”. This minimalist faith cannot be compared to the faith of 1Cor 12:9 where the Spirit provides a greater amount of faith for a specific purpose.

Curry Blake's teaching about annointing makes a big distinction between the Old Covenant and the New. In the Old Covenant people got annointed for specific purposes. In the New Covenant there is only one annointing and that is the baptism in the Spirit. When a person is baptised in the Spirit then he/she is permanently annointed. There is no such thing as an annointed for specific tasks or ministries. It is not in the New Testament at all.

Click to expand...

I will agree that populist term “the anointing” which seems to be more of a wof catchphrase is more than problematic and in the vast majority of cases the term is both poorly employed and usually abused by its proponents, which is why I avoid the term.

Having now said this, I strenuously disagree with Blake’s teaching on the Old and New Covenants where I would say that he has actually got it back to front.
Having hammered away on this particular point on this forum for maybe three years, it can be a bit frustrating to encounter remarks that fail to recognise the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) and with the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:28) where we have both the MotS of healings and powers (aka, miracles) which can translate into the Offices of healings and powers. Under the Old Covenant we had the Prophet (along with the prophets) and the Priesthood where the priest essentially embodied 7 of the 8 Congregational Offices. So where the OT priest had a degree of special anointing on him, there is no anointing for the person who is operating within the Offices of healings or powers under the New Covenant, other than both Offices being the result of specific individuals having applied a degree of desire and faith (that word again) to allow the Holy Spirit to outwork through them in these two areas.

As many contemporary theologians say, when it comes to 1Cor 12:28-31, the emphasis is not so much on the way in which the Spirit outworks through the Believer (in contrast to 12:7-11) but on the individual who holds the Office. Four of the eight Congregational Offices, being those of the prophet, powers, healing and tongues/articulations are thoroughly Spirit operated where the remaining four Offices are not so much Spirit inspired, as with the Offices of the apostle (church planting), teacher, administrator and helps, where these last four are more the result of our temperament, character and personality along with whatever training/skills we have developed over the years.

Paul has provided an amazing discourse with the highly Trinitarian chapter of 1Cor 12 where he goes into some detail to explain that the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:28) will be spread right across the local congregation where it will be recognised by the local congregation that the Holy Spirit works through certain people in the area of healings and powers. As much as the cessationist sees red when he turns to 1Cor 12, for many Pentecostals, it seems that we become dyslexic, where we see the words but for some reason we often can’t quite make them read in a orderly manner.

What is being taught here is that there is no specific formula for ministering healing. If you read the Gospels and Acts you will see that there is no particular method.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Scriptures do not provide any ‘formulas’ for us to appropriate or provide healing; other than there being a Biblical framework where we are of course told that the Holy Spirit will work through specific individuals in healing and powers and if the local congregation is accommodative to the workings of the Holy Spirit, then such individuals may be recognised as holding either the Office/Function of healings or powers, which are two of the 8 Congregational Offices that every congregation should be attempting to incorporate.

We do have 1Cor 11 where Paul says that some among us are “weak and sick, and a number sleep” along with a solution to this in James 5:13-20 but I will cover this in another point.

Note that James puts healing before forgiveness.

Click to expand...

That is definitely incorrect as James has made it abundantly plain that forgiveness precedes healing. I have never come across any theologian or commentator that disagrees with this and I would be surprised if even Blake would disagree. There is really no other way to read James 5 which says that repentance and forgiveness proceeds healing.

What you are saying when you say that sin is the cause of the affliction is that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to completely cover our sins. You are saying that Jesus did an imperfect job of dying for us on the cross. Sin does not hinder healing. Note that James puts healing before forgiveness. Actually this is not what Paul is teaching about the bread and the wine. The bread stands for the broken body of Christ to make us whole in our bodies, and the wine stands for the blood which cleanses us from all sin. Born again Christians are totally free from the guilt and penalty of sin. Because you are saying that sickness is a penalty of sin, you are saying that born again Christians are not fully cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Wouldn't this be a devaluing of the blood of Jesus, and therefore misrepresenting the Righteousness of Christ which covered every born again Christian? What Paul is actually talking about is that people come to communion not understanding that the broken body of Jesus stands for physical healing, and that is why people are sick and have died. The condemnation that Paul talks about is the condemnation of having to be sick and a life cut short, not eternal condemnation for sin, which is the lot of the unconverted sinner not the born again Christian. Maybe you need to have a better understanding of where you stand in Christ, and get into the New Covenant instead of hanging back in the Old.

Click to expand...

For those who believe in OSAS and/or that the Believer cannot sin, then you are at least being consistent with this line of thought but these two views certainly stand against the entirety of the New Testament teachings on this subject, which I have already referred to in 1Cor 11 and James 5. As some (but not all) illnesses are as Paul says, the result of an individual Believers choice to sin, then we are doing many a great disservice if we tell them that there sinful choices, be it with hatred, fornication, paedophilia, theft or whatever, that these things need not be dealt with before they receive their healing, then we are condemning them to a life of misery, pain and maybe even physical death.

On Blake’s website with his Statement of Faith (see below), he promotes the common populist teaching that God does not judge his people (or anyone) where this has ambiguously “been passed on to Jesus”, which is a fair thing to say providing that we limit his reference to John 5:22 to the period of the ministry of Jesus up until the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost; this is where things change where Jesus informs the Disciples in John 16:7-11 that the Spirit will be the one who will then convict and allow us to know that we have been judged:


His reference to John 12:47-48 is also limited to those who witnessed the ministry of Jesus, Acts 17:30-31 is out of context as this is speaking specifically to our day of reckoning and 1Cor 6:2 is also speaking about the same day; but, the rest of chapter 6 speaks about how we are to judge one another within the church and Paul warns us in verses 9 & 10 that any Believer who commits fornication, idolatry, adultery . . . or are drunks, revilers . . . will inherit the Kingdom of God when they/we stand before him on the Day of Judgment.

. . .
Even though I disagree with some of the positions that you’ve presented, as you said with your opening post, the thread should prove interesting and I think that this has been the case. Unfortunately I’ve not replied to a few of your points as this post would be even longer than it is, though they would undoubtedly be worth having their individual posts.

Oscarr said:

The main source of the widespread unbelief in our churches is that we do not make the Word of God our final and absolute authority and basis for the way we conduct the ministry. Jesus was very simple in His approach. You never see Him asking the Father to heal people. He healed people by commanding. He told sick people to take up their beds, show themselves to the priest, wash in a certain pool. He did not pray for the sick at all. If that is so, praying and asking God to heal people is simply unbelief and there will be no results. Asking God to heal people makes Him out to be a liar, because He has already promised healing. The command for us is to lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. There is no instruction to pray long prayers, have healing meetings, etc. Jesus went out on the street and healed sinners. There were no Christians then. He healed unconverted Jews and gentiles. All we have to do is to compare the way that Jesus healed people with the way most of the church does it and we are not surprised why most of what the church is doing just does not work. Mark 16 says that these signs follow those who BELIEVE. What? God's Word and not new age or religious gimmicks and worldly methods.

Click to expand...

Oscarr, it seems that you’ve made a number of remarks which in my view move outside of orthodox Biblical Christianity! It’s one thing for the Son of God who has all the authority of heaven residing within him to command healing, but for the children of God we cannot relate to the Father as a member of the Trinity but as children who have been grafted into the Vine.

The command for us is to lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

Click to expand...

What do you make of James 5 where we are told (commanded) in 5:14 that the elders of the church are to pray over the person who has approached them for healing? James goes onto say that if the person who is seeking prayer and counsel needs to confess of any sin, which he may admit to on his own account or where the elders might be aware of their being some deep ingrained issues or where maybe an elder through the Holy Spirit could provide a word of knowledge regarding some unconfessed sin, then if the person repents of their sin the elders can then pray [ask the Lord] to heal the individual.

James is adamant that the elders and the individual who is seeking healing must ask the Lord in faith (v.15) where James says that if these criteria are met they will be healed; he makes no mention of any verbal commands that we are to declare to the sickness.

There were no Christians then. He healed unconverted Jews and gentiles. All we have to do is to compare the way that Jesus healed people with the way most of the church does it and we are not surprised why most of what the church is doing just does not work. Mark 16 says that these signs follow those who BELIEVE. What? God's Word and not new age or religious gimmicks and worldly methods.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that this would have been enough to realise that while God (The Son) was on earth during the Old Covenant (our Gospel period), that this would have been enough to realise that he was operating in his own authority and not within any New Covenant stipulations which are the ones that we are governed by.

Mark 16 says that these signs follow those who BELIEVE.

Click to expand...

That's true, but we need to be careful with how we apply "sign/s" as the Lord was most likely referring to how healings and the rare occurrence of xenoglossic tongues as per the Day of Pentecost will be employed within greenfield areas. Luke was not trying to suggest that we could all run around blindly commanding every sickness and disease to leave our bodies as we still need to adhere to the Biblical stipulations and framework for healings, which in my view, seems to be a bit lacking with Blake's material.

The previous two posts are an interesting contrast in theologies and appear to be on matters that are core beliefs about forgiveness, repentance, and sin in relation to mercy and healing.

Do either or both of you believe that a baptised faithful christian can sin?

If such a christian does sin ought they to repent of their sin?

If they repent will they be forgiven?

Or is it impossible for a baptised faithful christian to sin?

I look forward to seeing replies to my questions.

During the showdown on Mount Carmel, the prophets of Baal danced around and cut themselves, but their god was unable to do anything for them. The God of Elijah rained down fire from Heaven.

The name "Baal" simply means "Lord". These prophets were most probably Hebrew men, who thought that they were serving "The Lord". They worshiped him before his altar, and probably argued their theology about him in their spare time. But when it came down to it, Baal did nothing for them!

Much the same problem occurred with the followers of Baal during the time of Gideon. God had him pull down the idol of Baal, and destroy the place of worship. When the people came to defend their god by killing Gideon, his dad stepped forward and suggested that if Baal is indeed God, then he should be able to defend himself. The people went away, and nothing bad happened to Gideon. Baal was powerless.

Worshiping an impotent god is nothing new. I'm concerned that today we might be busy doing the same thing. We may not have statues that we sacrifice our livestock in front of, but we could be worshiping the same empty air the followers of Baal did so many years ago.

How do we know when we have the One True God before us? Through the power of signs and wonders, I imagine. That is the New Testament way things worked... at least in the beginning.

We can discuss all week long about how others are doing it wrong, but there is no guarantee that any of us have it right. Not without the Holy Spirit stepping in and SHOWING us His approval by doing things that we humans cannot. But even in the middle of a time when signs and wonders are evident , I wonder just how much of that is grace, and how much of that has anything to do with the person's theology. Samson seemed to move quite often in the power of the Spirit, but didn't understand how or why it worked.

... Just some thoughts that come to mind while reading this discussion.

Tobias said:

During the showdown on Mount Carmel, the prophets of Baal danced around and cut themselves, but their god was unable to do anything for them. The God of Elijah rained down fire from Heaven.

The name "Baal" simply means "Lord". These prophets were most probably Hebrew men, who thought that they were serving "The Lord". They worshiped him before his altar, and probably argued their theology about him in their spare time. But when it came down to it, Baal did nothing for them!

Much the same problem occurred with the followers of Baal during the time of Gideon. God had him pull down the idol of Baal, and destroy the place of worship. When the people came to defend their god by killing Gideon, his dad stepped forward and suggested that if Baal is indeed God, then he should be able to defend himself. The people went away, and nothing bad happened to Gideon. Baal was powerless.

Worshiping an impotent god is nothing new. I'm concerned that today we might be busy doing the same thing. We may not have statues that we sacrifice our livestock in front of, but we could be worshiping the same empty air the followers of Baal did so many years ago.

How do we know when we have the One True God before us? Through the power of signs and wonders, I imagine. That is the New Testament way things worked... at least in the beginning.

We can discuss all week long about how others are doing it wrong, but there is no guarantee that any of us have it right. Not without the Holy Spirit stepping in and SHOWING us His approval by doing things that we humans cannot. But even in the middle of a time when signs and wonders are evident , I wonder just how much of that is grace, and how much of that has anything to do with the person's theology. Samson seemed to move quite often in the power of the Spirit, but didn't understand how or why it worked.

... Just some thoughts that come to mind while reading this discussion.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. We wonder at times why we pray and pray long elaborate healing prayers. We quote every scripture. We anoint the dickens out of the sick with oil and no healing comes. No power is manifested. No demonstrations of the Spirit come. Why? We wonder.

I'll take this from my Facebook page:

Do you want to know why your preaching isn't effective? Why all your Bible knowledge seems fruitless? It is because you are working on your own name, on your time. Jesus told the disciples "Go into all the world and preach the gospel". (Mark 16:15) Instead of sending them right away though he told them to "wait in Jerusalem until you receive power... to be my witnesses." (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8) A lot of chatter about go, go, go, but what about waiting? Wait for God to open a door for you to minister. You can sure try your best and preach until you are blue in the face, but without God's blessing it will be pointless and fruitless. You can count on that. Wait for the LORD (Ps 27:14; Luke 24:49)

Jesus told his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount to not pray with useless repetition because the Father already knows what we need before we ask him. That is why you never see a person in the New Testament pray for 30 minutes for healing. They simply say "Rise up and walk in the name of Jesus."

That simplicity and command presence comes when we Wait upon the LORD to reveal his work to us. If we go it alone, then we are not cooperating with the Spirit and may actually be striving against the Spirit. Why?

Had the disciples immediately set off from the Mount of Olives and began preaching they may well have preached a very sound gospel message. Jesus was alive after all. But his command was to wait until they received power. Then go witness. Healing, manifestations, miracles, prophecies, are not given at our whim to satisfy us. They are testaments to God's love to the message of grace.

If the church is not active in evangelism, if it doesn't have an attitude of waiting for God to instruct when and where and how such things are to be done, then Pentecostal, Baptist, Charismatic, etc doesn't matter. It is all fruitless.