Catholic or Orthodox - Charismatic stuff?

[ArmyMatt]

Charismatics are just a different type of spirituality. Something can be different without being wrong.

I judge Christians by their fruit, if I must judge at all. It seems to me charismatics and Pentecostals are capable of loving God and loving their neighbor the same as many other church traditions.

I read a few books by Michelle Perry who was involved in the controversial Toronto Blessing. Who else but the Spirit of God motivates a one-legged woman to go to Africa and care for orphans in Sudan? I'm not saying that's an automatic endorsement of all of Pentecostal spirituality, but to be unduly skeptical of the motives of others seems like a kind of spiritual blindness and lack of generosity in ones religion. I'm not impressed by folks that denigrate the religion of others just because it doesn't fit into their ecclessial boundaries.

none of that are the reasons people are skeptical of the Charismatic Movement. yes, judge individuals by their fruit, but that doesn't mean we embrace the movement as simply a different form of spirituality. a Wiccan could be involved with Doctors Without Borders because of a devotion to Apollo. so while the person is doing something godly, the theological reason for it is demonic. and God could very well save and bless the Wiccan for his good work.

there is a difference between an individual and a theological understanding. so we can absolutely affirm the good of a person in the movement and be very cautious of the movement itself.

so it's not that we have only one spirituality, it's just that the Charismatic Movement is not one we would affirm because it is in line more historically with demonic possession.

 

[FireDragon76]

none of that are the reasons people are skeptical of the Charismatic Movement. yes, judge individuals by their fruit, but that doesn't mean we embrace the movement as simply a different form of spirituality. a Wiccan could be involved with Doctors Without Borders because of a devotion to Apollo.

That seems more of an ad-hoc hypothetical to me. In addition, we are not talking about people that confess Apollo as Lord, we are talking about people that confess Jesus as Lord.

so it's not that we have only one spirituality, it's just that the Charismatic Movement is not one we would affirm because it is in line more historically with demonic possession.

That's what your church says, according to you... but why is your church the last authority? There are many Christian churches that have self-consistent narratives about themselves. Why is the Orthodox one so special? How can it stand alone and judge what is objective truth, a Gods-eye perspective? Isn't that a bit idolatrous?

 

[ArmyMatt]

That seems more of an ad-hoc hypothetical to me. In addition, we are not talking about people that confess Apollo as Lord, we are talking about people that confess Jesus as Lord

no, but it does show that we can embrace a spiritual person, while flat out rejecting their spiritual beliefs.

That's what your church says, according to you... but why is your church the last authority? There are many Christian churches that have self-consistent narratives about themselves. Why is the Orthodox one so special? How can it stand alone and judge what is objective truth, a Gods-eye perspective? Isn't that a bit idolatrous?

well, for one, we do believe Orthodoxy is the True Church. that makes Orthodoxy the authority since only in Orthodoxy has the vision of the True Christ been maintained. for two, I mentioned history not theology. historically, stuff like the Toronto blessing and a lot of the Charismatic Movement is in line with historically what was seen as demonic possession.

and no, that doesn't even fit the definition of idolatry since this discussion is not speaking of making latria to any idol.

 

[FireDragon76]

well, for one, we do believe Orthodoxy is the True Church. that makes Orthodoxy the authority since only in Orthodoxy has the vision of the True Christ been maintained. for two, I mentioned history not theology. historically, stuff like the Toronto blessing and a lot of the Charismatic Movement is in line with historically what was seen as demonic possession.

Because it looks wierd, strange... even crazy? Then bushes don't burn. Asses don't talk. Seas don't part. Men don't walk on water. The dead don't rise from the grave. Water, bread, and wine don't save people from sin and death.

Perhaps Unitarianism or the United Church of Christ is the One True Church. That seems to be the ultimate in "sober religion".

and no, that doesn't even fit the definition of idolatry since this discussion is not speaking of making latria to any idol.

Not all idols are made by hands, some are made in the mind.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That's what your church says, according to you... but why is your church the last authority? There are many Christian churches that have self-consistent narratives about themselves. Why is the Orthodox one so special? How can it stand alone and judge what is objective truth, a Gods-eye perspective? Isn't that a bit idolatrous?

Fire - this reply is directed at the kind of response such as yours that is commonly expressed by many. It is NOT directed at you personally, but at an idea, even though I quoted your post as a convenient example. I hope you will understand that and not take this personally, as you are not one I would direct this to personally.

So ...

I most certainly believe that the grace of God acts where He desires. Generations (likely MANY generations) of my family lived and died without ever hearing of Orthodoxy, as have many people in the world. Yet I am sure by personal knowledge that God saved some of them. (Hopefully many more than that!)

But what I see is that Orthodoxy simply maintains what the Apostles and their successors handed down. Not holding it as something closed to others - anyone is free to become Orthodox. I for one am thankful to the generations of faithful and martyrs who maintained that faith in a pure stream for 2000 years so it was there for God to bring me to it when I finally came along.

Why does that offend people? We don't condemn persons, we just continue to maintain what was passed down, as we are bound by responsibility before God to do, I think. Can you imagine standing before Him and explaining how - even though a 2000 year witness and martyrdom of the faith lived and died with the objective of maintaining the faith and Church as Christ established, which we received - WE chose in OUR "wisdom" to abandon all that, to allow the faith to be changed and enfolded in anything proposed, so that we didn't "offend" persons, and the end result being that people born 200 years later (if the Lord tarries) are unable to be brought into the fullness of the faith?

I actually don't think God would ALLOW this to happen, unless perhaps it might be a very end-of-time thing, but if you can look at it from the other side - I would sooner stand before God and tell Him that I abandoned the Orthodox Church, rather than have to admit I changed it (if that were even possible - I'm certainly not that important).

But people get offended because THIS Church (Orthodoxy) insists on maintaining without change as a Body what has been believed "at all times, in all places, by all people" ... at least up until all the schisms and innovations. Why should the existence of such a Church offend anyone?

I would look first to pride at not having one's own ideaologies included, if I were asking myself that question and it was me that was offended.

(This last paragraph is the main reason it is not directed personally.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because it looks wierd, strange... even crazy? Then bushes don't burn. Asses don't talk. Seas don't part. Men don't walk on water. The dead don't rise from the grave. Water, bread, and wine don't save people from sin and death.

no, because history has shown otherwise. the other stuff has been affirmed historically.

Not all idols are made by hands, some are made in the mind.

I never said they were, simply that latria is needed for idolatry to be done.

 

[FireDragon76]

no, because history has shown otherwise. the other stuff has been affirmed historically.

But whose history are we talking about?

 

[ArmyMatt]

But whose history are we talking about?

the history of Christianity.

 

[FireDragon76]

the history of Christianity.

Shouldn't that include Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, then?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Shouldn't that include Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, then?

I am. when something was considered demonic or erroneous for 1900 years, then is still considered demonic or erroneous by a vast majority of Christians, that says something about the practice. it's foolish to simply legitimize something because certain groups say so. certain groups believe in Benny Hinn, that doesn't mean everyone should believe him.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am. when something was considered demonic or erroneous for 1900 years

Was it? How do we really know that history? You're taking a small slice of Christian experience and making sweeping judgments about what is normative.

I know from reading about the history of German pietism, that charismatic-type manifestations were not completely unknown before the Asuza Street Revival.

then is still considered demonic or erroneous by a vast majority of Christians, that says something about the practice.

There's hundreds of millions of Pentecostals and Charismatics. And not all non-charismatics necessarily agree with you. Not believing something is your cup of tea is far different from saying "it's demonic" or "erroneous".

 

[ArmyMatt]

Was it? How do we really know that history? You're taking a small slice of Christian experience and making sweeping judgments about what is normative.

no, I am actually just saying how Christians historically treated their spiritual life. when you look at the experiences of the Charismatic Movement, it doesn't fall in line with Traditional Christian experience. yes, Christians have written about this from just after the Apostles, so we can say that they do fall more in line with demonic possession.

I know from reading about the history of German pietism, that charismatic-type manifestations were not completely unknown for centuries before the Asuza Street Revival. If anything, there is a clear path of continuity from the Puritans and Pietists all the way to the Asuza Street and Welsh revivals, a developing pattern of spirituality.

no, there is not a clear path since the German pietists and the Puritans would not fall in line with the Charismatics. they would probably take issue with a lot of what each other are saying.

There's hundreds of millions of Pentecostals and Charismatics. And not all non-charismatics necessarily agree with you. Not believing something is your cup of tea is far different from saying "it's demonic" or "erroneous".

that's not my problem that history is not on their side. and Christ never brought up practices that are just not your cup of tea. Truth is not relative.

 

[Hermit76]

How do we really know that history?

This may be your first step towards Orthodoxy. We know that history because it is well documented and preserved in the only church that remains true to the teaching and practice of the Apostles. Orthodoxy alone can truly fulfill that claim. Once you accept the truth everything changes. You see how silly a 100 year old movement that is based on manifestations seems in the light of 2000 years of Orthodoxy. And honestly, if you are gleaning your history from Pentecostal sources, you are being deceived.

 

[FireDragon76]

This may be your first step towards Orthodoxy. We know that history because it is well documented and preserved in the only church that remains true to the teaching and practice of the Apostles. Orthodoxy alone can truly fulfill that claim.

I've been there, done that. I got so deeply steeped in Orthodox polemicism that it poisoned me at one point. So, it's something to watch out for.

I'm not sure what to make of the second statement, except to say that it sounds triumphalist. Many churches have consistent self-understandings. My own church, the Lutherans, certainly do.

I'm Lutheran by the grace of God. Just like I'm sure there are charismatics and Pentecostals that are so, by the grace of God. If this is "relativism" to some, let's just remember that I think it is a mark of humility to recognize that we are not God and we see through a glass darkly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I've been there, done that. I got so deeply steeped in Orthodox polemicism that it poisoned me at one point. So, it's something to watch out for.

indeed it is.

I'm not sure what to make of the second statement, except to say that it sounds triumphalist. Many churches have consistent self-understandings. My own church, the Lutherans, certainly do.

and non-Christians say that about Christians because we claim it to be the Truth. it's not triumphalist if it's true. the problem is only the Orthodox are consistent with their founding. I know a lot of Lutherans who disagree with Luther, and I certainly did with Henry VIII when I was Anglican.

I'm Lutheran by the grace of God. Just like I'm sure there are charismatics and Pentecostals that are so, by the grace of God. If this is "relativism" to some, let's just remember that I think it is a mark of humility to recognize that we are not God and we see through a glass darkly.

sure you are. to even claim any belief in God is a sign God is at work. but it is relativistic to say all these contradictory beliefs are equal before God. and God can illumine the darkened glass, and the humble person accepts it even if it is more specific than he thought or would like.

 

[FireDragon76]

the problem is only the Orthodox are consistent with their founding. I know a lot of Lutherans who disagree with Luther, and I certainly did with Henry VIII when I was Anglican.

Orthodox were not consistent when they banned icons for a century. It seems reformation is not totally alien to even Eastern Orthodoxy.

No Lutheran is free to say that Luther was wrong in the fundamental things that make us Lutheran, and remain a Lutheran in good standing.

We understand ourselves as the same Church that began at Pentecost and that will continue until the end of the world. We understand Luther as a prophetic voice that arose at a critical time to dispel the erroneous notion that human beings earn their justification before God. That does not mean we believe we are the only true church. For us the church is always local, it is the place we find God's Word revealed to us. You can find God's Word in many places, not just a Lutheran church. In a Charismatic church, in a Catholic Church... even in the Orthodox Church. In this sense, to be a Lutheran is to be ecumenical.

to even claim any belief in God is a sign God is at work. but it is relativistic to say all these contradictory beliefs are equal before God.

That's not what I'm saying.

I honestly think when we get to heaven God isn't going to be particularly concerned with what church we went to, if we said the right prayers and fasted the right number of days. Even one of your own saints, Maria of Paris, acknowledges this.

The important thing is that we lived faithfully in response to the Word we have been given, and care about the things that God cares about. God does not care about religion per se. As beautiful and noble as religion is, it is not what saves us. The Gospel is not religion. The Gospel is the good news that God in Christ has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the preaching of the forgiveness of sins. As a Lutheran I absolutely believe there is power in God's Word and that all our sacraments are merely applications of the Word. That is not dependent on a church hierarchy or an infallible magisterium to believe that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Orthodox were not consistent when they banned icons for a century. It seems reformation is not totally alien to even Eastern Orthodoxy.

No Lutheran is free to say that Luther was wrong in the fundamental things that make us Lutheran, and remain a Lutheran in good standing.

We understand ourselves as the same Church that began at Pentecost and that will continue until the end of the world. We understand Luther as a prophetic voice that arose at a critical time to dispel the erroneous notion that human beings earn their justification before God. That does not mean we believe we are the only true church. For us the church is always local, it is the place we find God's Word revealed to us. You can find God's Word in many places, not just a Lutheran church. In a Charismatic church, in a Catholic Church... even in the Orthodox Church. In this sense, to be a Lutheran is to be ecumenical.



That's not what I'm saying.

I honestly think when we get to heaven God isn't going to be particularly concerned with what church we went to, if we said the right prayers and fasted the right number of days. Even one of your own saints, Maria of Paris, acknowledges this.

The important thing is that we lived faithfully in response to the Word we have been given, and care about the things that God cares about. God does not care about religion per se. As beautiful and noble as religion is, it is not what saves us. The Gospel is not religion. The Gospel is the good news that God in Christ has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the preaching of the forgiveness of sins. As a Lutheran I absolutely believe there is power in God's Word and that all our sacraments are merely applications of the Word. That is not dependent on a church hierarchy or an infallible magisterium to believe that.

Orthodoxy never actually banned icons. certain iconoclasts didn't even ban icons. icons may have moved underground or to the outskirts, but were never banned by the whole Church. if they were, the iconodules would not have been persecuted.

as for your second point, we agree that God doesn't count the Fasting days or what Creed you said. many of us, including me, have said that over and over again. but the God at the end of all things is the God revealed in His Church, the Orthodox Church. there is no bare minimum God Who whittles down Who He is to the lowest common denominator. He is a very specific God because He is a very Personal God. so yes, God judges based on the Light given, He does not change depending on Who is before Him.

 

[prodromos]

That seems more of an ad-hoc hypothetical to me. In addition, we are not talking about people that confess Apollo as Lord, we are talking about people that confess Jesus as Lord.

Didn't Arians confess Jesus as Lord? Don't Mormons confess Jesus as Lord?

 

[FireDragon76]

Didn't Arians confess Jesus as Lord? Don't Mormons confess Jesus as Lord?

You really think of Protestants as the same as Arians and Mormons?

 

[ArmyMatt]

You really think of Protestants as the same as Arians and Mormons?

of course not, however, there is more truth to simply calling Christ Lord, as every heretic called Christ Lord.