Who is a charismatic?
- Thread starter 2003cobra
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
By that definition, most on here and elsewhere are Charismatic in a general sense of that.
For most continue to cling to one sort of superstition or another as "the Spirit's leading" outside of His Completed Word, 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
Just as most on here and elsewhere are Pentecostal.
For also contrary to the Scripture, most hold that the church (assembly of people) known as the Body of Christ, began in Acts 2.
Contrary to...Acts 17: 11, 12.
thank you for the comment. It is helpful.
I think some people who classify themselves as charismatics recognize that not all people are given all the gifts.
I recall more than 9 gifts mentioned in the New Testament.
Which 9 are you referring to.
Thank you for the post.
You think God quit leading people at some point after either the scriptures were written or the canon was set?
Can you be a little more specific on when you think the Spirit stopped leading Christians?
The short answer is that this is one of those various issues of inference the Scripture is replete with.
As when, for example, it mentions Peter's wife's mother; the obvious inference being that she was his mother-in-law.
And that kind of thing is not like the "well, perhaps this" or "maybe that" which far too many nevertheless allow themselves to arrive at their conclusions about a thing on.
In contrast to that, an inference is based on what IS obvious.
Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
To your question, then, with a question...
What had been the purpose of the Spirit's leading?
Well "what saith the Scripture?" Gal. 4: 30, on that?
2 Samuel 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
Towards what end?
Well, what did Peter say about that?
What did he write as his life came to an end?
2 Peter 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
He wrote that although he and his fellow Apostles had had that firsthand eyewitness...
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
A more sure word?
Though obviously He had not had to; even the Lord Himself had submitted Himself to It's witness above that of His Own by then, VERY EVIDENT say so...
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Just as Peter would later assert - that we have a more sure Word of Prophecy over the very fact of their having walked with the Lord Himself.
Notice once more how that it is ABOVE all else, even among His sign people: Israel...
Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
But moving on from all that for now, we read in...
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Note again, the intent of said prophecies, or telling forth of God's will - so that "we know.
What were they doing with all that Spirit's leading them in that 1st Century also?
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
What those 1st Century prophets at Corinth were doing was confirming that Paul's words were actually the Lord's.
Just as Peter had after the following...
Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
As I have already noted, this is a much longer study (that a mere sounbyte hasn't any hope of doing justice to).
But you see this...
1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
The opposite of that "in part" would be a FULL measure of it.
In stark contrast to that "in part" is 2 Timothy 3:16's All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Note the word "perfect."
Note also, its definition, now possible, at the end of Paul's own life - that the man of God might perfect: in other words "THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works."
And I am writing all this largely from memory.
Which is how memory works; but superstition concludes "that is the Spirit's leading."
It is not.
It is the mind's memory management system, given each of us by God, in Adam.
Note this in the following - way before He gave them, the Spirit, way before He even went to the Cross...
John 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
It took me a minute to let go of my own nonsense on that.
I know how all that works first hand.
The confirmation bias of simple ignorance of what the Scripture infers on this issues, by what it teaches.
And man o man is this offensive to the superstitious mind.
Only Believers within all "faiths" pull this pagan duality.
The duality of knowing very well, on the one hand, that they remember where their car keys are, simply due to the mind's memory management via association of things now related to one another, "by reason of use."
In contrast to the superstition, on the other hand, of erroneously concluding "o the Spirit brought this and that 'about God' to my mind..." or what have you.
Never mind all the constant hits and misses of that.
Anyway, this is my understanding of these things of the Lord, in light of His Word.
But as the writer of Hebrews as regards His things...
Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Acts 17: 11, 12.
musterion
Well-known member
Basic definition: someone who believes the sign gifts of the Gospels/Acts period are still in force. Invariably the most common factor will be glossolalia.
There's a spectrum here. Older line Pentecostals are toward the milder, more conservative end. As bad off as they are, they have already drawn hard lines between themselves and the anything goes lunacy of those who are more generally known as Charismatics, where doctrine is out the window and replaced with emotionalism, hype and false "signs and wonders" and - very importantly - "words of knowledge" or prophecies from "God."
Another distinctive of Charismaticism is that it has crossed most denominational boundaries, and so has become very ecumenical. As a result, it can be found outside of mainline Christianity. Matter of fact, the Catholics had a charismatic "renewal" back in the '60s (some say that sparked the evangelical one after the residue of Asuza Street had pretty much burned itself out). That has led many Catholic charismatics to be called "evangelicals" and increased calls for protestants to return to Rome. I've also read that there have even been talks between evangelical and Mormon charismatics, who are apparently very rare but do exist.
What I'm waiting for is an explosion of tongues among Mohammedans so that nascent Chrislam really starts to grow in numbers and influence.
There's a spectrum here. Older line Pentecostals are toward the milder, more conservative end. As bad off as they are, they have already drawn hard lines between themselves and the anything goes lunacy of those who are more generally known as Charismatics, where doctrine is out the window and replaced with emotionalism, hype and false "signs and wonders" and - very importantly - "words of knowledge" or prophecies from "God."
Another distinctive of Charismaticism is that it has crossed most denominational boundaries, and so has become very ecumenical. As a result, it can be found outside of mainline Christianity. Matter of fact, the Catholics had a charismatic "renewal" back in the '60s (some say that sparked the evangelical one after the residue of Asuza Street had pretty much burned itself out). That has led many Catholic charismatics to be called "evangelicals" and increased calls for protestants to return to Rome. I've also read that there have even been talks between evangelical and Mormon charismatics, who are apparently very rare but do exist.
What I'm waiting for is an explosion of tongues among Mohammedans so that nascent Chrislam really starts to grow in numbers and influence.
Thank you for the post, Danoh.
I can see that you have thought about this.
It appears that you are saying that the Spirit stopped leading people when the New Testament writings were complete, near the end of the first century. Perhaps I have misunderstood your position.
If I understood your position correctly, that would mean that the Spirit was no longer leading people when the canon was set. If so, then the canon was not set by divine decree or Apostolic declaration or the leading of the Spirit. How do you then decide which of the ancient canons to accept and how do you have confidence that you have made the right selection? Or perhaps you have not considered any canon other than the one of your initial exposure to scripture.
I have thought about these things too, and we have not come to the same conclusions. But I value civil discourse and the insights of others. And I do agree that people go far overboard attributing all kinds of random thoughts and imaginings to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Have you seen an instance of tongues and interpretation or an instance of prophecy?
I can see that you have thought about this.
It appears that you are saying that the Spirit stopped leading people when the New Testament writings were complete, near the end of the first century. Perhaps I have misunderstood your position.
If I understood your position correctly, that would mean that the Spirit was no longer leading people when the canon was set. If so, then the canon was not set by divine decree or Apostolic declaration or the leading of the Spirit. How do you then decide which of the ancient canons to accept and how do you have confidence that you have made the right selection? Or perhaps you have not considered any canon other than the one of your initial exposure to scripture.
I have thought about these things too, and we have not come to the same conclusions. But I value civil discourse and the insights of others. And I do agree that people go far overboard attributing all kinds of random thoughts and imaginings to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Have you seen an instance of tongues and interpretation or an instance of prophecy?
Thanks for the post.
It sounds like you agree that simply believing that God still does miracles does not make a person a charismatic.
I think that there was also a large charismatic movement among Roman Catholics in South America in the 1980s.
Have you seen an instance of tongues and interpretation or an instance of prophecy?
It appears it is from the Greek kharisma, from kharis ‘favor, grace. Appears about 157 times in the new testament.
Strongs 5485
charis: grace, kindness
Original Word: χάρις, ιτος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: charis
Phonetic Spelling: (khar'-ece)
Short Definition: grace, favor, kindness
Definition: (a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ, (b) favor, (c) gratitude, thanks, (d) a favor, kindness.
Strongs 5485
charis: grace, kindness
Original Word: χάρις, ιτος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: charis
Phonetic Spelling: (khar'-ece)
Short Definition: grace, favor, kindness
Definition: (a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ, (b) favor, (c) gratitude, thanks, (d) a favor, kindness.
musterion
Well-known member
No, I don't believe that it does. There's a big difference between God doing the miraculous if He chooses to, and Israel's apostolic-era sign gifts, which is the main thing with charismatics.
I've seen or heard of many things that never line up with the rules laid down by the apostle Paul. For example, some of us have asked TOL's charismatics to post verifiable video of limbs being restored or the dead raised, or even of someone it can be proved never knew Apache speaking Apache. They insist all these things happen every day all over the world...but somehow, it just never gets caught on video. Lots of other stuff gets filmed, but never the true miracles.
Right back to the thread where this all started.
But, Danoh, what do you do about the fact that the epistles to Timothy are epistles to the circumcision? For no doubt Timothy is a Jew; for his mother was a Jewess, and Paul even circumcised Timothy himself. The epistles to Timothy are therefore, by your own definitions and mindset, epistles and writings to "the Circumcision".
Moreover Paul uses the phrase "my gospel" right there in the same epistle, (2Tim2:8). Have you ever thought about the possibility that when Paul speaks of "my gospel" he just might be speaking of a literal-physical substantive writing? That would mean that "his gospel" is likely the Gospel of Luke: and indeed, the whole writing is "God-breathed", (2Tim3:15-16), and no wonder Timothy had known the sacred writings from a babe, (a babe in Messiah), for Paul himself circumcised Timothy as a babe, (into the kingdom).
Thanks.
I think most people who ask for proof on video would not accept it if they saw it.
Are you familiar with Cru (formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ) and their Jesus Film project?
I have seen compelling evidence of tongues and interpretation. For example, one person given a message in tongues and another interprets after a pause — while there was a third person there given the same interpretation but who was hesitant or too shy to speak the message. In one case, the third person was a Methodist who had not believed the charismatic gifts were still practiced (until that event).
Part of the proof is in knowing the hearts and lives and works of the people involved.
Yes, people who declare God heals everyone who has enough faith don’t know the scriptures. Paul had great faith. Not all his desires for healing were met.
musterion
Well-known member
Not true, but it's not our fault none of the stories that are provided end up not panning out as true. We're supposed to test all things.
The apostle Paul says that tongues were a sign for unbelieving Jews. That was the purpose of tongues but that purpose cannot be used today since there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. So the gift hasn't existed for 2,000 years.
That is no proof.
musterion
Well-known member
True.
Paul wasn't healed of his thorn in order to (apparently) keep him humble and teach him the sufficiency of grace. And he left Tromphimus sick at Miletus because the gifts were being withdrawn as Israel continued in unbelief. When the pronouncement of the closed door finally was given to the Jews in Acts 28, the sign gifts were all withdrawn.