Login | Register

Post Reply 
Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
11-19-2016, 07:41 AM (This post was last modified: 11-19-2016 07:45 AM by Rako.)
Post: #1
Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
The relationship or comparison between the Charismatics on one hand and the early Christians, the mainstream Christians from c.180 AD up to today, and Reality on the other is quite an interesting question.

How would one define each of these terms in detail enough so that we could compare them successfully?

First, let's look at the Charismatics.

Quote:The Charismatic Movement is the international trend of historically mainstream congregations adopting beliefs and practices similar to Pentecostalism. Fundamental to the movement is the use of spiritual gifts (charismata).

[Image: 300px-Tarxien_erwieh.jpg]
(Catholic Charismatic movement photo)

Pentecostalism began in the early twentieth century. Its doctrinal distinctive involved a dramatic encounter with God termed baptism with the Holy Spirit. The evidence for having received this experience was speaking in tongues. American Lutheran minister Harald Bredesen coined the term "charismatic" in 1962 to describe what was happening in mainline Protestant denominations.

The beginning of the charismatic movement is usually dated to Sunday, April 3, 1960, when Dennis J. Bennett, rector of St Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California recounted his Pentecostal experience to his parish, doing it again on the next two Sundays, including Easter (April 17), during which many of his congregation share his experience, causing him to be forced to resign.

...
The movement grew to embrace other mainline churches, where clergy began receiving and publicly announcing their Pentecostal experiences. These clergy began holding meetings for seekers and healing services which included praying over and anointing of the sick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement

So Wikipedia is practically defining Charismaticism as the Pentacostal movement within the mainstream Churches. But based on its main traits, I would say that Charismaticism, the movement with these Pentacostalist features, goes back to the Pentecostal movement itself and into the 19th c., like with the "Great Awakening".

Also, here Wikipedia talks about the frequent "gifts" (like healings and speaking in tongues). If you look at the photo, you see a man with a guitar on stage. That's unusual for Catholics and this kind of "low church" ritual or laity led unplanned worship is another kind. Another common feature is an End Times mentality.

Are there any key features of Charismatics I missed that distinguish them from mainstream Christians?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-19-2016, 08:26 AM (This post was last modified: 11-19-2016 08:33 AM by Rako.)
Post: #2
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
Second, how does this compare with 1st century Christianity?

Contrast first c. Christianity with the nature of the End Times predictions and low church aspects of the Charismatic movement:
Quote:Christianity in the 1st century

The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic Jewish sect...
The Apostles dispersed from Jerusalem, founding the Apostolic Sees, presumably following the Great Commission's decree to spread the teachings of Jesus to "all nations".

[Image: 220px-Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg]
  • Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.... [In the] Sermon on the Mount... he expounds on the Law. Some scholars consider this to be an antitype of the proclamation of the Ten Commandments or Mosaic Covenant by Moses from the Biblical Mount Sinai.

Jesus' method of teaching involved parables, metaphor, allegory, sayings, proverbs, and a small number of direct sermons such as the Sermon on the Mount. ... Early works by Jesus' followers document a number of resurrection appearances...

His followers wrote that he appeared to the disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem and that Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before his Ascension to heaven and that he will return to earth to fulfil aspects of Messianic prophecy, such as the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, though Preterists believe these events have already happened.

[Image: GaudenzioFerrari_StorieCristo_Varallo2.jpg]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani...st_century

The early Christians were "apocalyptic", as it says. But how much were they imagining and predicting the apocalypse to be in the form that modern Charismatics do? One of Jesus' main messages was that "The Kingdom of God is at Hand". It's quite apocalyptic-sounding. But he also said:
Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. "
So the apocalyptic coming "kingdom of God" is something within the believer, rather than "Lo, there" in a physical sense.

Nonetheless, in other verses like the Olivet Discourse Jesus sounds like he is predicting an end to the physical world and talking about signs of it, along with suggesting that it would happen in the lifespan of 1st c. believers.

But were Jesus' followers pointing to omens happening in their own times like the moon's appearance and using it to say that the End Times would happen in several decades or even setting a date for it like some Charismatics do today? We don't have evidence explicitly from the Bible for that. We don't see Jesus or the apostles pointing to a "blood moon" or some other such astronomical sign occurring right then when they were writing in order to make predictions. The Torah even forbids people from making a habit of astrology or prophecying based on the stars. We don't have Jesus or the apostles saying that the world will end in year ______ like some nonmainstream Protestants have done on the Trinity Broadcast Network.

Another fact in the essay is how the Apostles had "Apostolic Sees".
Apostles were set as heads of regions. There was a planned organization of the Christian communities with the 12 apostles at the top. And the apostles aimed to appoint successors as leaders when one of them was removed, like when Judas was replaced by Matthias. This is like the model we see in the Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic Orthodox Churches where the regions of the world are under bishops who succeed each other.

The Charismatic movement in contrast has its roots in "low church"/informal bishop-less Protestantism from the 19th and early 20th c., like the Great Awakening and Pentacostalism. Following bishops or centuries of traditions that go back to the early church are not important to Charismatics or else the Charismatics would even tend to be more critical of Bishops and Tradition than mainstream Lutherans, Catholics, etc.

The practical socio-political relevance of this difference is that it makes it easier for Charismatics to promote any new "teaching" they like. So Hagee can come along and make political predictions about the Mideast based on "Blood Moons" and the Charismatics are more like a blank slate for him to write on, since they don't double check his new ideas based on what the Church has taught for the last 1800+ years.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2016 09:48 AM by pilgrim.)
Post: #3
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
I think it helps not to be caught up in labels. But having been among charismatics for most of my Christian life I would say that the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church. God doesn't change. His spiritual gifts still exist in the church. Healings, Miracles...etc. He never took them away. Charismatics believe this. Some other groups think that those things passed away in the current dispensation.

All of those things still exist and there are ministers that still walk in the full gospel and God's gifts still flow through them.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2016 09:59 AM by Rako.)
Post: #4
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 09:39 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  I think it helps not to be caught up in labels. But having been among charismatics for most of my Christian life I would say that the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church. God doesn't change. His spiritual gifts still exist in the church. Healings, Miracles...etc. He never took them away. Charismatics believe this. Many other groups think that those things passed away in the current dispensation.

All of those things still exist and there are ministers that still walk in the full gospel and God's gifts still flow through them.
Thanks for writing back.
Catholics and Orthodox, and to some extent Anglicans and Lutherans would agree with what you said to describe their churches , including having spiritual gifts, miracles, and healings, including in modern times. There are many accounts in those churches in the modern era of holy people who pray for healings successfully, and even those who are not canonized saints have those accounts. Other times there are many holy people who pray, living rightly, which are spiritual gifts, and they show other spiritual gifts like making prophesies. They would agree that they have ministers, priests, holy people, and others who walk in the full gospel and have God's gifts, along with everything else you just stated.

Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

I do think there is a difference in any case, like the things I put in the first message. I welcome your thoughts on this.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2016 10:05 AM by pilgrim.)
Post: #5
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 09:55 AM)Rako Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 09:39 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  I think it helps not to be caught up in labels. But having been among charismatics for most of my Christian life I would say that the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church. God doesn't change. His spiritual gifts still exist in the church. Healings, Miracles...etc. He never took them away. Charismatics believe this. Many other groups think that those things passed away in the current dispensation.

All of those things still exist and there are ministers that still walk in the full gospel and God's gifts still flow through them.
Thanks for writing back.
Catholics and Orthodox, and to some extent Anglicans and Lutherans would agree with what you said to describe their churches , including having spiritual gifts, miracles, and healings, including in modern times. There are many accounts in those churches in the modern era of holy people who pray for healings successfully, and even those who are not canonized saints have those accounts. Other times there are many holy people who pray, living rightly, which are spiritual gifts, and they show other spiritual gifts like making prophesies. They would agree that they have ministers, priests, holy people, and others who walk in the full gospel and have God's gifts, along with everything else you just stated.

Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

I do think there is a difference in any case, like the things I put in the first message. I welcome your thoughts on this.

Quote:Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

That's why I cautioned to be careful about labels. I think that the category that matters the most is "Christian". No matter what denomination you are involved with there will be holy men and women that walk close to God. Those that accept the Holy Spirit and let him work can be in any denomination. The real defining feature that matters more than anything is prayer. Those that have a deep and active prayer life often walk closer with God and see more of him moving in their life and through their life.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 10:33 AM
Post: #6
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 10:04 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 09:55 AM)Rako Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 09:39 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  I think it helps not to be caught up in labels. But having been among charismatics for most of my Christian life I would say that the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church. God doesn't change. His spiritual gifts still exist in the church. Healings, Miracles...etc. He never took them away. Charismatics believe this. Many other groups think that those things passed away in the current dispensation.

All of those things still exist and there are ministers that still walk in the full gospel and God's gifts still flow through them.
Thanks for writing back.
Catholics and Orthodox, and to some extent Anglicans and Lutherans would agree with what you said to describe their churches , including having spiritual gifts, miracles, and healings, including in modern times. There are many accounts in those churches in the modern era of holy people who pray for healings successfully, and even those who are not canonized saints have those accounts. Other times there are many holy people who pray, living rightly, which are spiritual gifts, and they show other spiritual gifts like making prophesies. They would agree that they have ministers, priests, holy people, and others who walk in the full gospel and have God's gifts, along with everything else you just stated.

Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

I do think there is a difference in any case, like the things I put in the first message. I welcome your thoughts on this.

Quote:Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

That's why I cautioned to be careful about labels.
The "charismatic" movement is a self identified movement with differences from mainstream Christians. I would say speaking in tongues is a major difference. It's extremely rare among noncharismatic Catholics and Orthodox. End Times mentality, and sometimes setting deadlines, claiming there are signs in the sky like supermoons seems to be another.

Quote:I think that the category that matters the most is "Christian". No matter what denomination you are involved with there will be holy men and women that walk close to God. Those that accept the Holy Spirit and let him work can be in any denomination. The real defining feature that matters more than anything is prayer. Those that have a deep and active prayer life often walk closer with God and see more of him moving in their life and through their life.
That's nice, although here we get into an interesting separate issue. If it turned out half the people on this Freethinking forum did not identify as Christian or even rejected Christianity as wrong philosophically, but still believed in rightrousness, could we judge them therefore as not as good of a person, categorically, than a good Christian? I think the normal Christian answer would be that Yes they are missing out.

I guess it's a tangential issue though. What's interesting here to me is how Charismatics might have some unique similarities to the mentality of the early church that mainstream traditional christians dont. I welcome your ideas.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 10:53 AM
Post: #7
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 10:33 AM)Rako Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 10:04 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 09:55 AM)Rako Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 09:39 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  I think it helps not to be caught up in labels. But having been among charismatics for most of my Christian life I would say that the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church. God doesn't change. His spiritual gifts still exist in the church. Healings, Miracles...etc. He never took them away. Charismatics believe this. Many other groups think that those things passed away in the current dispensation.

All of those things still exist and there are ministers that still walk in the full gospel and God's gifts still flow through them.
Thanks for writing back.
Catholics and Orthodox, and to some extent Anglicans and Lutherans would agree with what you said to describe their churches , including having spiritual gifts, miracles, and healings, including in modern times. There are many accounts in those churches in the modern era of holy people who pray for healings successfully, and even those who are not canonized saints have those accounts. Other times there are many holy people who pray, living rightly, which are spiritual gifts, and they show other spiritual gifts like making prophesies. They would agree that they have ministers, priests, holy people, and others who walk in the full gospel and have God's gifts, along with everything else you just stated.

Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

I do think there is a difference in any case, like the things I put in the first message. I welcome your thoughts on this.

Quote:Would you qualify the Catholic church itself, along with the Orthodox church and to some extent the Lutherans and Anglicans as Charismatic?

That's why I cautioned to be careful about labels.
The "charismatic" movement is a self identified movement with differences from mainstream Christians. I would say speaking in tongues is a major difference. It's extremely rare among noncharismatic Catholics and Orthodox. End Times mentality, and sometimes setting deadlines, claiming there are signs in the sky like supermoons seems to be another.

Quote:I think that the category that matters the most is "Christian". No matter what denomination you are involved with there will be holy men and women that walk close to God. Those that accept the Holy Spirit and let him work can be in any denomination. The real defining feature that matters more than anything is prayer. Those that have a deep and active prayer life often walk closer with God and see more of him moving in their life and through their life.
That's nice, although here we get into an interesting separate issue. If it turned out half the people on this Freethinking forum did not identify as Christian or even rejected Christianity as wrong philosophically, but still believed in rightrousness, could we judge them therefore as not as good of a person, categorically, than a good Christian? I think the normal Christian answer would be that Yes they are missing out.

I guess it's a tangential issue though. What's interesting here to me is how Charismatics might have some unique similarities to the mentality of the early church that mainstream traditional christians dont. I welcome your ideas.

Quote: and sometimes setting deadlines, claiming there are signs in the sky like supermoons seems to be another.

I see that happening with a lot of groups. You see it all over the internet now. Again you are getting too hung up on labels like charismatic.

Quote: If it turned out half the people on this Freethinking forum did not identify as Christian or even rejected Christianity as wrong philosophically, but still believed in rightrousness, could we judge them therefore as not as good of a person, categorically, than a good Christian?

One of the most powerful scriptures in the bible that set me free spiritually was in Paul's letter to the Romans;

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Abraham would have something to glory in if he did everything required by the law. But God would not be impressed. God doesn't care how well behaved or nice people are. He only cares about people having faith in what his son did for them. Understanding this set me free. We can never be good enough without accepting Christ's atonement for us. But once we do accept that, we stand before God clean and holy. He looks at us and sees his son Christ. That's how perfect that atonement was for us. But nobody comes to the father outside of Christ.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 11:31 AM
Post: #8
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 10:53 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  
Quote: and sometimes setting deadlines, claiming there are signs in the sky like supermoons seems to be another.

I see that happening with a lot of groups. You see it all over the internet now. Again you are getting too hung up on labels like charismatic.
There are other groups like some noncharismatic Evangelicals who do this. But those groups setting deadlines and looking to sky signs and geology signs to declare the End Times are upon us now dont include the mainstream traditional churches and their teachings, so it's still a noticeable special feature of charismatics distinguishing them from the mainstream older traditions who don't do this.

It's kind of like saying that pugs have very short noses. Sure, some other dogs do, but it's still a special distinguishing trait.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 11:58 AM
Post: #9
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 11:31 AM)Rako Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 10:53 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  
Quote: and sometimes setting deadlines, claiming there are signs in the sky like supermoons seems to be another.

I see that happening with a lot of groups. You see it all over the internet now. Again you are getting too hung up on labels like charismatic.
There are other groups like some noncharismatic Evangelicals who do this. But those groups setting deadlines and looking to sky signs and geology signs to declare the End Times are upon us now dont include the mainstream traditional churches and their teachings, so it's still a noticeable special feature of charismatics distinguishing them from the mainstream older traditions who don't do this.

It's kind of like saying that pugs have very short noses. Sure, some other dogs do, but it's still a special distinguishing trait.

By nature charismatics believe all of the new testament which does include prophecy. But not everyone that believes in signs and wonders is considered a charismatic. Rabbi Johnathon Cahn for example is a Jew who wrote several books interepretting current signs based on the bible. Books like "The Harbinger" and "The Mystery of the Shemitah".

Based on your interpretation, anyone that completely believes the New Testament is a charismatic. Using the label "charismatic" tends to obfuscate things. You could just as easily use the label "Pentacostal".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 11:59 AM
Post: #10
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 10:53 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  One of the most powerful scriptures in the bible that set me free spiritually was in Paul's letter to the Romans;

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Abraham would have something to glory in if he did everything required by the law. But God would not be impressed. God doesn't care how well behaved or nice people are. He only cares about people having faith in what his son did for them. Understanding this set me free. We can never be good enough without accepting Christ's atonement for us. But once we do accept that, we stand before God clean and holy. He looks at us and sees his son Christ. That's how perfect that atonement was for us. But nobody comes to the father outside of Christ.
This is an interesting topic for a different thread. For example, the first statement in red is anti Biblical, whereas the second one is Biblical and therefore requires respect and interpretation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2016 12:24 PM by pilgrim.)
Post: #11
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 11:59 AM)Rako Wrote:  
(11-26-2016 10:53 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  One of the most powerful scriptures in the bible that set me free spiritually was in Paul's letter to the Romans;

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Abraham would have something to glory in if he did everything required by the law. But God would not be impressed. God doesn't care how well behaved or nice people are. He only cares about people having faith in what his son did for them. Understanding this set me free. We can never be good enough without accepting Christ's atonement for us. But once we do accept that, we stand before God clean and holy. He looks at us and sees his son Christ. That's how perfect that atonement was for us. But nobody comes to the father outside of Christ.
This is an interesting topic for a different thread. For example, the first statement in red is anti Biblical, whereas the second one is Biblical and therefore requires respect and interpretation.

To clarify my comment that you posted in red; The most well behaved and nicest person in the world doesn't impress God if that person hasn't accepted Christ.

Eph 2:
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
...
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2016 12:30 PM by Rako.)
Post: #12
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 11:58 AM)pilgrim Wrote:  By nature charismatics believe all of the new testament which does include prophecy. But not everyone that believes in signs and wonders is considered a charismatic. Rabbi Johnathon Cahn for example is a Jew who wrote several books interepretting current signs based on the bible. Books like "The Harbinger" and "The Mystery of the Shemitah".
^In general, I agree.

Quote:Based on your interpretation, anyone that completely believes the New Testament is a charismatic.
I said that what you talked about in your first message would apply to traditional Churches (ie. "the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church. God doesn't change. His spiritual gifts still exist in the church. Healings, Miracles...etc. He never took them away.")

But that was not how I interpreted the meaning of the word "Charismatics". As I interpreted it in my first message, the "Charismatics" are a modern movement that originated in non-mainstream Protestantism and had common features like "End Times - Now" thinking, speaking in nonsense "tongues", declarations of very frequent (if not weekly) "gifts", "low church" ritual, unplanned worship, bishop-less church organization, etc.

Quote:Using the label "charismatic" tends to obfuscate things. You could just as easily use the label "Pentacostal".
There is very much overlap. I would consider them maybe even synonyms. One difference is that the Pentecostals are typically thought of in terms of a formal church organization by that title (ie. "the Pentecostal Church"), whereas Charismatics, since the start of the Pentecostals, have spread as a broader movement. So one book I discussed before talked about how there is a Charismatic wing in the SDAs. But the Pentecostal church is still a different organization than the SDAs.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2016 12:34 PM by Rako.)
Post: #13
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 12:15 PM)pilgrim Wrote:  To clarify my comment that you posted in red; The most well behaved and nicest person in the world doesn't impress God if that person hasn't accepted Christ.
It's a worthwhile topic that I am glad to discuss in another thread if you want.

Here I'd like to discuss things like what are the major differences between the Charismatics and the other three things in the thread title. May I ask if I put the thread question and title clearly enough?

Peace.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 12:41 PM
Post: #14
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
Charismatic, Pentacostal, anyone that believes the New Testament as it is written I consider to be a full gospel believer. That's what I mean about not getting caught up in labels. You find full gospel believers among all sects and faiths.

It's interesting that charismatic is from the word charis which translated from the greek is the word grace. Charis=Grace. Paul greeted some of the believers in his epistles by saying grace be unto you or grace and peace be to you. Not sure how that fits our discussion but I found it interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-26-2016, 01:19 PM
Post: #15
RE: Charismatic movement vs. 1st c. Christianity, Mainstream Christianity, & Reality
(11-26-2016 12:41 PM)pilgrim Wrote:  Charismatic, Pentacostal, anyone that believes the New Testament as it is written I consider to be a full gospel believer. That's what I mean about not getting caught up in labels. You find full gospel believers among all sects and faiths.
If the person accepts the New Testament verses, but then teaches the opposite of the New Testament's intent (both in verses and overall), then is the person a "full" gospel believer? For example, the New Testament says that the Old Testament is for instruction, the Old Testament, says not to divine the future by the stars and the gospel says that no one knows the day or hour of the second coming. If some people use sky signs like supermoons and blood moons to foretell the End Times, and even make predictions about the day for the Second Coming, are they "full" gospel believers?

Or if Charismatics read in Paul's epistle that people should not assembly to have a couple people speaking simultaneously in tongues or to speak in tongues without a translator as a normal practice, and then do it anyway, are they "full" gospel believers?

Still, one can accept that Charismatics and Catholics and Lutherans and others are all varieties of Christians, even if they have some mistakes in their teachings. This might be what you are getting at.

Nonetheless, the Charismatics and their claims are interesting for me. For example, you said: "the thing that defines them is the belief that God still does everything that he did in the early church." Put aside the fact that Catholics and Lutherans could agree with that statement too, what you mean or imply by stating that as a distinct feature of Charismatics is an interesting question. This is because getting to know the early Christians better is appealing. And so it raises the question of seeing the proposed similarities or differences between them and the 1st c. Church.

Quote: It's interesting that charismatic is from the word charis which translated from the greek is the word grace. Charis=Grace. Paul greeted some of the believers in his epistles by saying grace be unto you or grace and peace be to you. Not sure how that fits our discussion but I found it interesting.
Sure, a Charismatic may be implying by their title that they are experiencing "grace". By picking that title, they can be emphasizing it in their teachings.
Luther also emphasized grace a lot. But the Lutherans did not pick that as the title of their church.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Martin Shkreli attempts to bring an ignorant racist back to reality jho 4 903 09-14-2017 12:31 PM
Last Post: EVILYOSHIDA
Video Spencer vs Andrew Anglin on Christianity CTsar 1 189 09-13-2017 02:47 PM
Last Post: EVILYOSHIDA
  Mainstream Medical Science Will Be Forced to Admit Royal Rife Was Right jho 0 270 08-13-2017 04:14 AM
Last Post: jho
  Gyorgy Soros Exposed attempting to subvert Christianity from within EVILYOSHIDA 13 1,126 07-28-2017 04:39 PM
Last Post: EVILYOSHIDA

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)