Ferenc Nemeth, Budapest, Hungary 1995. June 4th. To Link Hudson My friend, As you may remember, I have been one of your most ardent opponents concerning Hagin's teaching. Now I write to you not in order to start a new debate but because I am very interested in the "logic of holy laughter" which has been a topic recently in soc.religion.christian. I am Hungarian, aged 21, and go to a charismatic church called Faith Assembly. From my angry writings you can rightly suppose that I am not very keen on various teachings, mostly inherited from American preachers. I don't attack all American preachers, don't get me wrong. My problem is that we are so vulnerable and gullible that if someone should by chance come around and preach another Christ (of course suitably dressed) we would accept it without testing. And the reason why I chose exactly you is that from the great distance I see you as an honest and Bible-respecting person whose opinion is worthy to consult. I write this way not in order to flatter you but to dissolve my bad reputation which I gained until now with the indignated tone of my postings. The other reason for my writing this whole letter will be clear at the first dashed line. We "imported" holy laughter last autumn when our pastor visited some church in the US. Which one, I don't know. After he had related his experience to us the laughing revival began in our congregation (From now on I will abbreviate this phrase as IOC). (Previously Marilyn Hickey, who had visited us in the summer of 1994, told about her experience of holy laughter. The reason was that the devil is defeated and we are to mock him. Then she tried to induce laughter but without success. Then the whole thing was somehow forgotten for three months). Soon after this event the pastor began to derive holy laughter from the Bible. There were quite ridiculous ones among his arguments, eg. - Yasser Arafat got the Nobel prize for peace. God is laughing at it. We follow Him. (See Ps 2:4) - Sarah and Abraham laughed with amusement at God's promise. First they didn't believe that they can have a child for they were too old. The Church laughs because she has the promise of Christ's return for such a long time, and she is almost 2000 years old by now. - Somewhere some people tried to plant a quasi-Eden. God is laughing at it. Our pastor used Gen 17:17, 18:12, 21:6-7, Job 5,22. After two weeks laughter almost ceased. Then they displayed a video record made on the first laughing meeting, and behold, the manifestations reoccurred. This very fact was a kind of a proof against the divine origin of holy laughter for me and some other brethren. We said that we never read in the Bible about the apostles even once teaching about speaking in tongues and THEN the disciples beginning to speak in tongues. We were dissatisfied with the method of introducing this new gift, and no one solved our problem. Then we were familiarized with the "real" purpose of laughing revival. "We have to be a light-shedding torch among this perverted generation, with living hope in our heart in this hopeless country." The arguments became more severe. "According to prophecies, God will put aside those pastors who don't submit to this new outpouring of the Spirit." "If you cannot laugh, then probably you don't have the Holy Spirit within you." "Solemn Christians aren't the ones whom God is now looking for." By Dec 21st our strength got exhausted. Laughter petered out. The pastor admitted that "lately it was rather our fleshly joy that has been expressed at the meeting and not the joy of the Lord." He said that we had to get back into the Lord's presence by humbling ourselves. He frankly confessed that he had overstrained the congregation by letting man-made joy abound. On New Year's Eve the manifestations returned. A month later the pastor said that the whole history of OC until now was a great mistake. "We believed the charismatics who said that we've already managed to perform the things in the book of Acts. But the whole book begins NOW!" This happened after the pastor had repeatedly visited the American church mentioned above. He saw barking, running, howling, jumping people. These manifestations were included into OC's worship. Skeptics mentioned that a year before we would have tried to drive out demons of those who happened to produce similar manifestations. Some new prooftexts were found: "David danced before the Covenant Box" "God won't give us a stone instead of bread" "God wants to humiliate us when he makes us bark" "Those who put their trust in the Lord will RUN and not go weary..." (the following part - about eagles - is omitted.) As the leadership became more severe against skeptics, the lay people who accepted the manifestations went on their footsteps. One of my friends was accused by another one of blaspheming the Holy Spirit after having confessed: "I don't know where these things come from but I'm sure that not from God." (This man forgot about flesh, which my friend was intent to blame.) Not too humble behaviour, as I see it. And somehow I am disturbed. First I asked: Why did God give such a misunderstandable gift? Then, after having witnessed some really scandalous events I replaced "did" with "would". I SAW running people who trampled on little children; men edging backwards blindly and falling in the lap of sitting people; women scrambling on the floor, others if they were swimming; women spinning around and falling over in front of the whole congregation and their legs becoming naked; people beating the air, panting, screaming, gesturing wildly; people barking at and chasing one another; people laughing suddenly at the most solemn parts of the sermon; etc. I HEARD some indeed very skilful misinterpretations of the Bible: - These manifestations are in fact the "baptism in fire". According to Mk 9:49 our bodies, being a sacrifice on the altar of God, can't be accepted unless they go through this kind of fire. - Charismatic traditions are useless, they are like chaff. When threshing comes (that is the third wave) God will burn them away. - "Decent order" in 1Cor 14 is to be interpreted as "utter obedience to God", which in its turn means "offering our bodies to the Holy Spirit as vessels", and "trusting God, that He doesn't give a serpent". On the following pages I will list some of your comments on various articles and ask some questions. This is not "testing a heretic" but indeed an inquiring to improve my understanding about the (biblical) background of the new wave and meanwhile to treat my Hungarian brothers' motives with less preconception. I ask you because they are alienated from me and the others who reject the manifestations. They don't even speak with us. As if someone (from the leadership) forbade them to consult "the other side". On the other hand, I am really interested what you over there think about the moving of the Holy Spirit; perhaps you can offer some sensible explanations to things that I don't understand clearly. You seem to bear my critical style and my one-sided comments patiently. Now I try not to be arrogant or sarcastic. Have a good reading! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Apr 1995 [David S Hwang ] >What is the purpose of Toronto Blessings? It doesn't seem to be the >conviction of the heart from hearing the word of God. please correct me >if I'm wrong. [...] Is God using this to get people's attention? Like the >Power Team's performing feats of strength, before they preach? If so, why >is He doing this? Is the bible too boring? Doesn't work for our generation, >so He's gonna try something new? [LH] [FN] I read this sentence once, twice, several times, and found it all right. But are you saying it at the right place? Did you want to justify, support, prove holy laughter with this argument? In my opinion your placing it in this discussion is equal with saying >>Vineyard strives to restore the church of Acts while many other congregations are "content to have a church that doesn't do the things the church did in the Bible"<<. Another way to put it: "is EVERYTHING what Toronto Vineyard practises really included in Acts and really missing from today's Christian churches?" (Do you think so? And if not, what does your really mean?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [DH] >5. What scriptural support is there? > * Sarah laughed (Gen. 18:10-15). Sarah laughed because she DIDN'T >believe. This is not a good choice for support. [LH] However, when she named Isaac, she called him that, and said that God would cause those who heard of his birth to laugh with her. (Gen 21:6-7) [FN] The context of the whole argument is again "application of Bible verses." Sarah said "all who hear it will laugh with me". Even if so translated and not "at me": isn't it a prooftext of the same weight as Luke 1:48 is for the Catholics? ("...all generations shall call me blessed") Furthermore, concerning application: even if we accept this usage, we have to "stretch the meaning" of this verse (I think I learnt a very useful phrase from you). Why don't we require a testimony about Sarah of everybody who laughs? (Silly question. But it bothers me because I see this bad hermeneutical method at work. You seem to stretch certain passages.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [DH] >Eph. 5:18 - do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the spirit. >The context of Eph. 5 is talking about how we should like as children of >light, and _different_ from the world. To say that filled by the spirit >infers drunken behavior doesn't fit with the theme of the chapter. [LH] Notice that this theme shows up again in Acts 2- the juxtaposition of wine and the Holy Spirit. So I think we should consider it. Wine makes a heart merry. We receive joy through the Holy Spirit. [DH] \Out of context, again. I talked about the context of Eph. 5, which is \omitted in the above citation. I can see support for "filled with \spirit" = drunkenness, if you take Eph. 5:18 by itself. But then you \also need to IGNORE Eph. 5:19, which is the rest of the sentence, that \elaborates on what it means to be filled with the spirit. \Eph: 5:18-19 "Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but \be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and \spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;" [FN] I can add only that the mere fact of juxtaposition doesn't prove anything. If I apply it consistently, I can teach anything I want. Some weird ideas from Matthew (using the juxtaposition method): - Purgatory is proved by Mt 5:25-26. The judge is God, but the prison isn't hell, because there is hope to get out from there. - Peter is Satan (Mt 16:23), so the Church is built on Satan (Mt 16:18). - Christians are to curse fig trees (Mt 21:21) to express their faith. - We are bound by the law and the Jewish tradition (Mt 23:3). - Christ is either a carcass or an eagle (Mt 24:27-28). Which one,it is up to the poor hearer. - Christ is now on the earth, He is starving (Mt 25:31-46) To stop inventing heresies and to be more constructive: I am afraid of inferring more from the text that it suggests. I agree with you that mentioning the Holy Spirit and wine together means at least that we receive joy through the Holy Spirit. New wineskins can be addressed, too. But think it over: is it a parallel or a contrast? Did the apostle really want to indicate the similarity of outward manifestations? And if not, is this aspect rightly attached to the obvious meaning "Don't want to get pleasure from wine but be filled with the Spirit (which itself is the greatest pleasure in the world)"? As you know, English is a second language for me. I don't understand the about abuses fully. Is it an inserted apology that your argument isn't intended to "acquit" every single ministry that teaches in its own way (and maybe some of them with distortions) about the Holy Spirit and wine? Then do the following two sentences belong to your argument or are they a quotation of the abuses? (I don't pose further questions on this, I really don't see the logic.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [DH] >* Act 2:13 - people thought the christians at pentecost were drunk. They >thought that because they heard people speaking in foreign tongues. >However, there was no slurred speech or drunkenness, as evidenced >by Peter's sermon in Acts 3, that resulted in 3000 people being saved. [LH] Normally, speaking many languages is considered a sign of intelligence, not drunkenness. I wouldn't assume there was slurred speach, but the fact that Peter preached successfully does not prove this. It is also quite possible that Peter was not displaying the actions that he was referring to. Notice he said "these men" and not "we." It is possible that they were in some sort of "ecstatic" state. [FN] First, the text suggests that Peter was also displaying these actions: v. 3: "and sat upon each one of them" v. 4: "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues" but it's not so important. The text mentions speaking in tongues. Peter speaks about tongues and prophecy, visions and dreams. (And other signs in the sky, but I don't think these latter ones really happened then.) My question: Isn't speaking in tongues and prophesying enough to excite embarrassment, amazement and a feeling "they are drunk"? Were the pentecostal/charismatic Christians in an error beginning from Azusa Street until Rodney Howard-Browne because they were satisfied with the gifts listed by Paul and didn't put a stress on additional ecstasy when they read, interpreted and preached Acts 2? Don't the laughing revival apologists use scripture in an irresponsible manner when they first make an abstraction from the text, saying that those people were obviously out of self-control, were in trance, were acting as if they were drunk, etc, and the next step of their argument includes the statement "when we laugh, we do nothing more than those in Acts 2"? In my opinion this step is quite a huge leap, for it uses a general conclusion (made on the basis of a particular event) for supporting another manifestation. The bridge between the two happenings is provided by the preacher who knows where he has to get at the end. This approach is somewhat biassed and hides the danger of going far from the original meaning. I don't think I managed to express myself clearly enough. So I draw it. The diagram shows how one mustn't build a bridge. |====================================================| | --> ECSTASY (general) --> | | |============================================| | | ^ | | | | | | | | V | ________|___|______ _____|___|______________ \^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^/ ACTS 2 \ DECENT ORDER (1Cor 14) / HOLY LAUGHTER, BARKING TONGUES, PROPHECY \ God isn't the God of / etc. Misunderstanding: \ disorder but of peace / Preaching: "They are drunk" \(concrete instructions)/ "We are simply drunk" (concrete event) \_____________________/ (concrete events) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [LH] Yes, and I Samuel 19:23 identifies the Spirit that came upon Saul when he stripped off his robes and prophesied lying down all day and night as the Spirit of the Lord. Regardless of Saul's wickedness, this passage shows an important example of what can be a manifestation of the Spirit of God. [FN] I don't question it either. If God could divide the Read Sea, why wouldn't He be able to hurl a man to the ground? (no matter whether he is righteous or not.) But this verse speaks about God dealing with His enemy. How can it be directly applied to believers? And if you find an explanation to bridge over this gap, then test it with Nebuchadnezzar. He was also humiliated by God and with a corrective purpose. The test is as follows: Is it likely for the Church to experience a madness revival? Can it be supported by Nebuchadnezzar's example? What would be the difference from holy laughter? (I'm not mocking. It really bugs me. As you may know, David Wilkerson prophesied that there will be churches where people will exercise sexual immorality and will dance naked at the meetings. I don't find this prophecy so weird as it can seem for the first reading.) [DH] \The passage also indicates very clearly WHY God had done this. Saul was \determined to KILL DAVID. When the people he sent failed to do so, he \went himself, and GOD STOPPED HIM by holding him on the ground naked. [FN] I am quite willing to accept Saul's example applied to us because IOC there have been many heretical teachings over its ten years' existence. Some examples: - "Gospel" of prosperity, "name it and claim it", "confession" teaching; (My main proof against them is an internal one: now we don't teach them.) - Sermons supporting a political party soon before the election - note that in Hungary politics is not a convenient topic anywhere, for it easily excites anger, so even unbelievers try to avoid it if possible; - Preaching hatred against Catholics (They form the 2/3 of our population, so it is quite understandable provided that we forget that we are to love our enemies); - Making an artificial distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians in favour of the former. (It has to be mentioned that IOC there is great willingness to praise Israel and set it as an example before us. I'm not anti-semitic at all, but sometimes I simply become irritated by the large amount of unbalanced doctrine which suggests that Hungarians are somehow inferior to Jews.) etc. I speak folly but forgive me for doing so: the quoted scripture about Saul seems to quite fittingly apply to us: God wants us to stop preaching heresy so He sends laughter that we should cause no more damage with our mouths. And it works! Over the last six months at least 60 per cent of the sermons dealt with holy laughter and the new wave. We restricted our brain factory's production to this subject. (End of folly.) It was a local Hungarian example, but in answer to an individual biblical precedent applied to general issues as "are all Christians obliged to laugh?" I know from your posts that you don't believe that. But it seems from your arguments that you consider it a sign or consequence of the move of God. (without bothering whether it is "gift" or "punishment") IOC we go on and teach that "those who don't accept these manifestations as the move of God are withered branches." Literally. OC got divided over this problem. The dissenting opinion is condemned weekly from the pulpit. To be honest, I am grieved. I see that important things are being replaced with meaningless ones (see the sentence about withered branches). Now I am awaiting these to be substituted with slightly harmful doctrine. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [DH] >* God is not a God of disorder but of peace (1Cor. 15:33) - this is the >culmination of Paul's speech on orderly worship. Is the worship today >following Paul's guidelines? Both the church in Corinth and certain >churches associated with the TB are characterized by "spiritual gifts". >Do these guidelines apply to the church today as well? [LH] I know that the Vineyard here in Athens, Georgia has taught not to speak in tongues while praying with people (without interpretation of course.) I can't speak for Toronto, but I do know that they have some stringent guidelines, and only people who meet stringent criteria are on the ministry team. [FN] Link, I envy you. In Faith Assembly, Budapest, we have a Bible which seems to be silent (and even dumb at 1Cor 14), and there is no discernment of anything. Everybody can speak in tongues while no one interprets it. There is no prophecy. No other gifts. The leadership does everything. The 2...3000 people who listen are like a flock without a shepherd. They can defend the official doctrine if it comes to it, but are often at a loss when they face problems in private life. (Poverty, loneliness, hatred coming from relatives, etc.) So our congregation grows without the mutual help of the parts. This is a result of many other factors. What I mentioned is only one of them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [DH] >I don't remember off hand what other scriptures that have been >presented, but these are some that I remember being quoted. I think an >interesting passage to note, that most accurately describes what people >are saying about the Toronto Blessings, is Jer. 51:38-39. > "Her people all roar like young lions, they growl like lion cubs. > But while they are aroused, I will set out a feast for them, > and make them drunk, that they shout with laughter- then sleep > forever and not awake.", declares the Lord. >Unfortunately, Jer 51:38-58 describes a curse on Babylon. I'm not saying >that Toronto is Babylon, though, but this is probably the best proof >text for the phenomena you are going to find in the bible. [LH] I've heard a little about roaring like lions. The explanations I have heard for it sound a lot like prophetic sign acts, for example, in the Bible, making two sticks into one, Jeremiah putting on an iron yoke, Agabus sign with Paul's belt, Ezekiel using a pan for a pillow, or Isaiah and Micah going around naked. Generally, wearing an iron yoke in a church service is a bit out of the ordinary, but it has Biblical precedent. I can't say roaring like a lion is unlike sign acts in the Bible. [FN] I am amazed at your calm handling of the topic! You seem to accept roaring because it is similar to some sign acts in the Bible. But you content yourself on mentioning this outward parallel ("out of the ordinary") and in the meantime you forget about the intrinsic aspects that you happened to drag into the discussion. You don't bother yourself on what roaring can MEAN prophetically. So: it's a sign but of what? Of the destruction of the world? The church has to preach the good news and not the details of the judgment day! OTOH, prophecy is for common edification, primarily for the church. Does roaring express the present state of the church? I haven't got answer to this question from the preaching. Perhaps the Vineyard (if it is the one you attend) is more responsible concerning doctrine, so I ask you to explain these things to me. =========================================================================== Date: 21 Apr 1995 Jeffrey Mays wrote: > What is the difference is appearance to what's happening in Toronto >and, say, a drunken crowd or a heavy-metal mosh pit? Good grief! Flopping >around like a fish? I can just imagine it. Even better, I can just see Jesus >flopping around in the dirt like a fish. How absurd. How disgraceful to >think of Him that way. Seems like the Toronto participants will stop at no >act of bizarre behavior because no one is bold enough to say "This is >nonsense. Get a grip." [LH] I think you should do a little research on what the Vineyard leadership think about these things before you judge them. I've read _Power Healing_ by Wimber, and saw him on _In the Name of God_ on ABC. When Jennings asked Wimber about some of these manifestations, he pointed out that some of the people that were prayed for had been abused, molested, had had drug problems, and might respond in a way he or Jennings might respond. The idea is not to have manifestations. It's for the Lord to do a work in the individual. [FN] This explanation doesn't work everywhere. At least IOC there is a lot of speech to induce manifestations while not even a word is told that it is some kind of deliverance from demons or re-dedicating our lives. The latest explanation sounds like this: "Joy and other manifestations are like a theatre performance with the Holy Spirit being the main character and us being the scene." I think even you wouldn't defend this approach. It's a circular argument and thus very-very dangerous. And, which is the most depressing, I see the same persons producing the manifestations from time to time. If it is casting out demons, then do the demons return into these people weekly? Let's omit this opportunity. I hate to think that it would apply. Concerning our explanation: are they so holy that they are set before us as examples every week? I think the deduction goes the other way round: the fact that they continually perform these things is some kind of attempt to convince others (and psychologically themselves) of their own holiness. (It's my impression, not an attack against EVERYbody who laughs.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [LH] Personally, I don't see Christ fish flopping either. But we know that Christ was spiritually healthy, an one of God's objectives was to glorify the Son. I don't think bringing glory to believers is high on God's priority list. [FN] Yours is a hidden message. With a bit of malice I could accuse you with the attempt of introducing the doctrine of "God weekly humiliating us". No, I am sure He expects US to humble OURSELVES before Him. The proud are more likely to experience God's power turning them into animals. So everyone who defends the manifestations as the forcible acts of God should, in my opinion, drop this argument. ========================================================================== Date: 26 Apr 1995 Jeffrey Mays wrote: [...] [LH] [...] And physical manifestations are not needed for the Lord to deal with one of His children. But, from time to time, they occur. And when they do, we should be open-minded enough to see what the Scriptures have to say about them. During the Great Awakening, there was a lot of controversy about this sort of stuff, and there were plenty of people who spoke against it then. [FN] If you said IOC, you would be labelled a heretic! "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!(!!!!)" We are stuck at this level of interpretation, and I think so are many Charismatics in the world. Your sensible explanation is, OTOH, very widespread among Charismatics. One of the few things concerning which John MacArthur, the author of "Charismatic Chaos" is right, is the danger of deducing ever-applying laws from isolated happenings.("Pattern"-approach, or how he calls this). He quotes a charismatic author, I think Jack Deere, who says "the inspiration of the OT prophets is a pattern of how the Holy Spirit is inspiring the believers now". [My quotation is quite literal but I'm not sure about Deere. I tore Charismatic Chaos into pieces a year ago and kept only one chapter -- about Word Faith movement.] Catholics use this method at an advanced level and say "praying to the dead saints is not explicitely mentioned in the Bible but its "germs" can be found there." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [LH] in answer to [JM] I haven't heard of anyone levitating at Toronto, and I suppose you are just throwing that in just to make your list more outrageous. However, I do see some Biblical support for levitating. Walking on water or making axeheads float on water is pretty close. having an angel carry you by your hair is close, if the angel is invisible to others. I can't say everything that goes on in revivals like this is God, but I do see how some of these things are not unlike things that God did in the Bible, discussed earlier in this post. [FN] I advise you most solemnly: beware of counterfeits. The devil is going to bring down fire from the sky. It will be quite LIKE Elijah. So similarity doesn't prove or disprove anything. I esteem you to that degree that I don't call you a victim of the devil. But think about other charismatic Christians. Derek Prince told about them that (in America) they are so eager to see miracles that he is seriously worried about them being deceived. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [LH] Jeremiah 23:9. Jeremiah was a man who obeyed God. The issue with Saul is not whether or not he was righteous. Sure, God forsook him. The issue is what kinds of physical manifestations God can cause. The Bible doesn't say the only reason this kind of thing happened to Saul was because he was wicked. Rather, we see that righteous people also fell to the ground in encounters with the Spirit of God, or experienced other phenomenon. [FN] I agree with you. We shouldn't identify being struck down by the Lord with unrighteousness. You could as well have mentioned Ezekiel 1:28, Dan 10:7-9, Rev 1:17. These are very convincing examples. The danger is that some teachers divide these manifestations from the context and begin to brainwash the faithful into some kind of overstrained expectation of "coming of the power". I have problems with the wording, too, but the expressions that our pastor uses exceed my poor translating abilities. Sg like "God loves chaos for He created the world from it", "God's power arrives and it does not depend on what malicious critics say", "The Holy Spirit takes the responsibility for whatever happens at this meeting, because we laid it down before Him." The result is that the believers get a special pair of glasses to interpret scripture and a special tongue to speak to skeptics. Sorry for swerving away from the topic, but the fact that my friend whom I mentioned above, on his way home, was waited at the gate of his house by three supporters of the manifestations (who used to be very close to him formerly), and began a completely fruitless and arrogant debate with him in the night, in which loudness overcame biblical verses, -- this fact shows how effective the brainwashing is. I don't blame you for this case. I know very well that laughers are not enemies. But after having devoured a disgustingly bitter-tasting fruit which bore no resemblence to Gal 5:22 -- I am doubting in the sincerity of those who preach IOC. This is not a special Hungarian attitude. I know that there is controversy about this all over the world. But let me ask a question that is really puzzling for me: if it is said that this is a RENEWAL for Christians, then why doesn't it last longer than the meeting? Why haven't I seen the fruit of the Spirit? Why did the phenomenon lead to sectarian behaviour, envy, malice, intolerance, narrow-mindedness and bringing of unjust charges? I tried to depict the situation with a (characteristic) example. Maybe you stand rooted before the frustration that pervades my letter. But why would God give such a useless gift? (Don't answer, this is a rhetoric question. The whole matter is deeply rooted in OC's fleshly tradition.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [JM] >and interpret that to mean people behaving like madmen. What you are doing is >taking an experience and looking for something to support it from scripture, >instead of vice versa. [LH] It seems to me that you are discrediting experience without support from Scripture. We don't always control our experiences. If everything on earth were in my control, I could make sure things that happened conformed to my view of Scripture. However, when experiences that our outside of your control happen, sometimes you have to examine them in light of Scripture.(*) Now, if Jesus indicates in Luke 11, that if we ask the Father for the Holy Spirit, he will not send us something bad, and we ask the Father for the the Holy Spirit, and strange things happen, how do we evaluate the experience?(**) [FN] It's the simplest thing in the world. By the Bible. Your quoting Luke 11 seems to me as an attempt to avoid discernment. I had a hard time trying to harmonize this scripture with others that urge us to test the spirits. First, Jesus said it in order for us to pray persistently and trust God. Second, He did not say "Maybe God will give a bread as hard as a stone but don't be afraid: it's surely a bread." I imagine how angry you are now with me. "This chap distorts my words!" No, I don't want to. I think you expected an answer for your question like this: "Then we accept it as God's move." I base it on the order of your thoughts: You place scriptural discernment first (*). Then you turn to a discerning sort of scripture and seem to arrive at a conclusion (**). This train of thought is faulty at choosing THE verse on the basis of which you want to do the discernment. Its being faulty is somehow foretold by the fact that the implied result ("trust God even if is strange") is quite distant from your starting point ("if sg happens that is out of our control then we have to examine it with scripture.") Several thing are there to decide whether the bread is bread or not, eg.: - Did I ask it from the Father sincerely and earnestly? (James 1:7) - Is my request pure before God? (1Jn 5:14) - Didn't I seek my own desires? (James 4:3) - Aren't I mislead by a false teaching? I quote the scripture, because it's very important. 2Cor 1:3-4 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than we preached, OR IF YOU RECEIVE A DIFFERENT SPIRIT FROM THE ONE YOU RECEIVED, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." - - - - - - - - - - You say: "I can't say everything that goes on in revivals like this is God [...]" I suppose you arrived at a conclusion that in some of the revivals like this some people made some mistakes (going into flesh or demonic deception). I don't require of you a list of these mistakes but PLEASE, make something like this for yourself. You can do it within your mind. Then HOW did you decide if a certain thing (event, teaching, etc.) was a mistake or not? How do you evaluate your discernment method in the light of Luke 11? I finish for now. Excuse me for being so tiresome. If you have time, please answer. I am not your enemy notwithstanding that sometimes I forget about politeness. Now I beg your pardon for my angry postings. Personally I prefer mailing to posting because in a shortage of time many thoughts remain crude and can easily hurt the other one. And excuse me for the ponderous style of the present letter. God bless you. Ferenc Nemeth ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have time to respond to all the points of your letter now, though I hope to do so in a few days, if the Lord permits. I was not aware of the situation in you church. The way you describe it it sounds like a bunch of Charismaniac (Charismatic+maniac) hyper-faith people. Perhaps if I had known this, I would have taken a different angle in some of my posts. I personally believe that God can cause holy laughter. Actually, with many of these things, there is a combination of God and flesh. People respond in certain ways to the presence of God. I don't think all this stuff is always God. Laughter is especially problematic because its naturally infectuous anyway. In a meeting with a lot of laughter, some might be touched by God, others might be laughing at those people's reactions, and others might be demonized people. The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement in the US has been through some of the extremes of emotionalism you describe. Maybe not so much with the manifestations, but just in lack of depth. I think this has produced some people who can see through all the hype when this stuff happens. The potential problem I see, even when God does move in physical manifestations, as you have pointed out, is that people institutionalize the bizarre, and seek after manifestations instead of the work the Lord is doing in the people. I lament the situation of your church, with so few doing any work, and only emphasis on manifestations and joy, without teaching, which is what I feel new converts in a formerly atheist country so desperately need. Teachers are ranked above miracle workers in I Corinthians 12, and I think many charismatics need to see this truth. I think you are in a position where the only strong influence you can have in your church is through prayer. I haven't been to Toronto, but I've seen hints of people seeking manifestations, I think, and its so easy to do. When you see God move on someone physically, and they fall down, or something like it, you can become obsessed with it. You quoted Jack Deere in your earlier message. I think he has a valid point about prophets, though the Bible doesn't describe those as every day occurances in the life of the believer. I have read Deere's book on gifts called _Suprised by the Power of the Spirit_ and if you can get it, it's good. It shows the logical flaws of Deere's former belief on the subject (he taught at Dallas Theological Seminary. I think MacArthur went there. Deere had similar beliefs to MacArthur on the subject, till someone showed him some Scripture that poked holes in his theory, and he began to study.) I think it would be good for you to pray that Jack Deere might visit your church. He's well respected in the Vineyard, and so they might receive from him. He's also friends with people reputed to be prophets in the Vineyard, and they respect him as well. (Deere used to be a Vineyard pastor, btw.) He's now a pastor at First Presbyterian Church/ White Fish, Montana/ USA. I heard Deere speak on this subject, and he pointed out the error people can get into seeking for manifestations, and that some of this stuff is flesh, and all that stuff that your church probably needs to hear, and might be able to receive, coming from him. (especially since he wrote a book defending the gifts of the Spirit.) The last I heard, he had never even been slain in the Spirit, so I don't think he'll try to get people to laugh. I hope to respond more in depth later. Don't worry, your letter didn't offend me. I don't mind tough questions. God bless you. Please pray for me. I am planning on going to Korea in a few days. I haven't signed my contract (to teach English) yet, and I would like a booming voice from heaven telling me to do it, that I can discern for sure to be from God. :) (btw, by quoting Luke 11, I don't mean that Christians can never get anything bad from the devil. But if you ask God to do something, and it starts happening, you have to take that into consideration. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------ > defeated and we are to mock him. I don't like that kind of talk. Seems to be dangerous according to Jude 9. After I noticed that in the Bible, I heard a tape where Jack Deere said the same thing. It is foolish to insult the devil. He told a story about a Pentecostal preacher, who, years ago, used to suffer demonic harassment at night- blinds being pulled up, covers being pulled off. He prayed about it and he was led to Jude 9. It was the custom in those days to mock Satan in revival services. He had been doing this, and opened himself up to attack. >Then the whole thing was somehow forgotten for three months). What exactly did she do to induce it? I think God can cause things that look unusual, or people can react in unusual ways in response to the Holy Spirit, but I don't see why people want to induce weird things. Personally, I'd rather not have to mess with weird stuff like that, and go with the things that appear more regularly in the Bible, and have better Biblical support. When this stuff happens, I feel compelled to sort through and see what's God, what's flesh, what's emotionalism, at least if what is happening is distracting. I make a conscious effort to try to reserve judgement for individual cases. I do think some of this stuff is God, or is a reaction to God, so I don't want to foolishly go mouthing off against the Holy Spirit or His work, because that is dangerous. And I'm not a pastor, nor am I the appointed inspector of manifestations. So I just try to obverse sometimes and not pass judgement based purely on the strangeness of something. Quite frankly, I am much more comfortable with a service where the physical manifestations do not occur, but there is a pattern in church history, and to a less obvious degree, in the Bible, of God's presence producing physical manifestations, so I try to be careful what I say and how I respond. I think I can understand a little why people seem to try to induce weird behavior. They've seen it break out and God do many things, so they get their eyes on the physical manifestations that occur when God does His work, instead of concentrating on the work the Lord wants to do. So they, some times without realizing it, induce manifestations. And when these things become common, they become tradition, even though Charismatics don't realize they are tradition. > We follow Him. (See Ps 2:4) That does sound strange. However, it's not totally out of line with strange sounding signs in the Bible, so I wouldn't discount it without first praying and getting some kind of discernment or answer from the Lord. (Neither would I accept it.) > - Somewhere some people tried to plant a quasi-Eden. God is laughing at it. If your pastor is just grasping for reasons, of course this kind of stuff is bad Bible interpretation. However, it could very well be that God is trying to communicate something about an "Isaac" that is going to be birthed in the church. I've read this in a prophetic journal, I think. The same man also wrote at the beginning of 1994 that it would be a year of the joy of the Lord, if I remember correctly. Rodney Howard Brown had been on Trinity Broadcasting a few months before the man wrote the article, but I don't think he's into the same circle of friends- the word of faith movement and all that. Rather, Rick Joyner, who wrote the articles, probably knows more people in the Vineyard (like Jack Deere, Paul Cain, formerly in the Vineyard.) He wrote this before the Toronto thing broke out. When people use Scripture like this, imo, determining its truth is like testing prophecy, and not so much a hermeneutical exercise this is sort of frustrating for me, if I really want an answer, because I think I'm more gifted in reading the Bible, than in discerning spirits and judging prophecy. Maybe I just don't spend enough time in prayer over these issues. Maybe it doesn't concern me enough, since I'm not in a situation like yours, where I am confronted with things that are that bizarre all the time. Usually, I just reserve judgement on this kind of stuff and wait and see. > for me and some other brethren. I see what you are saying, and how it makes the whole thing less convincing (watching people you know on film busting a gut laughing can make you laugh. But, there is another possibility that could be offered. People can get healed watching television. Maybe the same "anointing" that comes when a tape is made can come when the tape is played. > of introducing this new gift, and no one solved our problem. What exactly did they say? Did they tell them what syllables to say? Personally, I suspect that some tongues are unintentionally manufactured (especially the ones that are a few syllables repeated) by people who convince themselves they are speaking in tongues, because, if they don't they aren't supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. So they jabber and think that is proof they are filled with the Holy Spirit. I don't claim that that happens all the time, or even most of the time, but I wouldn't be suprised. However, I do think there are people who really do get the gift, and it does seem to be a common gift given to people who pray to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. It did manifest when people were filled in Acts. Maybe God is being tolerant of Pentecostal theology and giving the gift a lot. Just to point out the counterpoint to what you said, it makes sense that people could receive this gift after receiving Biblical teaching on it. If they weren't told about it, they wouldn't ask. "you have not because you ask not." Perhaps also the teaching helped them gain faith to ask for the gift. > living hope in our heart in this hopeless country." I don't see how the manifestations are really meant for evangelism so much. It reminds me of Paul warning the Corinthians that if they all speak with tongues, unbelievers who come in will say they are mad. The Vineyard churches are mostly calling this a "renewal" meaning it is for the church, rather than a revival, which evangelicals in America use to refer to the lost being saved. >"According to prophecies, God will put aside those pastors who >don't submit to this new outpouring of the Spirit." Who gave these prophecies? Are they from within your church, or from abroad? I would look carefully at the prophecies, to see exactly how they applied. I could see how someone could use a prophecy like this to condemn anyone who warned about emotional extremes. Jonathan Edwards saw similar manifestations, though probably more weeping and wailing by the penitent (which is something I am a little more comfortable with, since they are unsaved anyway, and its easier to deal with that theologically.) I've often heard people in the Vineyard mention that Edwards' wife was "drunk in the Spirit" for 16 or 17 days. (I don't like that phrase because the Bible says "These men are _not_ drunk as ye suppose.") Edwards saw this as evidence of God's work (coming into contact with filthy flesh.) However, by the time he wrote his most famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," the manifestations had been institutionalized, and some of it wasn't genuine, apparently. We should never put the manifestations on a piedestal. Personally, I am sort of waiting for when God takes us beyond this stuff. > within you." "Solemn Christians aren't the ones whom God is now looking for." Anybody can laugh. Do they want you to do it on purpose? Those quotes you make disturb me. The Vineyard, and people who have ties with it, say the opposite. Jack Deere told about how an evangelist friend of his called him and a few other ministers on stage so he could lay hands on them and pray for more anointing on them. He laid hands on two on the left of Deere. Both fell to the ground. He laid hands on Deere. Nothing happened. He remained standing. He laid hands on the last preacher to the right of Deere. That preacher fell. Then he laid hands on Deere again and said "A double dose, Lord." Deere didn't fall. He was thinking maybe he should fall and save this guy some embarrasment and stop this moment. The guy layed hands on him again and said "a triple dose." He didn't fall. Deere's point was that sometimes people would feel pressured to produce some manifestations themselves because other people were experiencing them. He said that some people had the mistaken notion that if they didn't fall, or experience these things, they were not as spiritual as other people. He said he's never been "slain in the Spirit" himself, but what is important is the work the Lord wants to do in the person's heart, whether or not something happens physically. I saw John Wimber on an American television program. He said physical manifestations have come and gone in season over the years. The Vineyard spends a lot of time doing "ministry" where they lay hands on each other and pray for extended periods of time. Wimber said he'd tried moving people out of the room who showed physical manifestations. He said he doesn't push anyone or try to induce anything, but sometimes there are so many of them that they just have to let them happen. Wimber had a lot of good, sensible things to say. He said he didn't think it was all God. He thought it was a combination of flesh and S/spirit. There are two main groups that are experiencing the laughing revival. One is the Vineyard (where Toronto has gained notoriety.) The other is the word of faith movement (where Rodney Howard-Brown tends to circulate.) Of course there are other segments of the Pentecostal/Charismatic/ Third Wave movements that are experiencing it as well now. The Vineyard is not part of the Word of Faith movement. In fact, a pastor from Toronto who went to a Rodney Howard Brown meeting (and also other revivals like in Argentina) didn't want to go to where Brown was preaching because it was affiliated with Rhema, and he didn't agree with their theology. He felt led to go, and was prayed for by Brown four times. One of the pastorial staff at the Atlanta Vineyard that I know said he agreed with the Christian Research Institutes assessment of the faith movement. I think many in the Vineyard are fed up with the prosperity preaching, and wild Biblical interpretations coming out of the faith movement. The faith movement emphasizes Jesus' statements about all things being possible to Him that believes, and moving mountains with faith, etc. The Vineyard emphasizes Jesus' statement that He can only do what He sees His Father doing, and emphasizes seeking the heart of the Father. At least, those are things you hear a lot about in the Vineyard. My point is that these are different groups, so opinions of one may not be the same in as those in another. Also, the tendency in the Vineyard is toward Calvinism (4-point.) You know, predestination, and all that. The Word of Faith Movement is Hyper-Arminian, just the opposite. > "David danced before the Covenant Box" Of course, this case was willful. Are they trying to institute barking as part of a liturgy intentionally practiced by the congregation? > "God wants to humiliate us when he makes us bark" That doesn't sound like they think these things are positive. If they believe this, they should repent and humble themselves, so God will not have to humble them. > "Those who put their trust in the Lord will RUN and not go weary..." > (the following part - about eagles - is omitted.) Do they claim to get this stuff as "revelation" or are they just grasping at straws? > - Charismatic traditions are useless, they are like chaff. When threshing > comes (that is the third wave) God will burn them away. The word of faith movement would be considered Charismatic, and the Vineyard, Third Wave, at least by the guy at Fuller theological who coined the phrase "third wave." Has the pastor mentioned from the pulpit that this stuff is not always 100% God? Someone said he was praying about the Toronto stuff, and God spoke to him and said it was about 25% Him...but that's a lot more than you are used to seeing. > the manifestations. They don't even speak with us. Its hard to find Christians over here who are involved with something like this who can answer questions. Most people take questions as personal attacks for some reason, it seems. You have to be careful how you open the discussion, I guess. > church of Acts while many other congregations are "content to have a > church that doesn't do the things the church did in the Bible"<<. If I recall correctly David S. Hwang was arguing that gifts of the Spirit had passed away. What I was thinking of in the above quote was gifts of the Spirit, not holy laughter, etc. Though there is some OT evidence, imo, for similar phenomenon, Acts seems to hint at it ecstacy that looks like drunkenness. There have been several prophecies in the Vineyard that were given years before, that are used as apologetics, in a sense, for the revival. There is a Vineyard in Kansas City that was quite controversial in the mid '80's because of the "Kansas City Prophets." Some books were written about them. One positive. Two negative. And there are others reputed to be prophets in the Vineyard. Mike Bickle, Kansas City pastor told that it was prophesied that the Lord would pour out "the wine of the Spirit" in '94 (I think. Don't quote me on that. It may have been mid-90's.) Bickle was expecting heart-wrenching repentance. When this stuff happened, he realized that at Pentecost, what happened to the people was mistaken for drunkenness. There are various others. Some guy named Gui Chevreau has written a book that may tell a lot about this, and there is a history of the revival on the web. I don't know if it gives the background. John Paul Jackson saw a vision of something going from St. Louis in the US, to Toronto. Randy Clark was from St. Louis and went to Toronto (and I think he was the guy who was prayed for by Howard-Brown.) > for the Catholics? ("...all generations shall call me blessed") I think the idea behind this is that the laughter is a prophetic sign. I think I've read this. This isn't purely a matter of hermenuetics. Its judging prophecy, imo. > hermeneutical method at work. You seem to stretch certain passages.) I probably didn't explain myself well in that post. I was responding specifically to the idea that Sarah's laughter was a bad thing, because she didn't believe God. This passage seems to indicate there was a positive element to Isaac's name. DH mentioned this as a prooftext that Charismatics were using. I didn't mean to defend the hermeneutics of those using the text, as I recall. I think I was just pointing out that Isaac being named after laughter wasn't just a bad thing, like DH was saying. > \also need to IGNORE Eph. 5:19, which is the rest of the sentence, that > \elaborates on what it means to be filled with the spirit. I don't think Ephesians 19 disproves anything. Ephesians 5 alone doesn't really prove anything, either. I think Acts gives a stronger case, or a stronger hint. However, later, in another post, I did point out a stronger verse to support what I was saying. Jeremiah 23:9 "Concerning the prophets: My heart is broken within me; all my bones tremble. I am like a drunken man like a man overcome by wine because of the Lord and his holy words." This verse indicates that prophets could go into an ecstatic-like state in response to the Holy Spirit. Saul is another example, though he was not righteous the time he wallowed on the ground. However, considering this foundation in the Old Testament, I think there is sufficient evidence to make a strong case for the idea that the people thought the apostles were drunk because they like they were. > If I apply it consistently, I can teach anything I want. I agree that juxtaposition doesn't prove anything in itself. But this is something that is repeated, and I think Jeremiah 23:9 illustrates my point more clearly. I don't think we should try to encourage people to appear to be drunk, or act drunk. If God wants to produce an ecstatic state that effects someone physically, fine. It doesn't seem to happen on every occasion in the Old Testament, but it does on some occasions. > Did the apostle really want to indicate the similarity of outward > manifestations? Just as an aside, I don't think the apostles necessarily had to be aware of all the implications and hidden meanings of what they were saying prophetically. I suspect some OT prophets didn't really know the full ramifications of their prophecies. Caiaphas certainly didn't when he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation. > (which itself is the greatest pleasure in the world)"? I see what you are saying. I was only offering the juxtaposition thing as a possibility, though I think Jeremiah makes a fairly strong case. > (and maybe some of them with distortions) about the Holy Spirit and wine? No. Let me rephrase that statement. Maybe the passage is saying something about drunkenness (i.e. abuse of wine) being a counterfeit (in this case: fake, ungenuine imitation) of what the Holy Spirit does. Btw, from your writing, I cannot tell that English is a second language for you. You probably write better than I do. > but it's not so important. What I meant was that perhaps Peter was not displaying ecstatic manifestations like some of the people there. Notice "these men are not drunk as ye suppose." Not "we are not drunk." Maybe some of the people were in ecstasies, and Peter was not. > embarrassment, amazement and a feeling "they are drunk"? I suppose that is a possibility. I don't know if an excited group of people would be mistaken for a drunken group of people. I don't drink and can't really tell if someone is drunk, retarded, crazy, or high on a drug half the time, so I'm probably a little naive in this regard. There is evidence for ecstatic states in the OT. I guess the question is whether or not there was an ecstacy in this passage produced by the people's excitement from speaking in tongues, etc, or produced directly because of the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah said he was like a drunken man because of the Lord _and_ his holy words, so either one would fit with Jeremiah. Whether or not ecstasies are the result of the flesh's response to the Spirit, or the Spirit directly acting on the mind and body, there is evidence (I wouldn't call it proof) for ecstasy in Acts 2. > when they read, interpreted and preached Acts 2? Actually, the same thing has happened throughout Pentecostal history. I go to a Holiness church out in a sort of rural area, which is about 15 miles from Athens, Ga. (20-25km?) Usually the church is quiet. Occasionally, someone will start shouting, or speaking in tongues really loud. I've overheard some people talk, and they consider that to be the move of the Spirit. What really disturbs me is that some of them believe you can only speak in tongues at certain times when "the Spirit is on you" and it seems to me that they also believe if you don't speak in tongues then, you are being disobedient. So, occasionally, a woman will blurt out in tongues really loud without interpretation. Sometimes, it looks to me like they get excited, think that is the Holy Spirit, and either exercise the gift of tongues, or what they think is the gift of tongues. Many Pentecostal churches have made an emotionalism a tradition. You don't hear as much about shouting in Charismatic churches. I don't have a problem with it if it's done in order. But I think some of the Pentecostal groups (especially ones still carrying the title Holiness) tend to think that the Holy Spirit comes on them and gives them an urge to shout- and often this just happens when the music reaches a crescendo, or some other emotional moment. Maybe some of this is like the stuff in the Vineyard- the flesh responding to the work of the Spirit. Over time, though, I think people often get the idea that the emotion they feel is the Holy Spirit, and so they shout when they hear emotion. My pastor is a sensible man, and he has said that he has seen occasions when a window would slam and a lady would jump up and speak in tongues. Holy laughter is not new by any means either. I heard of it, and may have seen it a few times, before Howard-Browne gained notoriety at Carpenter's home church in Lakeland, Florida a few years ago. I had a pastor in another city I lived in who said that his mother would get "drunk in the Spirit" when he was a child, and they would have to carry her home. He's about 56 now, I would guess, to give you an idea of the timeframe. Maria Woodworth-Etter was an early Pentecostal woman evangelist (ahem) who had people fall into trances in her meetings and have visions. She was a Holiness evangelist before Azusa street as well. All these things have been with the Pentecostal movement since it began, and people have probably been arguing the same things as well. I think that there was probably less objection to emotionalism in Pentecostalism before the Charismatic movement. Charismatics took Pentecostal teachings etc. asked for the Holy Spirit, but didn't take Pentecostal style- or some of them didn't. Word of Faith people are sort of like calm old-timey Pentecostals with some different doctrines. William Seymore, the pastor of Azusa street, if I remember correctly, went into a church where someone started shouting during the preaching, and he rebuked her. He dealt with the issue of people just shouting out of emotion. I wish more of his sermons were written down. My sister (I live with her, my brother, and my parents) has a copy of The Apostolic Times- newsletters edited by Seymore, much of it written by him. > biassed and hides the danger of going far from the original meaning. I see what you are saying, and I see the danger you are talking about. Based just on the information I gave in that post, I see how my case was rather weak. But since ecstacy, imo, is established in Scripture, I don't think the leap is so great. However, I don't think you can use this to justify all laughing. I would hope that your pastor and churchmembers would realize the possibility of fleshly manifestations and even demonic manifestations. They should also be warned not to allow themselves to be tempted to put on a show, so other people will think they are spiritual. If God shows up and puts everyone in an ecstacy, that's fine. What bothers me is that some new believers might only get a bunch of emotionalism and teaching, prophecy, or other ministry might be neglected. I think pastors should try to teach, exhort, etc. and if God wants to do something unusual, that's fine. Of course, God could choose to do unusual things for a whole month. Fortunately, the Vineyards I have gone to are not 100% manifestations. There is "ministry time" at the end where people pray for each other (in large meetings, approved people on the ministry team pray for people.) Sometimes, when being prayed for, in this less formal setting (where people are free to leave, or even talk) these manifestations occur. There may be some shaking during the sermon. In Toronto, I get the idea from what I have heard that there have been some manifestations during the service (like a man raising his hand and saying "Big God!" uncontrollably every once in a while) but there is teaching, prophecy, and most of the stuff happens during ministry time. That is the impression that I get from what I have heard and read about Toronto, anyway. > "They are drunk" \(concrete instructions)/ "We are simply drunk" > (concrete event) \_____________________/ (concrete events) Of course, this interpretation of Acts 2 opens up the possibility for ecstasy from the Holy Spirit. It doesn't mean that all this stuff comes from ecstacies, or that all the ecstacies are from ecstacies. There is a leap between Acts 2 and barking like a dog. > righteous or not.) But this verse speaks about God dealing with His enemy. > How can it be directly applied to believers? Saul also prophesied with the prophets before he was anointed as king, btw. I suppose the issue is whether the manner in which Saul prophesied was due to the fact that he was the enemy of God, or was it characteristic of a type of prophecy the Lord could give to anyone who prophesied. I think Jeremiah's experience sheds light on this. (23:9) > supported by Nebuchadnezzar's example? What would be the difference from > holy laughter? I think there might be a small element of that in some of these manifestations, but by-and-large, I don't think it is the case. But, if someone said something bad to you because you did not experience the manifestations, this would make a convenient Biblical defense. You could say that you are already humble, so God doesn't have to humble you. Of course, that might be considered a boast.:) (reminds me of Mike Warnkey's routine. It goes something like this: "I'm proud of my humility. My church gave me a pin that says 'I'm humble.' They took it away because I wore it." > find this prophecy so weird as it can seem for the first reading.) Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read the prophecy. I recall something similar in _The Vision_ but what I am thinking of is strippers "using their talents for God" and stripping in churches. He said it would happen a little, rumours of it would spread, but it wouldn't become widespread. Actually, I heard a rumor like this in the early eighties before I read the book. (I was a child. I'm 22, almost 23 now.) > (My main proof against them is an internal one: now we don't teach them.) Back on the word of Faith discussion, I've gotten rather disgusted over the past few years (well, since I really started studying the Bible) with the word of faith movement. One of them comes across as so arrogant, and he was justifying his huge income, and preaching about "prosperity." Another tv preacher had a whole show devoted to convincing people "make their vows to God" and send him their money, in spite of what Jesus said about oaths. And I never cared for Copeland's personality, and his sermons all sounded like the same sermon over and over to me. Most of the preachers had the same kind of style of preaching, a kind of style that didn't appeal to me. A while back I read some incriminating quotes about what Copeland had said. Also, preachers in the word of faith movement are awfully fond of hyperbole, and misleading overstatements. In spite of preaching the importance of the word, it seems their arguments supposedly based on the Bible didn't really come from the text. It all seemed so greedy to me. So I can relate to you. I had never seen Kenneth Hagin preach on tv or heard him on the radio. A friend of mine recommended _And He Gave Gifts unto Men_ (or some similar title) to me, and I checked it out through interlibrary loan and read it. It really made sense. Most of what he said was Bible-based, and there weren't wild claims all over the place. It also helped me understand the issue of apostleship and prophethood. After this, I still didn't like the wof movement, and I would occasionally make a comment about it. I think I actually said to myself that maybe I needed to actually have some friends in it to help cure me of my bad attitude. Eventually, I did meet a brother in the faith movement, who liked Hagin's stuff, especially (he also likes Copeland.) He had a lot of questions about WoF (word of Faith) teaching that we have discussed. Now, he goes to a non WoF Charismatic church. The other one was very far away, and he didn't feel like he had the fellowship he needed. Anyway, I do think this has helped me some. My WoF friend, Bob, loaned me a Hagin book about the Holy Spirit. It was pretty good. So far, what I've actually read of Hagin seems fairly reliable, though I disagree with him on some issues, like the idea that God doesn't smite people with damaging things. I think the Bible is pretty clear on that, and his appeal to some Hebrew scholar's statement doesn't cover every instance in the Bible. So, while I share your frustration, what I've seen of Hagin's stuff doesn't bother me so much- except for a few things that bother me about most other Pentecostal preachers. In the past 8 months or so, I've been leaning more toward Calvinism. Anyway, I think a lot of the word of faith problems come from deriving doctrine from Hagin, rather than the Bible. People take Hagin's stuff and run with it, I think. Hagin says prosperity is having more than you need, and God wants us to prosper. God isn't against us prospering; He's against covetousness. I agree with that. However, I don't hear WoF sermons (I don't actively seek to listen to them, but I do catch an occasional one on TBN) against greed, but I hear plenty on how we can prosper financially. I've even heard sermons that Jesus and the apostles were rich. All just a bunch of speculation. I borrowed some tapes of Hagin speaking, and I liked them. He doesn't have that abrasive manner that Copeland has (which people seem to love for some reason. He looks angry all the time to me.) So I liked his personality. (It was a video tape, btw.) He also had some good things to say. > excites anger, so even unbelievers try to avoid it if possible; Preachers can get political over here, too. However, studying the Bible I don't think it's impossible for God to have the church do such a thing, but usually I think it's the church doing it without a mandate from God. > doctrine which suggests that Hungarians are somehow inferior to Jews.) I see what you are saying. There is a certain Biblical distinctiveness between Israel and all the other nations- but it can be taken to an extreme. Maybe its overcompensation for antisemitism. (e.g. The gospel is to the Jew first, then the Gentile - Rom 1:18.) > production to this subject. (End of folly.) Your whole message reminds me of a sermon by Francis Frangipagne, a preacher I saw at a conference a few weeks ago. He has a lot of good things to say, and is very sensible, and Biblical. He said that some missionaries asked him to pray for against the spirit that was keeping them out of China, because something just kept preventing them. He said maybe it was God, because maybe God was trying to keep American Christianity out of China. 20,000 Chinese are coming to Christ every day the way they are going now. He said we should send some people over there to learn how to evangelize. I heard evangelist Mario Murillo lament about American Christianity in Russia too. I see the WoF people going over to your side of the world opening churches, etc, and in a sense I rejoice. But I also see all the useless baggage, and imbalanced doctrinal emphasis in the movement, and it bothers me that they are planting churches over there, too. I see the prosperity gospel and think of Jesus' rebuke to Laodicea. Of course, Jesus might look at me and say the same thing, so I'd better shut up about certain groups. I think the whole church in this nation needs to grow up, though. > your arguments that you consider it a sign or consequence of the move of God. I think it can be. Not always. And not all manifestations are genuine. > as the move of God are withered branches." Literally. Is this based on a prophecy or something like that? Or does the pastor just make the assumption? > This is a result of many other factors. What I mentioned is only one of them. Maybe you ought to send this letter to the next big name American preacher who comes through so they can see what's going on. Of course, some preachers wouldn't see a problem with this. Its what they think is normal. Do you have any time of intercession? If you weren't kept at arm's length because of your opinions, maybe you could suggest to the pastor that the church begin to pray every day like the world's largest church in Korea. The Kansas City Vineyard (with the prophets) has three meetings for prayer every day. A friend of mine who lives there says it is easier for people to get right with God when they move there, and get over sins, because of all the prayer. I sort of had the idea that all the churches over there, after all the persecution and supression of the past, were churches that prayed all the time, and really sought God, and great miracles were done. I sort of had the idea that most of the flakiness in churches was here in overfed, lazy, America, where everyone has a Bible, but no one reads it. Do the members of your church have Bibles? Do they read them? Maybe if there was a fear that they would be taken away some day lurking in people's minds, you could convince the church to have everyone memorize a book of the Bible. It can be done. Muslims memorize their book. Here in the US, there is a Teen Bible quiz program in the Assemblies of God where youth learn to quote a book a year, or more than one book if they study small epistles. > roaring express the present state of the church? Normally, weird stuff like this makes me uneasy. Since I haven't been around a lot of roaring, maybe that's why I'm calm about it. I have heard bits and pieces of prophecies about this, so if it's a sign act, I don't want to speak ill of it (and since I think it might be, I want to encourage critics to reserve judgement.) The gist of what I've heard is something about the lion of Judah being released, or something. It sounded positive. But I haven't heard the whole thing. I didn't mention this earlier, but one of the differences between this and your typical sign act is that the sign act was typically done at will by the prophet, from what we can see. He knew what he was doing, and was told it was a sign for something. This is a little different from the typical sign act. BTW, barking like dogs occured during the Cane Ridge revival in the 1800's. I want to say early 1800's. > is some kind of deliverance from demons or re-dedicating our lives. It sounds like your church is more on the word of faith end of things. I'm not sure. My quote above dealt with the Toronto Vineyard, so I refered to Wimber. Wimber said he didn't push people down. I've had preachers lay hands heavily on my head before- not in the Vineyard- but I think people have a tendency to get "hooked" on manifestations and want to see them- and equate them with the work of God when it is really just a possible side effect. > of interpretation, and I think so are many Charismatics in the world. But the thing that sticks out to me is that these sorts of manifestations- including falling down- isn't everyday stuff in the Bible. It happens on occasion. Its every day stuff in the Charismatic movement, but its just sort of on the periphery in the Bible, not the focus. > and kept only one chapter -- about Word Faith movement.] I'm glad you tore the book up. I checked it out, and read bits and pieces of it. It was very spiritual draining. I met a man DeOrtega, or something like that, who had written "Quenching the Spirit" after MacArthur's book came out. He said there was a heaviness on him while reading the book. I felt it quite intensely, and when he said that I was sure it wasn't just me. I think the Deere quote is true. Prophecy is something that is emphasized in the New Testament at least in I Corinthians. > dead saints is not explicitely mentioned in the Bible but its "germs" > can be found there." I've never seen any germs. This situation is a little different than the Catholic's. These things happen, and then we see if they are in the Bible. Its not like we are reading the Bible, and then pretend to Acts drunk. > worried about them being deceived. I could see that. What I was trying to say above was, not that demons couldn't levitate people, but that you can't say something is demonic merely because it involves levitation. Technically, there is more Biblical support for Holy Spirit or angelic levitation than demonic levitation, imo- but I just use that with cessationists who hammer charismatics because they claim certain things they do are not in the Bible. The issue with supernatural phenomena is: what spirit is causing this? Some people will probably automatically assume a miracle is from God if a man in a suit performs it and if he is similar to them. Some people go to the other extreme and assume anything supernatural that happens today is demonic. > question. The whole matter is deeply rooted in OC's fleshly tradition.) One of the chief defenses the people in the Vineyard have for Toronto is that, after people leave, they love Jesus more and they want to go out and witness more, etc. Jack Deere gave an example of a man who beats his wife, drinks, who is prayed for, falls down, shakes, gets up, is a changed man, is sober, and treats his wife right. What can we say against that Biblically? I know a few people who have been to Toronto. Unfortunately, I haven't spent enough time with them since then to notice a difference. I do know what they say about how they have been changed, and I haven't noticed anything negative. > discernment first (*). Then you turn to a discerning sort of scripture > and seem to arrive at a conclusion (**). This was not my intention. You can only carry Luke 11 so far. John Wimber once refered to this passage when he asked the Holy Spirit to come and said "so don't worry that God will send a demon." Everyone relaxed. Then he said "If any demons manifest, they will be the ones you brought with you here tonight." Everyone got uptight again. We can ask God to give a bread, and Satan across the street could throw stones at us. But there is a certain level of trust we must have with God, and if we are praying for God to send the Holy Spirit, and weird stuff happens, and the Holy Spirit did similarly weird stuff in the Old Testament, I think there is a possibility that it's God. > our control then we have to examine it with scripture.") Really, all I did was quote a verse and ask a question, not drawing any conclusions, so how can you argue with anything I said? > How do you evaluate your discernment method in the light of Luke 11? I can evaluate if a teaching is wrong sometimes if it flatly contradicts the Bible. Usually, I think this results from teachers not seeking the Lord, and the work of the Holy Spirit, and never from God giving a bad gift. > crude and can easily hurt the other one. Don't worry. You have not offended me. I don't even recall being offended about your Hagin posts. I don't know if this was you, but I think you said that Hagin called Kenyon's writing "word from (of?) God" and you refered to the curse on those who add to revelation. Was that you? It didn't sound like something a charismatic would say. Sorry about the length of the letter. ---------------------------- 1995 VI. 21. Dear Link, I read your answer with a great excitement! I am glad that you write in a decent manner and respect God's Word as I hoped subconsciously. Mine is a hasty reply, and please, forgive me for type mistakes. (Some n-s and m-s may be missing or duplicated.) :> [Marilyn Hickey] :>Then the whole thing was somehow forgotten for three months). :What exactly did she do to induce it? She told abbout her laughing experience in a "young evangelist's church" (without mentioning his name, which must have had no importance IOC then, half a year before the outbreak of the holy laughter), and some stories like a housewife getting a flurry of laughter with a wet rag in her hand when washing up etc. My ambivalent feeling about MH is rooted in the experience that her sermons tended to be emotionally overloaded and scripturally poor(ly based). She asked the believers to draw a circle around themselves ("Devil, you can't step over this circle, in Jesus' name!!"), to put their hands on various parts of their own bodies (to heal or to anoint them), to lay hands on their purses in order to call financial blessing on them, etc. Note that we in Hungary were taught the traditional notions of black and white magic. Many of us, but as it seems, the minority, felt that MH's attitude was no less that the latter. I consider this style shallow, mere emotionalism and poorly supported by the Bible. And after having told stories like the above, she suddenly began to giggle (I think that is the word for laughing almost without making sound) like a schoolgirl. Our pastor's wife (being the interpreter) followed her. I have no better simile. The audience enjoyed it but wasn't edified by it at all. They were doing it for almost ten minutes. Nothing happened but the situation wasn't awkward because there was a constant noise in the hall. Nobody thought that it was a new wave of the Holy Spirit. So my remark about her inducing laughter was an "a posteriori" opinion, that is: told after having learnt the underlying details. As for the word "induce", I don't think I have to provide specific examples like "she encouraged people to burst into laughter" or so. Enough for it that she didn't give an explanation for it, so left the whole congregation in doubt. Maybe it was genuine and she didn't want to induce it at all. But anyway, it didn't spread. :I do think some of this stuff is God, or is a reaction to God, so I don't :want to foolishly go mouthing off against the Holy Spirit or His work, :because that is dangerous. And I'm not a pastor, nor am I the appointed :inspector of manifestations. So I just try to obverse [observe?] sometimes :and not pass judgement based purely on the strangeness of something. That is the point. I don't dare to speak against the Holy Spirit either. I only mention some wierd things without taking into account whether they are from God or not. My main question is "why is it so important while Paul doesn't list it between the manifestations of the Spirit?" "Isn't it more dangerous to expose myself to spiritual powers that simply cannot be verified by the Bible?" "Why would God give a gift without instructions?" "If it is a gift then for what?" -- and so on. I badly need exhaustive explanation to everything. In church history there were so many deceptions! Every charismatic author points out that "the remedy for misuse isn't disuse but correct use". And they set up sound biblical principles of discerning prophecy, interpreting tongues, etc. So what is the "correct use" of laughter? I think the lack of teching comes from the defensive attitude of the Charismatics in this regard. We are accused of "adding to the Bible", "being emotion-based", "inventing imbalanced doctrine", etc. The predictable response is making up a system in which "criticism is equal with rebellion". Haven't you heard this intimidating stuff? I have. We even expel out the "spirit of criticism." We emphasize "Don't judge your neigbour" but omit "test the spirits." And these two judgments are very easy to mix wilfully in order to prevent doctrinal or applicational criticism. By the way, "in a response to God" is an almost unknown term for us. This fact finely characterizes the narrow-mindedness of our official doctrine. We ask "Do you think that it is from God?" (No qualification of the meaning of this expression). "No? Then you are against the work of the Holy Spirit." IMO the implicit assumption of this duality comes from a kind of irrational fear: "maybe there are some purposes of God that aren't revealed in the Bible so if I reject the manifestations I will blaspheme the Holy Spirit." And if someone tries to derive some principles from the Bible like "God isn't the God of disorder but that of peace" etc. then this person at least quenches the Spirit. What's the cause? Lack of teaching, lack of understanding, lack of depth! Only single verses, out of context, supporting a legalistic and superstitious system. A religious system in the middle age sense of this word. This is in operation IOC constantly. The controversy about laughter is only a sign of its power. :So they, some times without realizing it, induce manifestations. And when :these things become common, they become tradition, even though Charismatics :don't realize they are tradition. Well said. My opinion is that today's Christendom somehow repeats the errors of the previous centuries without learning from them, and the reason for it is that simply we consider our traditions the Word of God. > of introducing this new gift, and no one solved our problem. :What exactly did they say? Did they tell them what syllables to say? No. My example was the nearest one from the Bible to the manifestations. I wanted to illustrate the problem which occurred IOC concerning laughter with mentioning an obviously distorted view of the Bible. So, nobody told us syllables. Tongues were only a simile. OTOH, we keep our meetings in a closed tennis court (or how to say it), and there is not only a pulpit inside but a whole scene like at pop concerts. This is where the choir sings from. And this is the very source of a huge amount of mental influence. An elder up there who starts jumping can easily drive the believers into jumping en masse. It really happened several times. No more examples, the others would be more childish than this. :Just to point out the counterpoint to what you said, it makes sense that :people could receive this gift after receiving Biblical teaching on it. :If they weren't told about it, they wouldn't ask. "you have not because :you ask not." Perhaps also the teaching helped them gain faith to ask for :the gift. Oh, your sincerity made me smile! There wasn't any solid biblical teaching, and as I see from the latter distorted interpretations, it simply cannot be found. If anyone is eager to base these manifestations on scripture, then it's the leadership. But they spoke about Sarah and those behaving like the drunk in Acts 2. Compare it with tongues, to which Paul devotes a whole chapter (I know that chapters come from later). This is what I call "biblical teaching". Quoting Sarah and other scriptures deserve being called "defense" or "apology". In our case the following would apply: "concerning spirituals, I don't want you to be ignorant". Yes, if it is a spiritual gift/manifestation/ whatever then we are utterly ignorant of its whole purpose, use, etc. >"According to prophecies, God will put aside those pastors >who don't submit to this new outpouring of the Spirit." :Who gave these prophecies? Are they from within your church, or from :abroad? I don't know. Sorry, I was too angry when hearing it to inquire for details. And I haven't learnt any since then, for after the congregation had acknowledged the pronouncement, this argument somehow expired. Obviously it was a temporary one. So the source is not important anymore because the "prophecy" has fulfilled its task. (Bitter words, I admit. I don't blame you for this.) >"Solemn Christians aren't the ones whom God is now looking for." :Anybody can laugh. Do they want you to do it on purpose? Explicitly not. But this statement is equal with a papal bull which anathematizes heretics. It excites fear and offers those who aren't touched no other solution than imitating holy laughter. > "David danced before the Covenant Box" :Of course, this case was willful. Are they trying to institute barking :as part of a liturgy intentionally practiced by the congregation? No. David is a pattern to follow. He behaved like a fool. (This sentence of mine isn't folly.) It's a supporting verse for the divine origin of the manifestations. Until now I haven't thought about the matter that arises about these being wilful or not. You brought up a good point, thank you. > "Those who put their trust in the Lord will RUN and not go weary..." > (the following part - about eagles - is omitted.) :Do they claim to get this stuff as "revelation" or are they just grasping :at straws? Rather the latter. Forget them. I used them to underline the bad inter- pretation method, the looking for prooftexts. > - Charismatic traditions are useless, they are like chaff. When threshing > comes (that is the third wave) God will burn them away. :The word of faith movement would be considered Charismatic, and the Vineyard, :Third Wave, at least by the guy at Fuller theological who coined the :phrase "third wave." Has the pastor mentioned from the pulpit that this :stuff is not always 100% God? No. The result is what counts, not the way we achieve it. (Bitter) :I didn't mean to defend the hermeneutics of those using the text, as I recall. :I think I was just pointing out that Isaac being named after laughter wasn't :just a bad thing, like DH was saying. I agree. I didn't know it. Thank you for clearing it up. :Jeremiah 23:9 :This verse indicates that prophets could go into an ecstatic-like state in :response to the Holy Spirit. Saul is another example, though he was not :righteous the time he wallowed on the ground. However, considering this :foundation in the Old Testament, I think there is sufficient evidence to :make a strong case for the idea that the people thought the apostles were :drunk because they like they were. Jeremiah definitely was like a drunken man. And it really shows that your conclusion is right. But the context speaks about false prophets, and in my personal opinion, not infallible of course, it also may have a connection with Jeremiah's "drunkenness." I suppose he was drunk because of God's word that was revealed to him concerning the prophets. Maybe you don't understand why it would matter. I think: because it contained horrible things, and Jeremiah was troubled by it. See a similar example (from memory): (Isaiah or Jeremiah) "How long, oh Lord, will you make me see destruction and chariots?" and after that he speaks about his bodily responses. Excuse me for not giving chapter and verse. Maybe it has a totally different context. I have just read your post "Goodbye everyone", and I am very sad because of it. You know why. (I make the last editing here in the university building. I have no Bible with me.) > Did the apostle really want to indicate the similarity of outward > manifestations? :Just as an aside, I don't think the apostles necessarily had to be aware :of all the implications and hidden meanings of what they were saying :prophetically. I suspect some OT prophets didn't really know the full :ramifications of their prophecies. Caiaphas certainly didn't when he :prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation. Too far from the beginning. If yours were a satisfactory answer then we could go on and apply it to whatever event or utterance in the Bible. Thus we can conclude almost everything we want. Eg. "when Paul wrote about the fire testing one's works in 1Cor 3 - then he was implicitly foreshadowing the truth which was discovered later: PURGATORY." :There is evidence for ecstatic states in the OT. I guess the question is :whether or not there was an ecstasy in this passage produced by the people's :excitement from speaking in tongues, etc, or produced directly because :of the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah said he was like a drunken man because :of the Lord _and_ his holy words, so either one would fit with Jeremiah. :Whether or not ecstasies are the result of the flesh's response to the :Spirit, or the Spirit directly acting on the mind and body, there is :evidence (I wouldn't call it proof) for ecstasy in Acts 2. I am willing to agree but I'd rather say "it cannot be proved that those in Acts 2 WEREN'T in an ecstatic state." For the Bible doesn't say they were, neither that they weren't, we can suppose they were or weren't. But there is completely no emphasis on behaving like drunken. I am afraid that this peripheral manifestation becomes a standard for those who most obviously try to neglect 1Cor 14. > when they read, interpreted and preached Acts 2? :Actually, the same thing has happened throughout Pentecostal history. :[...] Thank you for the details. My point was "We shouldn't make it a doctrine, (including "anathema" on the dissenting opinion) while formerly we could do without the detailed doctrine quite well." :However, I don't think you can use this to justify all laughing. I would :hope that your pastor and churchmembers would realize the possibility of :fleshly manifestations and even demonic manifestations. They should also :be warned not to allow themselves to be tempted to put on a show, so :other people will think they are spiritual. Lately it is happening, too. I hope it won't be temporal. > find this prophecy so weird as it can seem for the first reading.) :Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read the prophecy. I recall :something similar in _The Vision_ but what I am thinking of is strippers :"using their talents for God" and stripping in churches. He said it would :happen a little, rumours of it would spread, but it wouldn't become :widespread. Actually, I heard a rumor like this in the early eighties :before I read the book. (I was a child. I'm 22, almost 23 now.) Maybe it is the same that you are referring to. It is 6 or 8 typed pages, but it is not indicated that it is an excerpt from a book. He got the vision in 1973. I translate this part and give a sketch of the others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Five disasters will come to the world: 1. Economic collapse(s) all over the world. No one will be able to explain why it happens. 2. Earthquakes, famines, a cosmic storm. 3. Pornography. 4. Generations will be alienated and hate one another. 5. A horrible persecution a/ It will begin in Germany, at a time when everybody thinks that there is a full freedom of religion. It will spread over to the US and Canada. No church ministers will be allowed to say anything which isn't approved by the government. b/ Liberal, oecumenical Protestants will make a union with Catholics and form a world church that will be a forerunner of the Antichrist. It will lead people astray. c/ Homosexuals will be invited to teach. Quotation: "Books propagating homosexuality will be issued. They will be given to the "youth and children. They will teach that this is a normal human "behaviour. Then naked dances will be introduced [lit.: take effect, or: "come to being] as the form of God-worship in the future. God's answer for "this will be incurable insanity. This will be God's response to the "glorifying of the creature more [or higher] than the Creator." d/ Satan will make people believe that he doesn't exist. The real church will grow spiritually during the persecution. e/ Catholic (and Lutheran etc.) Charismatics will be driven out of their churches. g/ The mass media will confine freedom of religion. All programs will be censored. h/ Films will be made to mock Christian pastors and to defile Jesus. i/ Taxes will be burdened on missionaries to destroy them. Eastern (prev. Communist) countries will persecute Christians after a short period of legalization. > your arguments that you consider it a sign or consequence of the move of God. :I think it can be. Not always. and not all manifestations are genuine. Your answer is respectably moderate. If only I heard it here! > as the move of God are withered branches." Literally. :Is this based on a prophecy or something like that? Or does the pastor :just make the assumption? The latter one applies. Skip it over. >This is a result of many other factors. What I mentioned is only one of them. :Maybe you ought to send this letter to the next big name American preacher :who comes through so they can see what's going on. Of course, some :preachers wouldn't see a problem with this. It's what they think is normal. We are independent of foreign ministries, although we regard Derek Prince, P. Yonggi Cho, Kenneth Hagin etc. But when a man like them comes around, he would always connect the leadership. We can see them from a great distance. (No private talks.) :Do you have any time of intercession? If you weren't kept at arm's length :because of your opinions, maybe you could suggest to the pastor that the :church begin to pray every day like the world's largest church in Korea. :The Kansas City Vineyard (with the prophets) has three meetings for prayer :every day. A friend of mine who lives there says it is easier for :people to get right with God when they move there, and get over sins, :because of all the prayer. A piece of good advice. However, we have 2 meetings a week, long praise, short prayer, long sermon, then long praise again, mixed with manifestations lately. We think we have enough prayer. :I sort of had the idea that all the churches over there, after all the :persecution and supression of the past, were churches that prayed all the :time, and really sought God, and great miracles were done. I sort of had :the idea that most of the flakiness in churches was here in overfed, :lazy, America, where everyone has a Bible, but no one reads it. No!... In the first couple of years, until our legalization in 1990, we were immaculate, as I know. (I am Christian since 1992.) But since then as if everything got somehow diluted, unclear... This very effect can be seen on my mail. :Do the members of your church have Bibles? There are some good translations in Hungarian. An old one of the Protestants, translated in 1590 and revised several times. It can be compared to KJV. We use it almost exclusively for it is the cheapest of all. Then, an excellent new Protestant version, issued in 1975, revised in 1990. Catholics made their new translation in 1973. Their old one isn't widely used anymore. New Testaments: I know about five. English and German Bibles can be bought everywhere. I think it's completely enough (Hungary has about 10 million inhabitants.) A Bible costs approximately the price of 5...20 kgs of bread. A monthly average salary is about 400 kgs of bread. :Do they read them? We do. Although I saw alarming examples of ignorance concerning various biblical verses and teachings, I don't think it's characteristic of the majority. Anyway, I am beginning to see that we, having read the Bible once or twice, begin to think in stereotypes and often miss important issues. :Maybe if there was a fear that they would be taken away some day lurking in :people's minds, you could convince the church to have everyone memorize a :book of the Bible. It can be done. Muslims memorize their book. Here in the :US, there is a Teen Bible quiz program in the Assemblies of God where youth :learn to quote a book a year, or more than one book if they study small :epistles. Good Christian TV programs are few. This is the thing on which the various denominations (Catholics 60%, Reformed 25%, Lutheran 5%, Baptist, Unitarian, Jewish, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Krishna etc. 10% of religious population) debate constantly. Recently the time for religious programs has been distributed somehow, I don't know how. Foreign TV channels? We had only Sky and Super Channel for a little while and got TBN from one of them, which one, I don't know. Then it (TBN) ceased. I didn't like it. Others didn't understand it or considered it too American. > and kept only one chapter -- about Word Faith movement.] :I'm glad you tore the book up. I checked it out, and read bits and pieces :of it. It was very spiritual draining. I met a man DeOrtega, or something :like that, who had written "Quenching the Spirit" after MacArthur's book :came out. He said there was a heaviness on him while reading the book. I :felt it quite intensely, and when he said that I was sure it wasn't just :me. I think the Deere quote is true. Prophecy is something that is :emphasized in the New Testament at least in I Corinthians. You misunderstood me. I had in mind justifying modern prophecy with OT examples when speaking about "pattern-approach". If we draw a parallel between the OT and NT prophetic inspiration we have to point out that the latter doesn't refer to adding to the present Scripture. I have discussed this thing with you. So, MacArthur uses the Deere quote to prove that charismatics admit their willingness to add to the Bible. Maybe the quote is misinterpreted and taken out of Deere's context. I guess MacArthur did it. > dead saints is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible but its "germs" > can be found there." :I've never seen any germs. You'll laugh at me: Col 4:3a + Matthew 22:32 = A germ. (pray for us) (God is the God of the living) Or Rev 5:8, interpreted as "prayers of saints" to support the doctrine of them knowing everything which happens on earth etc.) :This situation is a little different than the Catholic's. These things :happen, and then we see if they are in the Bible. Its not like we are :reading the Bible, and then pretend to Acts drunk. It's crucial: HOW is it in the Bible? Explicitely stated? Then it's doctrine. A probable thing? Then it's sg. other than doctrine. Or simply the Bible doesn't say it's bad? Then it's an opinion. The Catholics are somehow wiser than us. They make a distinction, set up a hierarchy of the so-called revealed truths, at least in theory. Notwithstanding this they condemn everyone who rejects the "branches" of the "revelation tree". (I heard this simile from a priest, it's not mine.) We Charismatics actually deny Sola Scriptura (the principle that nothing is compulsory to believe unless it is clearly stated in Scripture) very often. Namely, when claiming divine authority to certain doctrines, eg. - Speaking in tongues is the (only sufficient) evidence of someone having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit; (Derek Prince wrote 31 pages about it in The Foundation Series. It is a deduced truth. I repeat, a truth. But not explicit at all.) - We are to tithe in the NT. The proving procedure is based on Heb 7:8, which isn't the best choice. (Derek Prince, Abundant Life, 28 pages about tithing, deduced as a law) IMO, 1Cor 9 would be much better - but it emphasizes the human needs of the apostles and other workers, not tithing to the Lord out of commandment. - The distinction between prophethood and prophesying. (The NT usage doesn't support a definite distinction between them, as Reinhard Bonnke admits. Others try to find support in the OT.) etc. These are our traditions. So, where does the holy laughter belong? Doctrine? Then some prooftexts are needed. Probability? Then at least some instructions or references could be found. Or an opinion? Well, I'm stuck at this way of making distinction. And I don't see any reason for putting laughter and other manifestations (as gifts or prophetic signs or whatever) into either of the first two boxes. You may say that prophecy cannot be treated as a "dry, dead" dogma and squeezed into small boxes. So I mean that even prophecy has to have a proper place in the Church's life. And boxes can stand for "to what extent is a certain teaching important?" And my ONLY problem boils down to: (1) Our pastor's a) attributing too much importance to an additional manifestation, b) making it a criterium of spirituality, c) justifying this method with unfair intimidating statements, (2) The congregation's a) fear of quenching or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, b) thus imitating the manifestations, c) feeling attacked when I ask them about tho whole thing, (3) The critics' a) responding to (1bc) instead of digging to the root, that is (1a), b) denying the possibility of strange things being from God, c) denouncing the mislead congregation instead of offering a solution. Maybe I'm guilty in (3abc). So I try to be aware of this on the following pages. >The whole matter is deeply rooted in OC's fleshly tradition.) :One of the chief defenses the people in the Vineyard have for Toronto is :that, after people leave, they love Jesus more and they want to go out and :witness more, etc. Jack Deere gave an example of a man who beats his wife, :drinks, who is prayed for, falls down, shakes, gets up, is a changed man, :is sober, and treats his wife right. What can we say against that :Biblically? "Nothing", three times. Praise the Lord for it. I don't question the (theoretical) possibility of such a thing happen, but until now this gift gave OC only dissention, misunderstanding, and those in charge of the flock didn't do away with them. The root must lie much deeper. Because the phenomena operate differently here than in Vineyard, I suppose that the renewal should have been done earlier than we got acquainted to holy laughter. Otherwise, and it is what happened, we should bring judgment upon ourselves, like those who partake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner. > discernment first (*). Then you turn to a discerning sort of scripture > and seem to arrive at a conclusion (**). :This was not my intention. You can only carry Luke 11 so far. John Wimber :once refered to this passage when he asked the Holy Spirit to come and said :"so don't worry that God will send a demon." Everyone relaxed. Then he said :"If any demons manifest, they will be the ones you brought with you here :tonight." Everyone got uptight again. :We can ask God to give a bread, and Satan across the street could throw :stones at us. But there is a certain level of trust we must have with :God, and if we are praying for God to send the Holy Spirit, and weird stuff :happens, and the Holy Spirit did similarly weird stuff in the Old :Testament, I think there is a possibility that it's God. The last line shows your intention. Why don't you say "we can be sure it's God"? Luke 11 doesn't tell anything about the Satan interfering in our request made to God, nor about a "certain" level of trust. So you got nowhere with Luke 11. Yes, and it's so because the emphasis isn't on whether God gives bad or good things but on whether God hears our prayers or not. The whole idea of God giving a bad gift sounds strangely for me, and I don't think the disciples had matters with it either. (This topic is worth studying more thoroughly than I do it now.) :Really, all I did was quote a verse and ask a question, not drawing :any conclusions, so how can you argue with anything I said? If you didn't want to say anything with quoting Luke 11 in a discussion about discernment, then it's all right. But then you have to pick some other verses. :I don't know if this was you, but I think you said that Hagin called :Kenyon's writing "word from (of?) God" and you refered to the curse on :those who add to revelation. Was that you? It didn't sound like something a :charismatic would say. It was me, and I maintain my opinion. Not based on Rev 22:18 (I admit it was a bad choice for support), but Prov 30:6 and 1Cor 4:6b as general principles. And as for my behaviour as a charismatic, I don't feel the necessity of conforming to a traditional viewpoint of any church. I understand the problem. Charismatics are accused of adding to the Bible with prophecy etc. Be sure, I respect prophecy. I'm not a cessationist. (Like I wrestled with MacArthur's book and overcame it by God's might and mercy -- He didn't allow my heart to be hardened.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- I rejected the incriminated passage from Hagin's book for the reason below. The original: <<-- It cannot be found in Hungary's biggest library. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hungarian translation: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Buzdi'talak benneteket, hogy szerezzetek belo"le egy pe'lda'nyt. Nagyszeru" ko~nyv! Kijelente'sbo"l sza'rmazo' tudoma'ny! Isten Ige'je! (diacritical marks indicated) Re-translation: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I encourage you to get a copy of it. It's a marvellous book! Doctrine [lit. knowledge] coming from revelation! Word of God! In Hungarian church language and common understanding "Word of God" (Isten Ige'je) is strictly applied to the Bible. The utterances of the OT prophets are referred to this way. Furthermore, in the NT, we translate Jn 1:1, 1Jn 1:1 with the word Word (in Hungarian these are different ones, "Word" sheds God's glory, it's an ancient almost-equivalent of the Greek "Logos" while "word" indicates only "an uttered piece of speech." We also use "Word of God" in Rev 19:13, applied to the King of Kings Himself. "Word from God" isn't used in Hungarian at all. Modern charismatic language says "a revelation (coming) from God" when it comes to prophecy. Although in the translation of Paul Yonggi Cho's book "Fourth dimension" (I don't like it, it's infected with "power of the tongue", "name it and claim it") it stands "to receive a Word from God" but I reject this usage the easier that he makes a completely unfounded distinction between Logos (theoretical, general, basically written Word of God) and Rhema (Logos which is "made alive" [in Hungarian] by the Holy Spirit, and which seems to be more concrete). Maybe you don't see any cause for me to be dissatisfied and suspicious. Doing so, he introduces a method (or rather a recipe) of getting guidance, revelation, Word - from God. --------------------------------------------------------------------- My Friend! I appreciate your answer. May God bless you with all His power that you may be His servant out of pure devotion! If you can by some means answer from Korea, please don't forget it... Ferenc Nemeth -------------------------------------------------- 95 VII. >I badly need exhaustive explanation to everything. They are closing the lab in 20 min., so I'll try to be brief. (yeah,right.) hopefully, I'll be able to respond to your whole message. I am scheduled to leave for Korea in 2 days. If you see me on news from Korea, please email me so I can have your address again. Now, to the topic. I don't think laughing is a "gift" like the 9 gifts. It's more of a manifestation- not an empowerment of grace that one believer can use to edify the body, in my opinion. You were asking about the place of these manifestations in our doctrine. I don't make the same distinction about calling only things we are commanded to do, doctrine, so perhaps that has created confusion. What I do see in the Bible are examples of unusual manifestations occuring when people are under a prophetic or similar anointing. Because this isn't completely voluntary, it's not something that can be regulated in quite the same same way as most of the other gifts. I think the problem is seeking for unusual manifestations. I'd probably be more comfortable where this stuff didn't go on, but God moved all the same. But if God does choose to move in this way, I see in the OT and at least hinted in the NT (Acts) that it is a possibility. That's about as far as I can go. It's not right to imitate in order to impress people, or make people think a manifestation has to happen to them in order for them to be spiritual. >Well said. My opinion is that today's Christendom somehow repeats the errors >of the previous centuries without learning from them, and the reason for it >is that simply we consider our traditions the Word of God. Maybe if the hearts of the fathers were to be turned to the children and the children to the fathers, this would not happen. > An elder up there who starts jumping can easily drive the believers > into jumping en masse. In the OT, people would willfully dance. David leaped like that. I don't see a problem with that kind of worship. It seems that OT worship was highly emotional,too, from some of the commands about shouting, dancing, etc. We should worship God with our emotions as well. Samuel, I think, called for a minstrel when asked to prophesy. After hearing music, the Spirit came on him and he prophesied. But if people confuse emotion with spirituality, that's a problem. >>"According to prophecies, God will put aside those pastors who >>don't submit to this new outpouring of the Spirit." >:Who gave these prophecies? Are they from within your church, or from >:abroad? >I don't know. Sorry, I was too angry when hearing it to inquire for >details. And I haven't learnt any since then, for after the congregation >had acknowledged the pronouncement, this argument somehow expired. I've heard something similar, but not about laughter. I think it was supposed to have been something prophetic to the Vineyard (actually Vinelife, not part of the vineyard yet.) She said that those who rejected this move of God would not go into the "promise land" that the Joshua generation would inherit (unless the repented.) However, she didn't say anything about laughing. It could be she was repeating something. I don't know. I haven't been to that church in a while. I didn't feel comfortable there for other reasons besides the manifestations, and I haven't been able to go for some time. > I suppose he was drunk because of God's word >that was revealed to him concerning the prophets. > [...] I think: because it contained horrible >things, and Jeremiah was troubled by it. Maybe the issue is if the news made him feel drunk- a reaction of his body- or if the word of the Lord did this to him. That's a similar question concerning some of the manifestations now. >:I don't think the apostles necessarily had to be aware >:of all the implications and hidden meanings of what they were saying >:prophetically. >Thus we can conclude almost everything we want. Eg. "when Paul wrote >about the fire testing one's works in 1Cor 3 - then he was implicitely >foreshadowing the truth which was discovered later: PURGATORY." Well, I admit you have to be careful with that kind of interpretation, esp in the NT. You need other corroborating Scripture. However, I Peter says that no prophesy is of private interpretation. The prophet didn't determine its meaning. The gospel, though in the OT, was not revealed till the apostles. So the prophets didn't fully understand all their prophecies. >:Do you have a reference for this? >Maybe it is the same that you are referring to. It is 6 or 8 typed pages, >but it is not indicated that it is an excerpt from a book. He got the >vision in 1973. The Vision came out around that time. Maybe he printed up a summary first, then wrote a book. 80% sounds like the book I read. >1. Economic collapse(s) all over the world. No one will be able to explain > why it happens. I remember that in the book. >2. Earthquakes, famines, a cosmic storm. Sounds like The Vision. I don't remember a cosmic storm, though. >3. Pornography. Yes, that was in there. >4. Generations will be alienated and hate one another. >5. A horrible persecution > a/ It will begin in Germany, at a time when everybody thinks that Sound like the Vision. I don't remember the Germany part, but it may have said in the book. Of course, Wilkerson may have omitted some things in the book as well. I read it about two or three years ago. It was borrowed, so I can't look this stuff up. > b/ Liberal, oecumenical Protestants will make a union with Catholics > and form a world church that will be a forerunner of the Antichrist. > It will lead people astray. This was in the book as well. > c/ Homosexuals will be invited to teach. Yes. That too. >Quotation: >"Books propagating homosexuality will be issued. They will be given to the >"youth and children. They will teach that this is a normal human >"behaviour. Then naked dances will be introduced [lit.: take effect, or: >"come to being] as the for of God-worship in the future. God's answer for >"this will be incurable insanity. This will be God's response to the >"glorifying of the creature more [or higher] than the Creator." Sounds like a condensed version. The Vision says that some churches will have strippers demonstrate their "talents" in churches "for God" but this will not be widespread, but other churches will hear about it. I remember in the early '80's hearing a rumor about this happening. I was just a kid then. I hadn't read the book at that time, but when I did, I remembered the rumor. Wilkerson also wrote that there would be devices that you could hook up to a television to watch pornography. Sure, enough, nearly every family in the US has a VCR, and a lot of the video stores rent pornography. >e/ Catholic (and Lutheran etc.) Charismatics will be driven out of > their churches. I remember this from the book, but don't know if its happened yet. >h/ Films will be made to mock Christian pastors and to defile Jesus. Films like _The Last Temptation of Christ_ have come out. >i/ Taxes will be burdened on missionaries to destroy them. > Eastern (prev. Communist) countries will persecute Christians after > a short period of legalization. I remember him writing that the IRS in the US would be a big enemy to the church. I don't think we've seen the fullness of that, though it seems that it is more difficult now for preachers in regard to taxes than in the past. I don't have firsthand knowledge of this, though. Wilkerson said that God would cut through the Iron and Bamboo curtains to get the gospel in. Its happened in the Iron curtain, but I don't think we can say China has opened up yet, or other Bamboo curtain countries. (Perhaps these terms are new to you.) He said while this was happening, Christians in the US would come under subtle attack, then doors would close and the persecution madness would engulf all countries. I saw Wilkerson speak in person when I was twelve. >A piece of good advice. However, we have 2 meetings a week, long praise, >short prayer, long sermon, then long praise again, mixed with >manifestations lately. We think we have enough prayer. Your church should learn a lesson from Dr. Cho. A friend of mine visited his church in Seoul. Between every activity in church, he says they pray. I've heard they send people up this mountain they call "prayer mountain" for three days to pray before they counsel them. I think Cho gets up at 3 or 4am to pray. Maybe that's why his church has 750,000 people (scattered out in different congregations, though.) They also have cell groups - small home groups. They make use of people other than the professional ministerial staff to lead the groups. As the groups grow, they divide, and the church grows. >one of them, which one, I don't know. Then it (TBN) ceased. I didn't >like it. Others didn't understand it or considered it too American. Some Christians over hear don't watch it because of the weird hair, make-up, and gaudy sets. It took me a while to get used to it so I could enjoy some of what came on TBN. Even so, I have to be selective. I find Mario Murillo to be very good. He is one of the few who can preach in a word of faith church, knock the excesses of the WoF movement, and get away with it. Of course, I think he travels in Rhema circles only a little. His home church may be an Assemblies of God, but I'm not sure. He was saved through the ministry Wilkerson started, I think, though I don't know if he ever met Wilkerson. Wilkerson ministered in New York, and Murillo was in California. >:I think the Deere quote is true. Prophecy is something that is emphasized >:in the New Testament at least in I Corinthians. > >You misunderstood me. I had in mind justifying modern prophecy with OT >examples when speaking about "pattern-approach". If we draw a parallel >between the OT and NT prophetic inspiration we have to point out that >the latter doesn't refer to adding to the present Scripture. Actually, I don't think the issue of adding to Scripture is a problem Most prophets in Old Testament times didn't have authority to add to Scripture. But a few did. Most prophets in NT times didn't have authority to add to Scripture, and especially if you include apostles under a general category of prophets, a few did. (Silas was specifically called a prophet and he co-wrote at least one of Paul's epistles.) I think having the authority to add to Scripture is just a separate category of a few people in both NT and OT times. Of course, none of the prophecies given now will be in that category. I believe that the prophetic inspiration of today is the same kind of stuff that the prophets in the OT had. >I have discussed this thing with you. So, MacArthur uses the Deere quote >to prove that charismatics admit their willingness to add to the Bible. >Maybe the quote is misinterpreted and taken out of Deere's context. >I guess MacArthur did it. Deere doesn't believe in adding to the canon. He wrote a book on the subject of spiritual gifts called _Suprised by the Power of the Spirit._ (Zondervan 1993.) It's quite good, and I've heard it has turned some cessationists around overnight. He used to be a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and his book is well thought out. I had a chance to speak briefly with Deere, and mentioned MacArthur's book. He said he had spoken with MacArthur. I asked him what happened, and he said MacArthur had been saying Deere was saying things that Deere really was not saying. MacArthur and Deere reached an understanding on it, and MacArthur was glad Deere had not been saying those things. Maybe the above is the thing. I don't know. >We Charismatics actually deny Sola Scriptura (the principle that nothing is >compulsory to believe unless it is clearly stated in Scripture) very often. >Namely, when claiming divine authority to certain doctrines, eg. >- Speaking in tongues is the (only sufficient) evidence of someone having > received the baptism in the Holy Spirit; I'd like to see the reasoning for it. I can't really agree with that doctrine, though I've been taught it all my life. If it's true, fine, but I don't think it's conclusive from Scripture. Smith Wigglesworth (the late famous English Pentecostal healing evangelist from the early part of this century) said that the three examples in Acts of people speaking in tongues were three witnesses that this was the sign that accompanied Spirit baptism. However, I don't see any Biblical reason to assume that there will be a physical outward sign. That's an assumption, imo. Add that to "Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" It's just not convincing to me. While much of the Charismatic teaching about tongues may be true to a degree, what troubles me is the amount of time many Charismatics spend on the subject in relation to other subjects. The NT spends a tiny percentage of space on tongues. I think what we spend time on as a church, to some extent, should be somewhat proportionate to the amount of space the Bible spends on a subject. Maybe I'm wrong on this. Different teachers specialize in different things, as body parts are specialized. And also, there is the fact that the church of today may not need correction in the same area that the churches of the NT may have needed correction in, so teaching could be taylor made. But I think the extreme emphasis on tongues in comparison to other thigns tends to be more a result of tradition and our established Charismatic doctrines than these other things. At least that's my opinion. Paul is clear that prophecy is superior to tongues. Some churches tend to emphasize prophecy nowdays. > IMO, 1Cor 9 would be much better - but it emphasizes the human needs of > the apostles and other workers, not tithing to the Lord out of commandment. I think it's a good principle to follow. However, I don't really see it as compulsory in the NT. The worst support I've ever heard for NT tithing imo was from John Avanzini who quoted in Hebrews where it says "and here men that die receive tithes." He used that as support for the idea that the NT church collected tithes. However, there are two major flaws with this. First, another translation translates "here" as "in this case." The other is that, in the time frame Hebrews was written, tithes would have been collected in the temple by often non-Christian Jewish priests. However, the NT speak of all we have belonging to God, which is more than merely tithing. >- The distinction between prophethood and prophesying. > (The NT usage doesn't support a definite distinction between them, as > Reinhard Bonnke admits. Others try to find support in the OT.) I think there is some OT support. At least the question is raised in the OT at the very least "Is Saul also among the prophets?" Prophecy seems to be common in the NT, but only a few are called prophets specifically. > So, where does the holy laughter belong? We see references for Probability of "weird stuff" under a general category of "ecstacy." Maybe we can just put laughing in that box. How specific do our references have to be? I mean, if someone walks on milk, instead of walking on water, do we reject the miracle because there is no reference to walking on milk in the Bible? > Luke 11 doesn't tell anything about the Satan interfering in our >request made to God, nor about a "certain" level of trust. If I saw someone quote Luke 11 for support for a seance, for example, I would probably say that the people were asking God for something, but the devil was also giving them gifts, and they were assuming the gifts were from God. I hope you can follow that. If I ask God to manifest His presence, and people being to shake, I don't just assume its the devil, because I did pray before the shaking happened. However, there is always the possibility that some of the people shaking could be shaking because of the devil. Luke 11 isn't the prooftext people may use it for, but it does show us we don't need to fear when we come to God in prayer. >We also use "Word of God" in Rev 19:13, applied to the King of Kings >Himself. "Word from God" isn't used in Hungarian at all. Modern charismatic >language says "a revelation (coming) from God" when it comes to prophecy. I think it may be a problem in translation. If I had the book, I could check. Since English only has one word for word in this context, we don't make the distinction by using different words for "word." Charismatics generally use "Word of God" for Jesus and the Bible. "a word from God" is often used for a revelation. It could be that this just didn't fit well into Hungarian translation. >[...] he makes a completely unfounded distinction between Logos >(theoretical, general, basically written Word of God) and Rhema (Logos >which is "made alive" [in Hungarian] by the Holy Spirit, and which seems to >be more concrete). That distinction is common in Word of Faith churches. That is probably where Cho heard it. I made up my mind not to accept anything about Hebrew or Greek from anyone in the WoF movement without verifying it first. I don't think there is a matter of dishonesty. I think it's just that the movement lacks people with real scholarship in the area. It's sort of anti-intellectual, which probably has lead to this problem. A Greek scholar on the internet and I discussed this. I get the idea that any "rhema" is also "logos" but not all logos is rhema. Similarly, All ostriches are birds, but not all birds are ostriches. If you follow what I am saying. I think there is truth to the concept of rhema, but people in the WoF movement have just been taught that it is a concept taught in Greek. It seems that I may not leave for a few more days. My visa hasn't come through yet, and I have been told it will probably come through later than I was previously told. So we may have time for another exchange. ------------------------------------------------------ Dear Link, Excuse me for not responding immediately. I went on two trips with a short interval between them, so I couldn't think over what you wrote. I enjoy our discussion the more and more as the letters follow one another. Thank you for them. :Now, to the topic. I don't think laughing is a "gift" like the 9 gifts. :Its more of a manifestation- not an empowerment of grace that one believer :can use to edify the body, in my opinion. It's a remarkable distinction. 1Cor 12: gifts, services, operations. These are to edify the body. But laughter is different from them. :You were asking about the place of these manifestations in our doctrine. I :don't make the same distinction about calling only things we are :commanded to do, doctrine, so perhaps that has created confusion. What I do :see in the Bible are examples of unusual manifestations occuring when :people are under a prophetic or similar anointing. Because this isn't :completely voluntary, it's not something that can be regulated in quite the :same same way as most of the other gifts. I see. That's the simplest way the new wave can avoid 1Cor 14. It's not sarcasm but a sober realization of the difference between our viewpoints. :I think the problem is seeking for unusual manifestations. I'd probably be :more comfortable where this stuff didn't go on, but God moved all the same. :But if God does choose to move in this way, I see in the OT and at least :hinted in the NT (Acts) that it is a possibility. That's about as far as I :can go. It's not right to imitate in order to impress people, or make :people think a manifestation has to happen to them in order for them to be :spiritual. Thank you. My problem is the following: IOC we insist upon the absolute necessity of coming under the new wave in order to bear fruits. We desperately try to avoid scriptural criticism. We fiercely attack the critics. We pay too much attention to outward signs that don't show anything. YET we remain the same: (1) the pastor used to regularly remind the congregation of the dangers that are hidden by summer (nakedness, drunkenness, etc.) He repeated this sermon now, too. (2) He warned us not to think that spiritual experience itself will automatically rid us of fleshly nature. Now: If the new wave's fruits are so few, then what is it for? (Maybe the situation in the US is different. And I'm really eager to know something about the renewal in Korea.) :But if people confuse emotion with spirituality, that's a problem. Yes, I forgot to tell that this elder started to jump and leap and after that hundreds of people fell into ECSTASY, began to shake, run and jump. That is: the result was considered not wilful. The problem is that we put a great emphasis on God's Spirit working on our body, and don't mention the possibility that these manifestations can be human responses too. For example, when someone laughs or shakes, people would admire him or her as if (s)he were somehow superior to them. So, manifestations are equated with being in a closer connection with God. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- :Maybe the issue is if the news made him feel drunk- a reaction of his body- :or if the word of the Lord did this to him. That's a similar question :concerning some of the manifestations now. It's a question what I'm not able to decide. I have never experienced this kind of ecstasy. So my remarks would be of no practical value. Therefore I try not to decide to what extent these manifestations can be considered the response of the body. Nevertheless, I don't want to exclude its possibility. Some of the happenings are quite meaningless and disturbing, or they distract attention from worship and preaching, so I can hardly attribute them directly to God. (Does He want to destroy the meeting?) R. Howard-Browne said that on the first such occasion he was likewise puzzled, but the Lord said to him "your meetings deserve being destroyed". If I apply this revelation to whatever not-emotional meeting in the Christian world, it seems to be a very cynical judgment of them. :Well, I admit you have to be careful with that kind of interpretation, esp :in the NT. You need other corroborating Scripture. However, I Peter says :that no prophesy is of private interpretation. The prophet didn't determine :its meaning. The gospel, though in the OT, was not revealed till the :apostles. So the prophets didn't fully understand all their prophecies. The great difference between the OT and the NT revelation "level" is now used to justify new ideas and to back up (otherwise too complicated) explanations. See Dan 12:8-10 and Mt 24:15 for what I am trying to say. The whole argument ("So the prophets didn't fully understand all their prophecies") reduces the wonderful procession (evolution, development, etc.) of what we know about God - to the apology of some kind of "new wave". I'm not angry with you personally for this. Lately an essay came out in our congregation's bimonthly journal that is full of this speech. The author picks eg. the Temple's building instead of the Tabernacle in order to justify the assertion "God moves in mysterious ways." It's an extreme example but a characteristic one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - Speaking in tongues is the (only sufficient) evidence of someone having > received the baptism in the Holy Spirit; > (Derek Prince wrote 31 pages about it in The Foundation Series. > It is a deduced truth. I repeat, a truth. But not explicit at all.) :I'd like to see the reasoning for it. Abbreviated arguments of Derek Prince: There can be manifestations of the Holy Spirit that are visible and audible Jn 3:8, Acts 2:33, 1Cor 2:4 Some of these are recorded in the Bible: Acts 2:2-4, 10:44-46, 19:6 The manifestation, that is present in each place, is speaking in tongues. 1. The apostles experienced this when being baptized in he Holy Spirit. 2. It was the evidence accepted by the apostles in other people's lives. 3. They never asked for any substitutory evidence. 4. The NT never lists any substitutory evidence. In the next chapters DP goes on to the possible arguments against his point. - "Does everybody speak in tongues?" (1Cor 12:30) Answer: Paul speaks about a gift ("charis"), not an evidence. Only after having been baptized into a Body ("dorea" of the Spirit) do we get this. So it refers to another thing. - And the fruits? (Gal 5:22) Answer: it is definitely no THE evidence the apostles required. Acts 2:16-17 And it would have been too long to wait for the fruits to appear. - What about Samaria? (Acts 8:14-20) Answer: There HAD to be an evidence, otherwise Simon wouldn't have offered the apostles money. To accept that it was speaking in tongues is wholly consistent with other scriptures. If we deny it then we have to accept that we don't have any means to determine what the Samaritans experienced. So this assumption leads nowhere. - And the case of Paul himself? (Acts 9:17-18) Answer: There MUST have been a desperate need of evidence to prove that Saul got the Holy Spirit. And 1Cor 14-18 states that Paul used the of tongues. So we can conclude that this ability began with Acts 9:17-18. "It wouldn't be natural if we supposed that Paul laid his hands on the Ephesians (Acts 19:6) in order to share an EXPERIENCE with them that he never had." Another argument from DP: When Peter related the events in Cornelius' house to the elders of the Jerusalem church in Acts 11:15-18 the only thing that convinced them was the fact that the Gentiles spoke in tongues. =========================== There is an assumption behind this proof. Namely: There HAS to be a verifiable and definite evidence. Nowhere in the NT is it stated. ----- A very serious mistake hides in the application of this theorem, too: Everywhere in the book of Acts human tongues are mentioned or implied. Tongues of angels (1Cor 13) enter the discussion only when the divine origin of present speaking in tongues is being questioned. I'd be highly delighted to hear what the official Charismatic bridge is between -----------------------| |---------------------------------------- SP. IN T. as evidence | | Present sp. in t. AS ACCEPTED EVIDENCE (most probably human) | | (most frequently NOT intelligible) -----------------------| |---------------------------------------- : The worst support I've ever heard for NT tithing :imo was from John Avanzini who quoted in Hebrews where it says "and here :men that die receive tithes." The simplest reading of Heb 7:8 makes clear that the word "here" refers to the Levite priesthood in general. The context: comparing this one and that of Jesus. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- :We see references for Probability of "weird stuff" under a general category :of "ecstasy." At least the purpose of NT public ecstasy must be found somewhere in the Bible. IOC they unscrupulously use texts like Mk 2:12 (Greek: ecstasy) or when his relatives came for Jesus to catch him as a mad person, (with the remark that "it couldn't have been an unfounded suspicion",) in order to prove that ecstasy is completely acceptable. So, references have to be more close to the subject. Not in the outward appearance but with regard to the intrinsic value, the purpose behind it. We seem to pick scriptures where ecstasy is mentioned, then snip the context that would offer us some hints about the application of the scripture. For example Micah 1:8-10, 1Kgs 20:35-38 about the "not too aesthetic" manifestations. The reader accepts it as a prooftext. The major misunderstanding comes when the writer of the essay doesn't indicate which category his quotation fits: dogmatic proof, a precedent, or an event with a newly discovered meaning. -------------------------------------------------------------------- :If I saw someone quote Luke 11 for support for a seance, for example, :I would probably say that the people were asking God for something, but :the devil was also giving them gifts, and they were assuming the gifts :were from God. I hope you can follow that. But somehow you decide whether the manifestations etc. weren't all from God, and this method of making decision can hardly include Luke 11. (It speaks about God giving a gift to everyone who asks from Him, and not about God not giving a bad gift.) :If I ask God to manifest His presence, and people begin to shake, :I don't just assume it's the devil, because I did pray before the shaking :happened. A sound principle. However... :However, there is always the possibility that some of the people :shaking could be shaking because of the devil. Why? You prayed for them, too, didn't you? :-) :Luke 11 isn't the prooftext people may use it for, but it does show us :we don't need to fear when we come to God in prayer. I disagree. He says "ask and you shall be given" and not "ask and don't be afraid of bad gifts." That's my point. ------------------------------------------------------- I don't have any other problems now. I don't want to bother you with the scripture-twisting and prooftexting style of the essay I was speaking about. It is a "local affair" and maybe you would feel that I blame you for it. God bless you wherever you are now! Goodbye! Ferenc