Toronto Blessing has led to Rome

[Need 4 Creed]

In the 19th century, reformed believers were concerned that the holiness movement would lead protestants back to Rome, reformed believers in the 20th century had the same concerns about pentecostalism -- classical pentecostals, and reformed believers had similar concerns about the charismatic renewal. This video clip is interesting -- John and Carol Arnott (Toronto Blessing) and Kenneth Copeland (prosperity gospel) meet with Pope Francis to discuss world evangelisation. As I listen to John and Carol, I cannot help but feel they are being very naive regarding the nature of catholicism. That being said, this is a good illustration of how far the charismatic church has shifted from its protestant roots. Was the Toronto Blessing a spiritual renewal? It has certainly done nothing to increase a knowledge of the gospel. If anything the lines have been blurred to the point of non-existence. Some will interpret this as unity, but unity that is not based on truth, is not unity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIHfYgRIP4s

 

[TylerRay]

This is not surprising. Pentecostals have repeated virtually all the errors of Rome, only without the structure.

In my opinion, the issue is not that Pentecostalism leads to Rome. Pentecostalism is Rome.

 

[RamistThomist]

Or that Rome is smart and rather than telling pentecostals to "straighten up before y'all come in," Rome simply accommodates them. Many charismatics, on the other hand, are aware of the former generation's goofiness and the present crisis in discernment, and are beginning to address it.

But then again, there are around 500 million charismatics worldwide, so blanket statements or representations can only go so far.

 

[Need 4 Creed]

I would have imagined that most classical pentecostals would have more problems than charismatics.

It is the charismatic movement which has transcended denominational borders.

There is no Catholic Pentecostal movement, only a catholic charismatic movenment.

At the start of the charismatic movement, many pentecostals warned about the dangers of the charismatic movement -- they recognised its emergence in Rome was problematic.

Having said that, Copeland, represents WoF, which doctrinally would be closer to pentecostalism, but in practice has been more charismatic.

It's all really just a mess.

J

 

[Peairtach]

By its very nature Pentecostalism places a rival authority in experience and experiences, alongside Scripture and sound doctrine, thus undermining any clear testimony against Rome.

If, for instance, Pentecostalists hear of or know RCs who "speak in tongues", that by itself can be enough for many of them to presume that such are genuine believers irrespective of the Romish doctrine and lifestyle of such people.

With other Pentecostalists Scripture may trump experience in such cases, but there is a dialogue between the two rival authorities in the Pentecostaliist mentality, which makes the whole thing unstable and fluid.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[RamistThomist]

Not having a clear case against Rome is not the same thing as "leading" to Rome (even if both are problematic)

 

[earl40]

I encourage all lay members of Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Non-reformed Baptist, SDA, PC(USA) etc. etc. to at least find soteriologically reformed church because I see rather clearly how "Roman" most "protestant" churches are today. I understand what I say is sadly a rather provocative thought but this comes with the territory of being a "rabid" protestant.

 

[Need 4 Creed]

By its very nature Pentecostalism places a rival authority in experience and experiences, alongside Scripture and sound doctrine, thus undermining any clear testimony against Rome.

If, for instance, Pentecostalists hear of or know RCs who "speak in tongues", that by itself can be enough for many of them to presume that such are genuine believers irrespective of the Romish doctrine and lifestyle of such people.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

This is ultimately what has happened. Largely due to the charismatic movement, which was much more experience orientated and less defined theologically.

However, Classical pentecostals did see the problems initially -- this i sbecause many classic pentecostals were ex-brethren, baptist and presbyterians -- in other words, they still maintained a form of protestant/evangelical soteriology.

But, the problem was already within their foundations, by accepting "glossalalia" as evidence of the Spirit -- it becomes impossible to discriminate on the basis of doctrine because to do so is to contradict your doctrine/experience of the Spirit.

 

[TheOldCourse]

By its very nature Pentecostalism places a rival authority in experience and experiences, alongside Scripture and sound doctrine, thus undermining any clear testimony against Rome.

If, for instance, Pentecostalists hear of or know RCs who "speak in tongues", that by itself can be enough for many of them to presume that such are genuine believers irrespective of the Romish doctrine and lifestyle of such people.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

This is ultimately what has happened. Largely due to the charismatic movement, which was much more experience orientated and less defined theologically.

However, Classical pentecostals did see the problems initially -- this i sbecause many classic pentecostals were ex-brethren, baptist and presbyterians -- in other words, they still maintained a form of protestant/evangelical soteriology.

But, the problem was already within their foundations, by accepting "glossalalia" as evidence of the Spirit -- it becomes impossible to discriminate on the basis of doctrine because to do so is to contradict your doctrine/experience of the Spirit.

Yep, that last sentence is key. How can they deny fellowship to those whom the Lord has demonstrated his approval of through the supposed sign gifts? Doctrinal rigidity in almost any matter (except in defending the charismata, of course) is quenching the spirit. I've seen it many times.

 

[PhilA]

However, Classical pentecostals did see the problems initially -- this i sbecause many classic pentecostals were ex-brethren, baptist and presbyterians -- in other words, they still maintained a form of protestant/evangelical soteriology.

The roots of the UK pentecostals were Anglican but these men were very quickly marginalised. I would argue that the main denominational influences were Wesleyan Methodism, Salvationists, Quakers and Bretheran (Bretheran, like Pentecostals difficult to define precisely due to great diversity). I see very little difference between the charismatics and the pentecostals. Charismatics tended to remain within existing denominations as pentecostals formed their own. The original desire was for the pentecostal movement to remain within formal denominations. By the time AoG (UK) formed in 1924, "pentecostals" were already split into 4 separate and distinct groups.

 

[PhilA]

“Bring in Arminian doctrines, then the popish will easily follow.” –Matthew Newcomen (1610– 1669) The All– Seeing Unseen Eye of God and Other Sermons

C. Matthew. Light from Old Paths: An Anthology of Puritan Quotations, Volume 1 (Kindle Locations 1035-1038). Puritan Publications.

 

[Peairtach]

By its very nature Pentecostalism places a rival authority in experience and experiences, alongside Scripture and sound doctrine, thus undermining any clear testimony against Rome.

If, for instance, Pentecostalists hear of or know RCs who "speak in tongues", that by itself can be enough for many of them to presume that such are genuine believers irrespective of the Romish doctrine and lifestyle of such people.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

This is ultimately what has happened. Largely due to the charismatic movement, which was much more experience orientated and less defined theologically.

However, Classical pentecostals did see the problems initially -- this i sbecause many classic pentecostals were ex-brethren, baptist and presbyterians -- in other words, they still maintained a form of protestant/evangelical soteriology.

But, the problem was already within their foundations, by accepting "glossalalia" as evidence of the Spirit -- it becomes impossible to discriminate on the basis of doctrine because to do so is to contradict your doctrine/experience of the Spirit.

The "Charismatic Movement" was Pentecostalism jumping ship and infecting other denominations, some of which were already doctrinally unsound, with the errors of Pentecostalism.

I should also have added that as well as experiences like tongues being prime tests of authenticity in Pentecostalism, "new revelations" are also possible. So the whole revelatory foundation by which they would be discerning about Roman Catholicism - which should be Sola Scriptura rather than Scripture + experience + new revelations is placed on shaky ground.

It's good if some Pentecostals and Charismatics do take a clear stand against Romanism, but their own errors don't assist them.

 

[PhilA]

It might be relevant to note that informal preliminary discussions between Pentecostals and Rome appears to have started in September 1970.

"The meeting would aim in the first place at discovering if there could
be a theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Pentecostalists,
and what might be the scope and method of such a dialogue. A secondary
aim would be to enable the Secretariat to be in touch with adequate sources
of information on Pentecostalism so that it may be able to supply current
information to the highest authorities of the Catholic Church at any time this
might be required."

Fountain Trust Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue

 

[ooguyx]

I don't think that the charismatics will join Rome for one reason: Women in the pastorate/diaconate. I think for everything else they have in common the women who ultimately lead them won't allow it.

Also best part of the vid: the pope having a napkin tucked in his pope uniform. lolololol