What Do We Mean by "Charismatic"?

[Irishcat922]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

Originally posted by Irishcat922
Quote "They were not designed to function as an extra Biblical authority. They are supernatural tools provided (by God) for the fulfillment of supernatural commandments given to the Church (by God). "

Isn't this a self defeating argument? If this was the pupose of the gifts in the early Church, and scripture is complete, why are the revelatory gifts necessary for today? Do we still need Revelation or are the Scriptures sufficient?

Self-defeating argument? No. Perhaps it is the use of the word "revelatory" or "revelation" that has your hackles raised.

The Scripture is without a doubt complete and THE final authority for all New Covenant folk. The "revelatory" or "prophetic" gifts are not for the purpose of drafting new Scriture, i.e., "the Gospel of Bob" or "Jethro's Letter to the Church at Dallas."

So, yes, the Scriptures are themselves sufficient. It is our understanding of God's Word that is not. No matter how long we may study or meditate thereupon, our "knowledge" is at best "in part." (1 Cor. 13:9) We won't exhaust the full depth of meaning of ANY Scripture on this side of heaven. The revelatory (prophetic) gifts do, however, provide supernatural insight into the Word of God and new revelational understanding (infomration not obtained by natural means) of His heart and emotional chemistry. They are the means by which the "spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" is often manifest unto the believer or a group of believers, that "the eyes of our understanding being enlightened; that we may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe..." (Eph. 1:17-19) The revelatory gifts are for the purpose of helping others, or for their encouragement, comfort, and edification (1 Cor. 14:3) and NEVER under the New Covenant were intended to be authoritative in and of themselves.

Revelation is revelation. It is not illumination. All Christians have the Holy Spirit to illumine the Scriptures for them. The revelatory prophetic gifts were indeed revelatory and for a time. You need to do some study on the difference between revelation and illumination. You are confusing the two.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, Fred just said it much better.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Turmeric,

"re-dedication", Oh yea, I wore the rug out on that one and "œpraying the prayer" every Sunday wondering the exact same thing. The only person that "œre-dedicated" more than I did on Sundays was a good friend who was an ex-roman catholic. Ironic now that I look back on it. And the Sundays that I didn´t but thought that I should but fought it, I´d think, "œYou blew it."

Re-dedication and re-praying the prayer was almost like a some kind of drug addiction. I don´t mean to be flippant about it but on the rare occasion that I´ve found myself at a church that issues an "œalter call" - I´ve had to actively fight it in my mind. Though as I´ve studied reformed (biblical) doctrine and Luther I´ve found great encouragement to stave it off.

I could tell you some funny stories about my wife´s coming to reformed faith from a charismatic background after we married. She was ensconced in highly charismatic stuff. Not from a Pentecostal direction but ironically from a SB church (rural). When she did have the epiphany (Romans 9, a funny story if I ever have time) she became "œgung ho" more than myself over night. I had to reign her in a bit because I didn´t want a civil war in the family.

Later,

Larry

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

So, yes, the Scriptures are themselves sufficient. It is our understanding of God's Word that is not. No matter how long we may study or meditate thereupon, our "knowledge" is at best "in part." (1 Cor. 13:9) We won't exhaust the full depth of meaning of ANY Scripture on this side of heaven. The revelatory (prophetic) gifts do, however, provide supernatural insight into the Word of God and new revelational understanding (infomration not obtained by natural means) of His heart and emotional chemistry. They are the means by which the "spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" is often manifest unto the believer or a group of believers, that "the eyes of our understanding being enlightened; that we may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe..." (Eph. 1:17-19) The revelatory gifts are for the purpose of helping others, or for their encouragement, comfort, and edification (1 Cor. 14:3) and NEVER under the New Covenant were intended to be authoritative in and of themselves.

Again, an illustration of the confusion between illumination and special revelation. Prophecy by it's very nature is a revelation from God and therefore authoritative and binding on the conscience. There is no instance in Scripture of unauthoritative prophecy. A prophet in the very nature of that office, standing before the people of God, is God's mouth piece to the church. That is why the spirit of the NT prophets were subject to the prophets. That is why the church was called so diligently to test the spirits. Prophecy was binding, that is why there were means to test it's validity and authority. The prophets in the church had to "weigh what is said" whenever anyone offered a word of prophecy. The apostles and prophets were the foundation of the NT church. But prophets were a dying breed, the ministry of a passing stage in the covenant of grace. Once the testimony of the chief prophet and apostle Jesus Christ was completed through the apostolic ministry, the need for prophets (and apostles) was done. Now we understand the revelation given by Christ through the renewing and enlightening of our mind by the Spirit.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

oops, looks like Fred beat me to it :bigsmile:

 

[Augusta]

This just struck me. In Matthew 7:21-22 it attributes to the people God says he never knew:

21"œNot everyone who says to me, "˜Lord, Lord,´ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, "˜Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?´ 23Then I will tell them plainly, "˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!´

And then in Matthew 25:34-36 it attributes to the people God does know and calls his people the following:

34"œThen the King will say to those on his right, "˜Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.´

Its interesting that none of the gifts are mentioned in here.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Augusta
This just struck me. In Matthew 7:21-22 it attributes to the people God says he never knew:

21"œNot everyone who says to me, "˜Lord, Lord,´ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, "˜Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?´ 23Then I will tell them plainly, "˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!´

And then in Matthew 25:34-36 it attributes to the people God does know and calls his people the following:

34"œThen the King will say to those on his right, "˜Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.´

Its interesting that none of the gifts are mentioned in here.

I would not use that as proof against the charasmatic movement. The intent was to emphasise what true disciples are like. They do not seek public glory but live quiet, peaceful, obedient lives. Though this may rebuke some people within the charasmatic movement, it could also be used against those in reformed circles who seek the public eye or love to "win" arguments rather than live out the truth in everyday lives.

 

[alwaysreforming]

Charasmatic Calvanist wrote:
"The revelatory (prophetic) gifts do, however, provide supernatural insight into the Word of God and new revelational understanding (infomration not obtained by natural means) of His heart and emotional chemistry. They are the means by which the "spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" is often manifest unto the believer or a group of believers, that "the eyes of our understanding being enlightened; that we may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe..." (Eph. 1:17-19) The revelatory gifts are for the purpose of helping others, or for their encouragement, comfort, and edification (1 Cor. 14:3) and NEVER under the New Covenant were intended to be authoritative in and of themselves."



But doesn't this undermine our whole hermaneutic? Isn't this putting the meaning in the TEXT instead of in the INTENT OF THE AUTHOR? Now, instead of a minister being able to "open the Word to us" or help us to understand it better and apply it to our hearts, we have a multitude of individuals who hear a different meaning in these texts. The text itself kind of floats through history, meaning different things at different times to different people. This goes against all types of proper hermaneutical principles and leaves the true MEANING of the text without a proper grounding. How could it be grounded, when it can mean one thing to a particular church body, but then another individual has a "higher understanding" of it and so has a different interpretation (which is ALSO supposed to be correct)?

However, C.C., I appreciate your tenor in this debate and hope that we can all continue to work through these issues with level heads and level hearts, as has been so far.

 

[Augusta]

I agree that it is not a proof at all but I find it interesting coming out of a charismatic background and trying to work through what I believe the bible is saying on this subject. It kind of gives me personally a good shove toward the cessationist viewpoint. Not only does he not mention the gifts when talking about the elect, but he does mention that kind of activity when he speaks of non-elect people who think they are followers of God. I think about who this might be in todays terms and I am immediately thinking of my family members who are still caught up in the charismatic thing and think they get direct revelation from God about who will be elected president. Frankly this gives me great anxiety about them saying Lord, Lord at the end. I know that I shouldn't try to decipher who is right with God or not but it is hard with the people you love.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Augusta
I agree that it is not a proof at all but I find it interesting coming out of a charismatic background and trying to work through what I believe the bible is saying on this subject. It kind of gives me personally a good shove toward the cessationist viewpoint. Not only does he not mention the gifts when talking about the elect, but he does mention that kind of activity when he speaks of non-elect people who think they are followers of God. I think about who this might be in todays terms and I am immediately thinking of my family members who are still caught up in the charismatic thing and think they get direct revelation from God about who will be elected president. Frankly this gives me great anxiety about them saying Lord, Lord at the end. I know that I shouldn't try to decipher who is right with God or not but it is hard with the people you love.

I have similar circumstances too, coming out of that movement a few years ago.

 

[turmeric]

Larry.
So your wife's in the "cage stage" huh? I'd love to read some of yr funny stories sometime. The thing that helped me the most, or the most recently, was when someone pointed out that all this "re-dedication", crisis-experience stuff, and struggling for "spirituality" as they describe it is "folk Christianity," it's works-righteousness to assume you can do anything to make God like you better or bless you more, it's syncretic & superstitious.
What a relief not to have to keep trying to get God to fix me!

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by turmeric What a relief not to have to keep trying to get God to fix me!

Oh, Meg, He'll do it anyway!

 

[turmeric]

Yes, He does! I'm so glad He does!

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
And thus you see the result of non-cessationism:

authority rests not with God's appointed means, the Church and the Scriptures, but with an individual's ipse dixit (because he said so) and extra Biblical means.

No thanks.

I'm so glad I escaped that flame. Praise God. I was in a real epistemological bind as are all our Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third-Wave bretheren.

 

[Joseph Ringling]

Originally posted by Ianterrell

Originally posted by fredtgreco
And thus you see the result of non-cessationism:

authority rests not with God's appointed means, the Church and the Scriptures, but with an individual's ipse dixit (because he said so) and extra Biblical means.

No thanks.

I'm so glad I escaped that flame. Praise God. I was in a real epistemological bind as are all our Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third-Wave bretheren.

Five years ago I didn't even know what Grace was. I had a warped view of God's Grace. I lived in constant fear of losing my salvation and was as double minded a young man that you would have ever met. I truly was like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

Praise God for his perfect and final Word!

 

[Ianterrell]

Awesome. For me Calvinism actually helpd unravel some of my Charismatic beliefs. How could I explain the complete silence of charismata throughout Church History? Truly they either ceased due to the work of the spirit, or man's will can thwart God's desire to bless his church.

 

[Irishcat922]

I think you are right Ian, becoming a Calvinist and being a student of history most of the Charismatic claims and teaching just didn't add up for me either. While I was Charismatic I never really questioned any of the teaching, when I became a Calvinist, it caused me to start thinking more systematically/logically.

 

[turmeric]

Looking through the Book of Acts last month I was struck by the fact that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" did not seem to be a second experience in most cases; I can only think of 2, the saints at Samaria who did not receive it until Peter came to them (a redemptive-history issue, I think) and Paul, who may not actually have been converted on the Road to Damascus, but awakened. If so, if his conversion actually took place in Damascus when Ananias prayed for him, then that also was not a "second experience" but part of conversion. Where's that detective smiley?

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

Originally posted by IanterrellHow could I explain the complete silence of charismata throughout Church History? Truly they either ceased due to the work of the spirit, or man's will can thwart God's desire to bless his church.

Ian! Guys! What are you talking about?? What ARE you reading? Church history speaks for itself!

The charismata have been historically documented throughout Church history! I took the liberty to compile a reference list from my own research of church history over the last several years. I even put them in chronological order for you and included the specific names of their texts or have indicated where you may find them. Now go hit the books!

Justin Martyr (100AD "“ 165AD): Dialogue with Trypho; The Second Apology of Justin
Irenaeus (125 "“ 200): Against Heresies
Tertullian (160 "“ 240): A Treatise on the Soul; Apologetic Works; Against Marcion; On Baptism; Against Praxeas

Origien (185 "“ 284): Against Celsus; De Principiis
Novatian (210 "“ 280): The Trinity
Cyprian (195 "“ 258): The Epistles of Cyprian
Antony (251 "“ 356): see Life of Antony by Athanasius
Pachomius (292 "“ 346): see Illustrious Men of the Church by Jerome & Gennadius
Hilarion (305 "“ 385): see The Life of Saint Hilarion by Jerome
Ambrose (340 "“ 397): Of the Holy Spirit
Jerome (347 "“ 420): The Life of Saint Hilarion
Augustine (354 "“ 430): City of God (see chapter "œConcering Miracles Which Were Wrought in Order That the World Might Believe in Chirst and Which Cease Not to be Wrought now That the World Does Believe"

Benedict (480 "“ 547): The Rule of Benedict
Gregory the Great (540 "“ 604): Dialogues; Bede´s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation
Bernard of Clairveaux (1090 "“ 1153): see Neander´s (he´s a Lutheran scholar) General History of the Christian Church

Hildegard of Bingen (1098 "“ 1179): see Schaff´s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church

Dominic (1170 "“ 1221): see Leher´s Saint Dominic: Biographical Documents
Francis of Assisi (1181 "“ 1226): Butler´s Lives of the Saints (Thurston, Herbert, & Attwater ed.)
Vincent of Ferrier (1350 "“ 1419): Butler´s Lives of the Saints (Thurston, Herbert, & Attwater ed.)
Peter Waldo & the Waldenses (c. 1150 "“ 1217): see Muston´s A Complete History of the Waldenses and Their Colonies

All right, I carried you through to the Reformation. I listed below individuals/events from the Reformation on to the present for you to check out on your own, mostly in chronological order. Get back to me when you´ve done your homework!

The Anabaptists (you will find they were wrongly vilified because of being mistakenly associated with the fiasco at Munster), the Huguenots of the Cevennes Mountains (sometimes called "œThe French Prophets"), George Fox & the Quakers, the Moravians, the Methodist Revival (bad theology, but God showed up), The Great Awakening, The Second Great Awakening, Barton Stone & the Cane Ridge Revival (charismata at a Presbyterian church!), Edward Irving & the Apostolic Catholic Church, Charles Finney (awful theology, but again God showed up), A.J. Gordon, Dwight L. Moody, Reuben A. Torrey, Charles Fox Parham/Bethel Bible College/the Pentecostal revival of the 1900s, Azusa Street Revival & Willaim Seymour, Parham & the Zion City Revival, F.F. Bosworth & John G. Lake´s ministries, Pandita Ramabai in India, Willis & Mary Anne Hoover in South America, T.T. Barratt in Europe, William Simpson in China, "œThe Healing Revival (including William Branham, Oral Roberts, T.L. & Daisy Osborn), The Latter Rain Revival, the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960s, Third Wave, Toronto Blessing, Brownsville/Pensacola Revival, and so forth.

 

[Ivan]

<<Charles Finney (awful theology, but again God showed up)>>

God "showed up"? Hmmm...I wonder.....

<<Oral Roberts>>

PLEASE!!!!

<<the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960s, Third Wave, Toronto Blessing, Brownsville/Pensacola Revival, and so forth.>>

It will be interesting to hear the responses to these movements.

[Edited on 1-16-2005 by Ivan]

 

[turmeric]

Charismata are gifts of the HOLY Spirit, some of these movements just don't qualify. I think this list proves, however, that there have always been folks in the church who believe the sign gifts have not ceased. The question still remains; is this so?

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

Originally posted by turmeric
Charismata are gifts of the HOLY Spirit, some of these movements just don't qualify.

Hmm. No specifics...not surprised.

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

Originally posted by Ivan
<<Charles Finney (awful theology, but again God showed up)>>

God "showed up"? Hmmm...I wonder.....

You're right. The conversion of entire communities was probably just city-wide emotionalism.

 

[turmeric]

CC (and the rest of y'all),

Have you read The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards? If we evaluated conversion, and other religious experiences we believe in, by his principles, we would avoid much error, I think! BTW, he does not take an anti-emotional stance, and gives good explanations of how one can evaluate his own experience to see if it's the real thing.

I would say, CC, that God used Charles Finney and there probably were many real conversions. He spoke prophecy through Baalam, and even Baalam's donkey, so why not?
The Apostle Paul said that people were preaching the Gospel out of spite, but he was happy as long as it was being preached. Finney's actual beliefs were heretical, but his preaching itself, in content anyway, was orthodox, from what I hear.

Do ya get the impression Finney ain't too popular in these parts?

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

I am by no means an advocate of Finney's theology. A darn mess, it is!

 

[Joseph Ringling]

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

Originally posted by Ivan
<<Charles Finney (awful theology, but again God showed up)>>

God "showed up"? Hmmm...I wonder.....

You're right. The conversion of entire communities was probably just city-wide emotionalism.

That's a possibility!

Thousands supposedly get "saved and healed" all the time at Benny Hinn crusades. If you saw the HBO special or have investigated the ministry of Hinn you would find that he never comfirms any of the magnificent miracles that you see on the tv show.

I don't know what kind of gospel Finney preached but I do know the kind that Hinn does and it's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, he goes to a place like Gahna and preaches a gospel that guarantees healing and prosperity and then actually demonstrates this supposed power of God by signs and miracles. Then they show people actually trying to push each other over to get to the altar to get saved. Why? Are they responding to the true Gospel and the call of the Holy Spirit or are they being deceived by a false Cross-less gospel that promises everything but delivers nothing?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that things aren't always what they seem.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

Originally posted by Ivan
<<Charles Finney (awful theology, but again God showed up)>>

God "showed up"? Hmmm...I wonder.....

You're right. The conversion of entire communities was probably just city-wide emotionalism.

Well, if we're going to judge results, then you shouldn't forget the huge amounts of backsliding a few years sometimes months later in the Northeast where Finney ministered, where to this day those very communities are hardened to the gospel. Yes, much of it was city wide emotionalism. In fact, toward the later middle portion of Finney's career, he was beginning even to doubt himself what his measures were doing in the long run. See Ian Murray's Revival and Revivalism.

 

[Larry Hughes]

One might add that the theology of the cross (the true Gospel) which is the way of suffering is in antagonistic tension with the theology of glory (seeking signs and wonders, spectacular displays, health and wealth, perfectionism (Finney)) which seeks to "œsee" God as Luther put it "œin His naked glory". It is also very telling that numerous times Jesus instructed those to whom a miracle sign was performed upon to "œnot tell anyone." Even more, He said that a wicked and perverted generation seeks a sign but will not receive one. Paul said that the Jew seeks a sign but that he (Paul) preached Christ and Him crucified.

In any ministry one must look to where that ministry is pointing the eyes"¦to Christ or something else.

People like Luther, Calvin and Bonhoeffer (Nazis Germany) under various tremendous trials themselves rightly understood the necessity of realizing that God is revealed singularly where He may be found, in the midst of suffering, pointing one to the mercy at the suffering cross of Christ, Who is the merciful revelation of God. To seek God´s glory otherwise is to in reality ask for His consuming fire which no sinner may nakedly view and live and to have it come down and judge one´s self. It must be added that we all do indeed struggle with this desire to see the naked glory of God, it is part of our fallen remaining flesh.

The theology of the cross comes out most clear in times of trial, suffering and persecution whether inner or external. That is its true encouragement comes out - while the one being pressed upon to disbelieve by the suffering. This is were faith shines and purifies. A person under trial or persecution is under the pressure from the same to believe that God has indeed abandoned them (e.g., the dereliction of Christ at the cross) or that God does not exist (unbelief), yet the Christian rightly taught and encouraged must realize that this is not so and even further that in this very trial (whatever it is) in which God appears to have abandoned them is when He is the closest to them. And thus they can cry out to Him, because suffering is for the Christian as he/she is Christ"˜s Who suffered and suffering drives the Christian fleeing to Christ alone. EVEN though the pain of the trial is real and mourning over it and suffering within in it is right, the strength to "˜bear up under"˜ (patience) comes from the faith driven realization that one will suffer and God has not abandoned the Christian. Look at Job for example. The theology of glory would abandon this seeking the "œhigh times" and displays of power and wonder, prosperity, wealth, health, numbers and perfectionism. This is one reason why the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing but salvation to those being saved. To the perishing this looks like foolishness and not glory and fame at all. What will the one seeking signs and wonders, perfectionism, numbers, health and wealth do when trial and/or persecution comes? How will they "œbear up under" it when the emotions are gone and dried up, and the spectacular no longer is there? How then will they "œbear up under" it in the Valley of the Shadows of Death?

The theology of glory tends to look for the "˜big displays´, perfectionism, higher Christian attainment, great wonders and signs and tremendous numbers of converts during revivals and preachings. The later, for example, would and indeed do view few, one or none conversions after preaching as a failure, but see great numbers coming forward as a tremendous success. A quick story to relate: A friend of mine ran into a traveling "œevangelist" at his church after the sermon to discuss the guys heavy Finnyite "˜will pushing"˜, "˜pump priming"˜, "˜emotion button pushing´ 45 minute alter call tactics in order to get the numbers forward. The guys response was telling. He said to my reformed friend, "œI suppose you consider it a good day if you get one or two converts, I don´t." In fact he considered it a failure. I told my friend that he is looking for displays which may or may not mean anything at all, and not the true work of God. Furthermore, when he was calling them to the alter he was NOT calling them empty handed to Christ alone but to a work they must do. Evenmore, if he realized that every true regeneration of the soul, even one, is nothing less than an act of re-creation on the part of God"¦nothing less than God calling into being that which is not (the soul dead in sin to life)"¦if he truly realized this would he then have "˜yawned´, as he has at "˜low numbers´, when God said "œLet there be light" because God only did it once?

In short God is closest when He seems to be no where near (suffering, trials and persecution). Or that like Christ, Christ´s people will suffer trials and persecutions (inward and outward). As Christ cried out upon the cross "œMy God, My God why hast though forsaken Me", so we too might expect to make this cry in various ways.

Blessings,

Larry

 

[turmeric]

Go Larry! Go Larry! Go Go Go Larry!

 

[alwaysreforming]

Larry,
What an excellent and wonderful post! It sounds like you have done a LOT of thinking on the subject "The theology of the cross vs. the theology of glory". Thanks for passing the results of that on to all of us. I may just have to print that out and hang on to it!

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

Originally posted by Ivan
<<Charles Finney (awful theology, but again God showed up)>>

God "showed up"? Hmmm...I wonder.....

You're right. The conversion of entire communities was probably just city-wide emotionalism.

Yes, yes I would venture to say it was. Finney may have been used to convert some here and there. As noted by others already he admitted most converts fell away from the faith. I would not even call what Finney had bad theology. It's far too perverted for that kind o language. The man denied imputation of sin, any sort of human corruption, and any sort of justification wrought by Christ on the cross. He was a liberal. Not a Christian.

But it was certainly the example of using those who preach from awful motives. The man was evil concentrated as far as I'm concerned. Dude your list is a mishmash of sources, most of those names are questionable in their orthodoxy. I know that Augustine and others speak of some miracles, but they do not speak of Charismata which is what we are disputing.

Most of the examples you seem to suggest do anything but support your view in my opinion citing heretics such as those found in the Toronto Blessing and so forth is evidence against the Charismatic movement. The fact that these errors can be coupled with less alarming ones just goes to show that all the so called post apostolic charismata are in fact suspect.

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by Ianterrell]