Ah... Those CRAZY Charismatics (Part II)

This is part 2, if you haven't read the first part, just check the January outline on the right side of the page!

One more thing from present day Mo-Pheus, that I wanted to mention. Because of I Corinthians 12 talking about different parts of the body (i.e. tongues being one part of the body), 13 talking about love, and 14 speaking about prophecy being more beneficial than tongues... there is a belief by some in charismatic circles of there being two types of tongues. Never hear of this in the bible(?)... you're not alone, neither did I! Now, I've never seen a biblical scholar, annotated Bible, Bible concordance, biblical study-guide, or any scripture make this assertion. None of the above. Never. Why? Its a reach. A last ditch effort by, a blind stab in the dark... to hold on to a thinking that they have (in many cases) adopted for their entire religious life. Its hard to let go. People will hold on to their Matrix... its hard to get people unplugged.

"No, see... he's... um... not... saying... er... that... tongues... aren't... *cough* important... er... *ahem* that... that is... ya.. you see... see... wh-wh-what he's saying... is that... prophecy... is... is... um.. better... than... that type... yeah... yeah.. THATS IT... prophecy is better than that type of tongues... I guess... tongues and prophecy aren't the same... so, er... Im not realy sure what people in church are doing intepreting their tongues AS prophecy... I think they're as confused as I am... mixin things... *cough* but... anyway... er... see... um... but... there are more than one type... yea... so... um... the one Im talking... about... that... that kind is necessary... but.. er... this type of tongue... which apparently isn't the same as prophecy.... I guess I'll... I'll... need to tell people to stop interpreting their tongues as God giving future prophecies... actually, that is REALLY crazy when you think about it... but... but... the tongues I talk about are necessary... these mentioned here... are... um... a second kind... how do i know? um... yeah... *cough* good question... see... you... have to... have talked in tongues to be able to discern. Yeah... yeah... thats it. You may be feeling a lil off... right now... hmm... I know I do... but... ya see... you wanna see clearly... you come on down... then you will understand...!"

And some of you wonder why I call them crazy!!!

The following email is COMPLETELY UNALTERED (even spelling!), save for color highlights:
______________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Hubbard;

When I sent you that "list" of basic problems I had with Pentecostalism I also sent it to another minister at New Life. And we began to correspond on some of the issues though I feel like he arrogantly does not take any of my questions seriously. That is, they can't be legitimate question. One that I brought up was the fact that some of Paul's letters (Romans, Ephesians, Colossians) are generally believed to be places that he has never been. I'm certain that Paul had never been to Rome or Colossae at the time his letter was written. Again, this fact appears to be a general consensus among biblical scholars.

Now... I don't know YOUR theology in particular, but I do know that New Life Temple teaches that salvation is a formula. Something like this: you repent, you are baptized, and you recieve the Holy Spirit, and this is ONLY made evident by speaking in tongues. This is the formula. All are necessary or the formula is not complete and one's experience was a nice experience, but it wasn't a salvation experience. In a nutshell, you have to speak in tongues to be Christian. Now, people in the church may word it funny or distort certain parts to minimize this, but at my leaving, I spoke to Pastor Perry for 3 hours and I have no doubt that the church teaches salvation at the point of tongues. Something that I should expect seeing that this is a UPC church. New Life claims that they are not associated with the UPC but that is interms of social things, like... dress code and things of that nature. As far as doctrine is concerned, they are identical. She herself as admitted that the doctrine has not changed. (i.e. tongues is necessary)

Now, I will readily admit that each denomination is different. Each denomination disagrees on some issue with most everyone else. That being the case, there are a lot of denominations that I do not agree with. However, the question is "what do we disagree on." Now, most denominations are together on two issues that Pentecostalism (including New Life) rejects. That being the trinity and salvation by faith alone. Now, I'm not emailing to talk about the trinity. But, though the baptists, presbyterians, lutherans, methodists, episcopalians, church of christ, etc, though they are not totally in agreement,they readily agree that salvation is by faith alone.... period. No works, not baptism, not speaking in tongues, nothing. But the bible really means that salvation is by faith alone when it says that salvation is by faith alone. So, though all denominations may not be in agreement, most"mainstream" denominations do agree on this issue that the Pentecostals do not.

Now, very few people, if anyone, would say you have to be a bible scholar and get a 100% on your Christianity exam to be a Christian. So, though we should be totally in agreement, it's not necessarily a prerequisite to heaven. If it is, then only one denomination can make it. But... is there any issue that disagreement can not be tolerated on? I mean, is there a doctrine where there can be no disagreement.Where we can't just agree to disagree and live in harmony? I believe this is that issue. The heart of the bible is God reconciling people to himself, so we shouldn't be surprised that the doctrine of no compromise would be that of salvation. Paul has the same mentality in his letter to the Galatians where the people in the providence of Galatia have compromised the gospel of Christ to the Judaizers who want to mix works into salvation. He is so mad about this issue that this is the only letter of his that does not have the complete standard Pauline greeting. That is, he is so steamed about this issue, or this issue was so important, that he skips the formal salutation and goes directly into the heart of the matter. He says let anyone who preaches another gospel be accursed. And then he repeats himself, just in case someone didn't catch the importance of his statement. Even an angel from heaven. This was so serious a threat that he rebuked Peter, fellow apostle, publicly. If two people try to get to salvation in two different ways, will they both succeed? The Lord's parable about the Pharisee and the Publican is written for this very reason. The parable is concluded by saying that the latter man (the publican) went home justified RATHER THAN the first. Not that he was more justified, or something, but he rather than he (pharisee).

So, the doctrine of salvation is THE essential doctrine that unity MUST be kept on. Now, I believe that the unity of the body should be kept on all issues, but above all else, the doctrine of salvation.

That being said... you go to a church that is a part of a movement that disagrees with 2000 years of church history. I've read about writings from no more than 30 years after the gospels themselves were written. The next generation, IF NOT THE SAME GENERATION as the writers of the New Testament. And the issue of tongues is not mentioned ONE TIME. Not once! Now, if the apostles viewed salvation as thePentecostal movement would have us to believe, they will have a pretty hard time explaining why the VERY NEXT GENERATION has strayed so far from the gospel. It's not as if they mention tongues, and call it one gift of the Holy Spirit for some, it's not even mentioned. How are we to believe that tongues is a must and has always been a must when the contemporaries of the gospel writers did not. That is absurd to say the least.

Back to Paul. Now, at the outset I stated that the Apostle did not visit every church he wrote. So, the people of Colossae may have heard of Paul and his exploits, but they would not be totally familiar with him or his teachings. Now... (this might be the best reason of all) if Paul is writing to a people that he has never visited, and he's giving a summary of the Christian essentials, why does he not even mention tongues in any of these letters? He would, in effect, be dooming all these people to hell, because he has not spoken to them on tongues, an essential of salvation, necessary for eternal life. A penetecostal will have a harder time answering that than the fact that ALL writings of the generation after the apostles speaks nothing of any tongues.

Therefore, tongues can not be an essential to salvation. It has never been proclaimed as such in the bible. Paul clearly speaks of it as a gift of the HolySpirit. And if we are going to take a metaphor literally, what gift has ever been necessary? What do I mean. Imagine a tree. Now... we have gifts of the Holy Spirit and fruit of the Spirit. If we decide to take this analogy ("gifts" and "fruit") literally, would not the fruit be necessary? Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. I don't believe in saying who is and who isn't Christian, but if there would be a determinant, it would the fruit of the Spirit, not speaking in tongues. I can give a gift to a tree, Icould take it away, that gift is not what makes that atree. Now, if I claim to be an apple tree, but my fruit are oranges, this is no apple tree. Not only this, it is my opinion that in I Corinthians 12 he is writing to people JUST LIKE MODERN DAY PENTECOSTALS when he speaks of the unity of the body. How can one part of the body say to another, "I have no need of you"? This is the question he asks. Don't modern day pentecostals do the same when they say that: "we are the only ones." And the biggest kicker for me is in ICorinthians 12:3 when he says, no one can say Jesus is Lord,.. BUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. So, if a methodist who has never spoken in tongues, if he says Jesus is Lord, with a sincere and genuinely repenitent heart, it must be by the Holy Spirit. (That's also a plug for Calvinism, but that's another cup of tea) Why would Paul speak of no one saying Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit, the unity of different parts of the body, naming the gifts of the Spirit, and then asking, do all do each one. He even asks... do all speak in tongues? This argument is absurd from beginning to end. The bible does not teach tongues as a necessary experience, or a DEEPER experience.

It appears that a great number of Pentecostals who are afraid to say that they are the only one's going to heaven will admit that their tongues gives them a deeper relationship with God that non Charismatics don't get. How arrogant. It is not AS arrogant as the more exclusive group, but it is still arrogant nonetheless. Viewing non-charismatics as second class Christians.

And again, there is no biblical reference for this. It's man made and self serving theology. Humanistic. Because the focus is taken off God and his divine sovereignty, and it's placed on fallen creatures who choose to come to Christ. Jesus says that noone comes to Him UNLESS the Father draws them. Not to charismatics. They come on their own... before recieving the Holy Spirit. *of course, there are a lot of people who believe this* But not only do they come to Christ on their own, but they recieve the Holy Spirit on their initiative! That thinking is totally anathetical to what Jesus is getting across when he says that Noone comes but those the Father draws. So.... rather than the Holy Spirit drawing people, people come on their own (spiritually dead) initiative. And in pentecostal circles, not only do they come APART FROM the compelling of the Holy Spirit. They actual are the ones who compel the HolySpirit to reside in their hearts. So the man takes the initiative and the Holy Spirit responds to the faith of the pentecostal who has chosen to recieve the Holy Spirit rather than the Holy Spirit bringing a fallen man to Christ. I see that as a SERIOUS distortion of the Gospel. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, "and this, not of yourselves, is the gift of God," not of works, lest any man should boast. Now, it appears that a lot of Pentecostals are boasting over their deeper relationship with Christ as opposed to non Pentecostal 2nd class Christians. Now... here is another question, because I am full of them, what is the antecedent to: "and this, not ofyourselves, is the gift of God." The answer is faith. A good annotated bible will have that verse (Ephesians2:8) referenced with Jesus' speaking of noone coming but those drawn. (John 6:44,59). These two seem to go hand in hand. Faith is not of ourselves, the ability to have faith is not of ourselves. The idea to even think about having faith is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. No man comes to faith apart from the Holy Spirit. It's not possible. If it was, we wouldn't be talking about spiritual death, we'd be talking about spiritual illness, or spiritual something elsewhere the person isn't dead, just hurt. But this says that faith itself, is a gift of God. And the other verse says that no one comes but those drawn. And Paul says in I Corinthians 12:3 that noone says that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit.

You may draw a different conclusion, but my conclusion is that all Christians have the HolySpirit. The Holy Spirit is who does the drawing. He gives man the ability to have faith, and apart from him, NO MAN will ever say, "Jesus is Lord." This is TOTALLY anathetical to Pentecostal theology of coming to faith on your own, being baptized on your own, and recieving the Holy Spirit on your coersion, not vice versa. That type of theology is humanistic and totally against the teaching of scripture. The funny thing is,... you can have true faith, you can be baptized, and not yet recieve the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't that mean you can have true faith and go to hell? All Christians profess the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation. That would then mean that a Pentecostal could have real faith and go to hell. TOTALLY ABSURD.

Now... you may have zoned out a while back because you do not agree totally with your church. Salvation may be an issue that you do not agree with the pentecostal movement on. But, I know that New Life temple believes this way. And if this doctrine is the essential of essentials to the Christian faith, and you disagree with New Life temple, then maybe you are not where you need to be. Again, I've talked with Pastor Perry for 3 HOURS... and I know this is her doctrine. The people at the church can muddle it up with cute words, but this is what the church teaches. Another minister told me that he believes that salvation starts at repentence. Good for him. However, he goes to a church that, when they get new converts, they teach new converts a distorted version of the gospel. Can a person be effective at a church if they don't agree with what their new converts are being taught about how to be reconciled to God? That's the basic. The foundation. And if we are in disagreement on this, then either side A or side B is poisoning their flock. Because there can not be two gospels. Like Paul said, they gave way to a another gospel (then he catches himself) that is not another. There can be only one gospel. The gospel of God. And New Life temple, along with the VAST MAJORITY of the Pentecostal movement, preaches a gospel that has not been preaches for the last 2000 years. Again... is this your gospel as well? If so, does it line up with scripture? And if it is not your gospel you do not need to be in a place where people are being taught to be reconciled to God in a way not found in the bible.

Just keep this in mind... because this was powerful to me... the very next generation made no mention of tongues. Could such an important topic die out so quickly? No... could the very gospel itself die out so quickly? If Chambers and the others are really right, and the entire body of Christ in the first century believed you have to speak in tongues to go to heaven, why is found in NONE of the literature remaining from the time period. Or are we that unlucky that everything about tongues was destroyed? Or, if there is a more reasonable explanation about why it never shows up in first (not 2nd or 3rd or 4th) century writings, like... it was never thought of as essential to salvation, but a gift given to some, where do we go from here?

Sincerely, Modise
_________________________________________________________

Im sure there are some who will think "Sincerely, The Devil." Ah well... whats next on tap?

Hippie Counter-Culture: Radical Rethinking of Life