The Charismatic Movement

Grace and peace unto you.

The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 4:1:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.”

Paul was prophesying that the day would come when some Christians will leave the true Church, having been seduced by the spirit of Satan, and will join false churches with false doctrines and damnable herecies. Jesus also foretold of this when he said,

“Take heed that no man deceive you…for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Mathew 24:24).

The most distinguishing feature of the last days will be deception: false churches, false prophets, and false teachings.

Jesus said that the deception would be so convincing that, if it were possible, it would fool the very elect of God. In order for such a deception to be effective, it would have to look Christian; if it were not, it would not be an effective deception.

Buddhism, for example, is so dissimilar from Christianity as to require little or no discernment to know that it is not Christian. Buddhism pays no homage to Jesus Christ, nor does it feature a virgin birth, a crucifixion, or a death, burial, and resurrection. Consequently, Buddhism is so distinguishable from Christianity that only the most naïve person could be beguiled into believing that it is Christian.

A religion that ostensibly worships the Lord Jesus, however, and that seemingly adheres to the major tenets of the faith, while actually calling Jesus Christ a liar, would be harder to detect. Such a church could indeed fool many. This is the reason Paul said that we must watch and pray in these last days.

There could be no doubt that we are in the last days of the Last Days, for never in history have there been so many false churches and false belief systems. They may seem to be dissimilar, but they all have a few things in common. In Genesis Chapter 3, Satan tells us what to look for in a false church.

Satan, in the form of a serpent, is talking to Eve about God’s commandment concerning the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As we know, God had commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of this fruit saying, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Satan challenges the Word of God, and in doing so, makes five very revealing statements about the character of all false religions. Speaking to Eve, Satan says,

1) “Yea hath God said?” (“Did God really say?” Denying the inerrancy of God’s Word by questioning and casting doubt.)

2) “Ye shall not surely die, (There is no death and/or no hell.)

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,

3) “Your eyes shall be opened, (Illumination through continuing revelation, mystic experience, or degrees of initiation.)

4) “And ye shall be as gods, (Man can be a god.)

5) “Knowing good from evil.” (Man can decide for himself what is right and what is wrong.)

All false religions will contain to some degree some or all of these five propositions. Some religions, like Mormonism, have all five. I will cover Mormonism some day in the future, God willing, since Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States, and is a Mormon. Mormonism claims to be a form of Christianity, so it behooves us as Christians to know something of what Mormonism teaches, for Scripture tells us to prove all things.

Now, there are many false religions out there: so many that we as Christians do not have time to study them all, for it seems that new religions and belief systems are popping up almost daily. It is more profitable, therefore, to examine those that are the greatest threat to the Christian church, for the very reasons we mentioned earlier: because they appear to be Christian, but are not: for they espouse doctrines of devils.

One religious movement definitely deserves our attention, because it is gobbling up whole churches and bringing them under the influence of Rome. That religious movement is called the Charismatic Movement.

Charismatic in this sense does not mean charming and full of charisma. Charismatic is derived from the Greek word, charismata, and has to do with the works of the Holy Spirit. The Charismatic Movement was started by the Roman Catholic church as part of the Ecumenical Movement, which seeks to unite all the religions of the world under the Catholic Church with the pope as the head.

The better I understand the Ecumenical Movement, the more I realize that virtually every church I have attended throughout my life was in some way ecumenical. Until I got saved, ecumenism defined my “Christian” experience. This is how pervasive and dangerous this movement is.

The Ecumenical Movement seeks to unite diverse religions on the basis of religious experience rather than doctrine, because doctrinal issues are normally what distinguishes and separates religions. Doctrine, therefore is considered “divisive.” Ecumenism attempts to circumvent doctrinal issues and unite all religions on issues that are considered less divisive and contentious.

Enter the Charismatic Movement. The Charismatic Movement focuses on the work of the Holy Spirit, in particular the speaking of tongues and healing. Every Charismatic church that I have ever visited placed great emphasis on speaking in tongues and healing through the laying on of hands.

Charismatic churches are very deceptive because in many ways they appear to be Christian and to assert most of the doctrines of Biblical Christianity. But, on fundamental, doctrinal issues, a Charismatic church will disagree with Biblical Christianity. It is important, therefore, to remember a few crucial items when evaluating a church’s doctrine in order to determine whether that church is in fact a Charismatic church.

1) Remember that the Charismatic Movement is not of Jesus Christ; any doctrine not of Jesus is of the devil and will therefore reflect one or all of Satan’s doctrines outlined in Genesis 3 above. Satan hates the Bible, so one doctrine that a Charismatic church will certainly attack is the inerrancy of Scripture.

2) If it is true that the Charismatic Movement is part of an effort to unite all religions and bring them under the headship of the Vatican, then the doctrines and/or practices of a Charismatic church should in some way somehow reflect this goal.

3) Discernment is of the Holy Spirit. One should pray for discernment when evaluating a church’s doctrine, desiring to hear the truth rather than what one wants.

We will examine the Statement of Faith of an actual church to show you how deceptive they can be and to show, based on the above criteria, how to tell whether a church is charismatic. I will not identify the church, because there are so many false churches out there, that it could easily become a full time job.

It is more fruitful to reveal doctrinal errors that one can recognize and use as a template. We will examine each statement one by one, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, and in do doing, also demonstrate how Satan often mixes truth with error to make his errant teachings more palatable. We should remember that God says no lie is of the truth. If it is partially wrong it is completely wrong.

STATEMENT OF FAITH OF A CHARISMATIC CHURCH [numbering mine.]

“We Believe; [sic]

1. “That the Scriptures of the Holy Bible, are the Holy Word of Almighty God, and are free from error.”

This statement very cleverly declares that this church does not believe the Bible is the Word of God. The first part of the sentence, “the Scriptures of the Holy Bible are the Holy Word of Almighty God,” reveals a grammatical as well as doctrinal sleight of hand at work. Note that Scriptures is the subject, not the Holy Bible. Holy Bible is actually the object of a prepositional phrase beginning with the preposition “of.” If one were to take out the prepositional phrase, the sentence would read, “The Scriptures are the Holy Word of Almighty God.” As the word “Scriptures” is often used to refer to the Word of God—the Bible—this would be fine. As the sentence is written, however, the Scriptures are clearly being distinguished from the Holy Bible. The reason why this was done will become clear in a moment.

The next part of the sentence, the predicate, reads, “are the Holy Word of Almighty God.” Again this is referring to the Scriptures, not the Bible, because since the Bible is part of a prepositional phrase, it cannot be modified by the predicate. In other words, the verb “are” refers to the subject of the verb “Scriptures,” not the object of the preposition “Bible.” If they had wanted to say “the Bible is the Word of Almighty God,” they could easily have done so, as I just have. They did not, however, because this is not what they believe. They believe “the Scriptures of the Holy Bible” (or the Scriptures on which the Bible is based) are the Word of God, not the Bible itself.

The last part of the sentence, “and are free from error,” again refers to “Scriptures” because as we just saw, “the Holy Bible” is part of a prepositional phrase. In other words, the sentence is stating that the Scriptures are free from error, not the Holy Bible. Again, if the author had wanted to say that the Bible is free from error, the sentence should simply say, “The Bible is the Holy Word of Almighty God, and is free from error” or “The Scriptures are the Holy Word of Almighty God, and are free from error.” They did not do this because this is not what they believe.

I have never heard anyone refer to the Bible as “the Scriptures of the Holy Bible.” To understand what has been done here, imagine if I were to say, “I believe that the words of this book are true,” rather than saying “I believe that the book is true.” Any intelligent person would assume that I do not agree that the entire book is true. Why? Because I made a distinction between the words and the book.

By distinguishing the Scriptures from the Holy Bible, they are implying that the two are separate. To understand why they would make such a distinction, it is important to understand that those who deny the Word of God contend that what we have today are not the inspired, original words of God. They say that our modern bibles are full of errors, and that men injected their own thoughts for the thoughts of God.

Scriptures, therefore, refers to the original writings on which our present Bible is based. The originals were written on papyrus, which only lasts a few years, and no longer exist. Our present Bible, the Authorized King James, is based on copies of the originals that were faithfully reproduced, preserved, and handed down over hundreds of years.

Some, however, believe that the King James, as well as the many other bible versions, are full of errors, but were all based on various inspired manuscripts, and thus contain “some truth.” They believe, therefore, that all of the bible versions are necessary in order to come to some semblance of what God actually said. Hank Hannagram is one highly-regarded theologian who espouses this belief.

So, in a very clever fashion, this church is actually saying that the original inspired writings were “error-free,” but that the bibles we have now are not. This does not agree with Scripture, which says, “All scripture is given by inspiration from God” (2 Timothy 3:16). “All scripture” means “every word” in the Bible. It means that the Bible is true from cover to cover. This church (as well as others) uses the word “scripture” to refer only to the original writings and make the contention that only they were inspired of God and free of errors. They use this verse to justify their errant belief.

Let us look at their next statement:

2. “We consider the Holy Bible our final and absolute Authority, above and beyond all other authorities on earth.”

This statement is really saying that all bible versions are equally valid, and that there is no one bible version that is the actual Word of God. Remember, that they have made a grammatical (but not accidental) distinction between the Scriptures–which they take to mean the original manuscripts on which the Bible is based–and the Holy Bible.

Remember that through this distinction they implied that only the original manuscripts are the Word of God and are thus error-free–not the Bible. In that none of the bible versions, according to them, are the Word of God and error-free, then none is completely reliable. But since they believe that all bible versions are based on the “Scriptures” (by which they mean the original writings), then all bible versions contain some truth, and thus are all valid. Hank Hannagram himself has said this very thing.

To check if what I have just revealed to you is true, and if a church believes that we have the Word of God in this present day, ask the pastor which bible version is the word of God. He will either say all of them are, or none of them are.

Now, we know that all of them cannot be, because none of them agree: some of them omit verses, while others add verses. God is not the author of confusion. We also know that it is not possible that none of them is the Word of God, because Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mathew 24:35). To say that we no longer have the word of God is to call Jesus Christ a liar. No true Christian would do this.

As I said in the beginning, Satan denies God’s word by questioning if we really have His words. (“Yea, hath God said?”).

Click here for Part 2 of this essay.

The Still Man

Comments

The Charismatic Movement — No Comments

Lisa on August 30, 2011 at 9:15 am said:

While I have seen Charismatic Roman Catholics, many Charismatic movements have arisen through protestant churches that have not accepted non-Biblical Catholic doctrines. There are many types of charismatic church congregations (I have been a Christian for over 20 years and have seen much variety). There have been errors that have been out grown through the maturity of the movement and are no longer in practice in many churches such as the prosperity doctrine (“blab it and grab it”) and that you must speak in tongues as a sign that you are saved (which are both false). Certainly all their statements of faith are Not identical.

When you quibble about the wording of #1 in your article, I just see that they are perhaps saying the chapter and verse markings in the Bible are not inspired and this is not a contested thing. The scriptures – all scriptures in the Bible, are without error certainly. The aim of the charismatic movement, to me, is to use Jesus as the example – Jesus showed that intimacy with God and healing is important. He also promised the Holy Spirit would come to teach and comfort – a great resource for us. The truth is, no church is perfect, we are all learning and gaining understanding.

Let’s fight the right battles the right way – not by picking apart phrases looking for error, but pressing on into our calling. I don’t hold that the King James is the only correct version without error, though I think it’s probably the best English version. You have an understanding about language don’t you, and it’s limits? I read different versions side by side to study nuances (that don’t contradict) – nuances I would miss otherwise. To me, the original language is probably the best. The Word will accomplish what it is meant to accomplish, we only know in part, it’s all we can know, and we are hopefully growing in understanding, but more in our love for God, and trust.

The Charismatic movement grows from the motivation of hunger to reach others who are in so much darkness in a more powerful way. Any church and any single person gets off track here and there, but please don’t provoke useless division (especially) – since there are priorities in scripture (some churches are indeed way off in the identity of Jesus and mankind and this should be taught). Read Revelation – the letters edifying the 7 churches – all were considered churches belonging to God, though flawed. They were appreciated for what they did do right as well as corrected.

I am against the ecumenical movement, but to me the Charismatic movement is not a part of that at all, as far as my 20 years background goes, maybe some churches, but not any of the ones I know of or have been a part of. To me, those are ones who also tend to rely more on the idea of billions of years of creation, which I don’t endorse, and also ones that are anti-miracles which is of course the opposite of what the Charismatic movement is about.

Reply ↓
- The Still Man on August 30, 2011 at 12:49 pm said:
  
  Thank you, for your comment, Lisa, and thank you for the loving way in which you presented your argument and your disagreement with my position on a very sensitive, but important, topic. The Body of Christ could benefit from your charitable example. Good intentions notwithstanding, dear sister, you are uninformed about the nature of the Charismatic movement. Perhaps the best way to inform you would be to take your comments point by point.
  
  To begin, you are correct when you say, “many Charismatic movements have arisen through [P]rotestant churches.” As you know from my essay, I hold that the goal of the Charismatic movement is to unite all religions (specifically Protestant Christianity) on something they can all agree on, since doctrinally they will always disagree. Within Christianity, that something is the works of the Holy Spirit; hence the name, Charismatic. The Charismatic movement can best be seen in the Protestant Church, because it is this church that Satan wants to destroy.
  
  You are mistaken, however, in your belief that errors such as salvation with the evidence of speaking in tongues “have been outgrown through the maturity of the movement and are no longer in practice.” This practice is in place at this very minute, and in today’s atmosphere of “oneness,” is gaining popularity with a people who no longer believe that the Christian church should separate itself from the world. Knowing this is not dependent on how many years you have been a Christian (praise God for blessing you 20 years in the faith), but on how sensitive you are to the leading of the Holy Spirit, from Whom comes discernment.
  
  At this moment, I do not have a church home, because, with one exception, every church that I have visited in my hometown since returning to America three and a half years ago has been charismatic—and the one exception was still ecumenical. How do I know? Because when I hear a teaching that is not Biblical, I talk to the pastor about it, to know if he is doing it out of ignorance or if he has an agenda. Not one pastor I have talked to has been able to defend a false teaching with Scripture. And because they never concede that their teachings are unscriptural and never defend them with Scripture—unless they wrench It out of context—I conclude that they are purposely teaching it. Let me give you a couple of examples.
  
  At one church I visited, the pastor constantly talked about “the Holy Ghost” so much that it seemed that he was subordinating Jesus to Him. When he went so far as to say that a person is not saved unless he demonstrates his salvation through the speaking of tongues, I confronted him. When we went to Scripture, I noticed that every passage he referenced referred only to the Holy Ghost, while the ones I used referred to both the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit. I told him that his argument seemed to suggest that the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit were two different persons, to which he replied, “They are!” When I asked him what was the difference between the two he replied, “More power, that’s all; just more power.” Incredible, but true.
  
  A few months ago, I answered a church advertisement for an associate pastor. I sent the senior pastor my resume and he sent me an email asking me to go to his website and that, if I agreed to his Statement of Faith and his “Supplementary Agreement,” contingent on the interview, I looked pretty good for the job. I went to his website and upon reading the Statement of Faith, I understood that this church was Charismatic. But I gave him the benefit of a doubt, and examined the “Supplementary Agreement,” which included a statement to this effect: “The applicant must agree that salvation is evidenced by the speaking of tongues. Scripture references can be given.” When I wrote the pastor back and gave him the Scripture verses that refute this errant belief, he came back with, “We should have a teachable spirit” and even said that speaking in tongues is not essential to salvation, even though the “Supplementary Agreement” says it was.
  
  This is why one must “quibble” about wording. Charismatic churches have realized that discerning Christians know speaking in tongues as an evidence of salvation is unscriptural, so they mask it or delete it altogether, such that one would never know unless one were to press the pastor about it. I always do. Believe me: the devil is always in the details.
  
  The aim of the Charismatic movement is not, as you say, “to use Jesus as the example.” It is to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit as the example, the Greek term for which is charismata. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would remind us of everything He said (John 14:26), not center the Christian faith around the Spirit’s works, which is what the Charismatic movement does. The Charismatic movement is works centered—not faith centered. And works cannot save us (Romans 3:19, 4:4-5). Remember, our works should be a sign of our faith, not a requirement for our salvation, the only requirement for which is faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25).
  
  Moreover, Jesus Christ is not to be used merely as an example. Jesus is the Way (John 14:6), not an example of the way. That would be a map. There are a plethora of unbelievers who say they are Christians simply because they use Jesus Christ as an example. Oprah Winfrey is one of those people, yet she says God is merely a “force” and not a person. This is totally unscriptural.
  
  Your reading different bible verses “side by side” suggests that you don’t think that any one version is the correct one. This is also a belief of charismatics, who believe that only the “original writings” were error-free. This is saying that we don’t have what Jesus actually said anymore, which is calling Jesus Christ a liar, for He said that His words would never pass away (Luke 21:33). This is also calling the Holy Spirit a liar, for He wrote the Bible. This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—the only unpardonable sin. This is the sin of the Charismatic movement. And all that are in this system will perish unless they leave it and repent of it.
  
  So, although you believe me to quibble over semantics, I am zealous for the word of God, as all Christians should be; for Scripture says that we should be ready to avenge all disobedience, when our obedience is fulfilled (2 Corinthians 10:6).
  
  My spirit tells me that, by your words, sister, you are wanting for discernment: for if you believe the Charismatic Movement is of Jesus, you are terribly deceived, and it could cost you your soul. I’ll be praying for you, because time is short. I would advise you to research the Charismatic movement under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that you are not deceived into the Pit. I’ll be praying for you.
  
  I’m going to post this reply, Lisa, because it may help someone else who is in the same situation.
  
  The Still Man
  
  Reply ↓
  - Lisa on August 31, 2011 at 6:27 pm said:
    
    Of course I don’t endorse everything every person and church that labels themselves “charismatic” says and does. I appreciate the Charismatic movement for bringing out Biblical ideas and actions that were once neglected and they are still needed (this is the purpose of any movement). It has limits like anything else. I follow Jesus (of course He is much more than merely an example, He is God our Savior) – all of us have a long, long way to go! I’m not going to demonize the movement because it has certainly helped when used the right way (when used in context of all else that is important and used in humility, not greed). It has been used wrongly like anything human beings get a hold of and basically ruin (the enemy loves this of course).
    
    I don’t really totally get what you mean by “people who no longer believe that the Christian church should separate itself from the world” since to me, it’s the opposite of what I have seen in much of the Charismatic movement. Most of the Christians I have seen who describe themselves as charismatic tend to focus on being separate from the world. They stress putting on the whole armor of God, for example.
    
    I could also still go on and on explaining why I am not King James Version only. There are many many languages – all use different words (due to what happened at the Tower of Babel). The Word of God existed way before the King James Bible and even the KJ has been revised. It’s the power and meaning that counts – God’s Word is not an alphabet, not syllables, not exact words, and not exact phrases (though God does use these in specific ways to show us, to minister to us). Actually, Jesus is the Word. That said, there are some translations I’m not always pleased with such as the Message Bible – it looses some depth of meaning – too shallow sometimes. However, it can be shown that the NIV and a few others are just as good in accuracy and can bring out understanding to readers in non-contradicting ways.
    
    Finally, there are no scriptures in the Bible that say, “Only the King James version is the Word of God.”
    
    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
    
    Reply ↓
    - The Still Man on August 31, 2011 at 10:56 pm said:
      
      Lisa, I believe that the King James Version is the Word of God. I choose to believe that. Jesus said that His words would not pass away. I believe that Jesus cannot lie, because He is God Almighty. Therefore, all bibles cannot be His words no more than all the women in the world can be my mother. If all the bible versions said exactly the same thing, I would believe they all contained the words of God. But because they all say something different, I cannot believe this.
      
      For example, Acts 8:37 contains the only recorded confession of Jesus Christ as Lord before baptism in the Bible. This verse is important because it agrees with Romans 10:9-10 which says that repentance, belief, and confession are necessary for salvation–not baptism. Baptism, according to the King James, comes after salvation. Acts 8:37 is missing entirely from the NIV as well as other versions. Now in a world where there is a such thing as right and wrong (which seems to no longer apply to planet earth), either the King James added something to God’s word, or the NIV took something out. Because I choose to believe that the King James is the Word of God, I must believe that the NIV took something out. I won’t really know until Jesus comes. I am willing to take that chance, however, because, religious beliefs aside, a rational person knows that there must always be a choice, and I have made mine. Everyone cannot be right.
      
      So, with regard to bible versions, I can’t argue with your decision of what to believe, Lisa. All I can do is pray that you will make the right decision, because, ultimately, the disposition of your eternal soul is directly related to what you believe God actually said; and what you believe He actually said will affect what you believe He wants you to do, including whether He wants you in a charismatic church.
      
      Reply ↓

The Gospel Light And Truth Crusade

Holding fast the faithful Word (Titus 1:9)

Comments

The Charismatic Movement — No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply