Charismatic Movement's Recent "Prophetic Standards" Statement

[hLuke]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ,

I'm sure many of you on this forum are aware of the recent debacles within the charismatic movement, specifically relating to false prophecies about the recent presidential election. Many self-professing prophets shamelessly prophesied in the name of our Lord that Trump would win the election.
He did not, and because of the major embarrassment this brought to the charismatic movement and, frankly also, disgracing the image of Evangelical Western Christianity (in addition to years of falsehood in the intermingling of health, wealth, and prosperity teachings into the pure gospel), leading figures in the movement have compiled a document defining standards to which a prophet is held accountable, is deemed eligible for ministry, is to repent for false teachings, and much more. I find it interesting to see generally reliable reformed, (semi reformed perhaps), theologians such as Wayne Grudem in the signatory.

Phil Johnson, Jim Osman, and Justin Peter's provide a very helpful discussion about this issue Here

The prophetic standards statment

 

[Herald]

The office of Prophet in the Charismatic/Pentecostal schema is established on a faulty foundation. With the foundation being faulty, how can what proceeds out of the Prophet's mouth not be likewise? The statement you linked to clearly states that the Prophet receives special revelation from God. Nothing in the linked statement addresses the root cause of wild and speculative prophecies as in Trump winning the last general election. Having come out of the Charismatic movement I can state confidently that the entire movement points inward towards the individual. If I received a special revelation from God, who are you to doubt me? It basically comes down to that.

 

[hLuke]

Having come out of the Charismatic movement I can state confidently that the entire movement is points inward towards the individual. If I received a special revelation from God, who are you to doubt me? It basically comes down to that.

Yeah. You're spot on. In terms of pointing to individuals, I think also ministries named after a person is a telltale sign of falsity. You know, 'Prophet Isaiah Ministries'...
I was also involved in the charismatic movement. The experiences are quite compelling. For example, for a time I actually had dreams, visions, and heard voices. But these were deceptive and confusing to the point where I'd question my sanity.

 

[Andres]

Charismania and the false prophets that claim the name of Christ are wolves. May the Lord be pleased to grant them repentance or may His just judgment fall on them. As for Grudem, advocating for continuationism is a slippery slope. I would never recommend Grudem due to his view on this and his advocating for these wolves.

 

[lynnie]

I haven't had time to read it, heading out to get a slow leak tire fixed.

But here we go again. Another, yes another, repost of a link to Vern Poythress and the Reformed history of such things. Scroll down to the history. It includes the beloved Sam Rutherford, Flavel, Mather, and others. Were they wolves? Rutherford? He helped frame the confession.

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

While I am disgusted with the modern charismatic movement, I know that the "extraordinary workings" of the holy spirit in an Agabus sort of way are part of the Reformed heritage I cherish, and were also active in Spurgeon's life. Plus I've seen them happen in modern times repeatedly. It is tragic that so many Reformed dump everything entirely, while trying to dump error.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I am personally very convinced that the natural flow and reading of the Bible would point to signs, wonders, and all spiritual gifts being alive in every age of the Church.

I've prayed and asked for such things, and have desired to see them demonstrated by others, to no avail.

I would also add that sadly the majority of charismatics that I have known in my life have had glaring sin issues in their lives. If the primary work of the Holy Spirit is to conform us to the image of Jesus and lead us in holiness, why is there so much sin while these people are claiming incredible spiritual gifts? It seems like a lot of them are missing the most important aspect of the Spirit's work.

I don't mean to sound negative or pessimistic, but I must accept the truth in my experience, no matter where that leads. I would totally be all for the charismatic gifts today if I was convinced they were real, but in my pursuit of them I have seen the opposite.

 

[KMK]

LBC 26:8

"A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons."

Regardless of their views on the possibility of miraculous gifts, the Reformers did not believe there was an office of Apostle or Prophet.

 

[Jack K]

Though I can't agree with many of the charismatic assertions in the statement, it still seems like a helpful corrective that generally moves things in a better direction. It (1) reminds ministers to be under the authority of Scripture, (2) admonishes them not to think of themselves more highly than they ought, and (3) condemns those who would risk deceiving the flock by speaking/acting on their own and insisting the flock follow them while rejecting the council of other ministers. Those are all corrections that much of the charismatic world needs to hear.

More importantly for us, they are actually things some Reformed-minded ministers and believers need to hear as well—especially in recent years. We who are Reformed may not have used charismatic methods and arguments, but some of us have responded to the heightened political or pandemic situations with similar hastiness or carelessness. Some have made bold assertions or accepted certain theories as fact without careful study of Scripture or without allowing for the Bible's full counsel to be taken into consideration. Some have pitched their views as a blueprint all believers must accept or else be considered enemies of Christ. Some have rejected the counsel and correction of other ministers and have insisted their flock follow them and what they have gleaned not so much from the Bible but from the internet.

In short, the upheaval of recent years has caused some of us to bypass the careful and relentlessly scriptural deliberation the Reformed world has generally demanded, and instead we have been quick to embrace whatever version of "truth" seems like it might lead in a political direction we like better. Though this may feel necessary at the time, it is not likely to end well. Rather than condemn the charismatics for how they have done this, we might gain more benefit from examining ourselves and making sure we are not doing some of the same.

 

[Timmay]

I thought this was a well balanced document actually that corrects many errors of charismatic leaders.

But for the life of me I can’t conceive of two streams of inspiration, one of which can be given to a person, but that person sometimes be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I haven't had time to read it, heading out to get a slow leak tire fixed.

But here we go again. Another, yes another, repost of a link to Vern Poythress and the Reformed history of such things. Scroll down to the history. It includes the beloved Sam Rutherford, Flavel, Mather, and others. Were they wolves? Rutherford? He helped frame the confession.

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

While I am disgusted with the modern charismatic movement, I know that the "extraordinary workings" of the holy spirit in an Agabus sort of way are part of the Reformed heritage I cherish, and were also active in Spurgeon's life. Plus I've seen them happen in modern times repeatedly. It is tragic that so many Reformed dump everything entirely, while trying to dump error.

Hey Lynnie. What are Frame and Poythress even talking about?

"Modern visions, auditions, and “prophecies” are not inspired, because the canon of the Bible is complete. However, these modern visions and auditions may be analogous to the Book of Revelation, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. Like modern preaching, modern intuitive speech has authority only insofar as it bases itself on the final infallible divine authority of Scripture.

"A key distinction here is the distinction between rationally explicit processes, such as those involved when Luke wrote his Gospel, and intuitive processes, such as those involved with the Book of Revelation. One type of process is not inherently more “spiritual” than the other. Both the Gospel of Luke and Revelation were inspired."

Aren't these views and expressions just made-up gobbledy-gook? For instance they say that John, when he wrote Revelation, did so by an "intuitive process." The Bible says that John wrote what he saw and heard.

 

[RamistThomist]

"A key distinction here is the distinction between rationally explicit processes, such as those involved when Luke wrote his Gospel, and intuitive processes, such as those involved with the Book of Revelation. One type of process is not inherently more “spiritual” than the other. Both the Gospel of Luke and Revelation were inspired."

Aren't these views and expressions just made-up gobbledy-gook? For instance they say that John, when he wrote Revelation, did so by an "intuitive process." The Bible says that John wrote what he saw and heard.

What they are getting at is that Luke/Acts is inspired but Luke admits he did historical research. John wrote what he saw and heard, but I think the term "intuitively" is operating like this:

Consider: did John physically go to heaven in Rev. 4:1? Did his body leave earth? I suspect most people will say he remained on earth. If so, then he saw these in a mental vision. Poythress is operating on the older use of intuition, which means something like non-inferential, immediate mental knowledge.

The point is that both can be inspired without committing to a dictation theory or ghost-writing.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

What they are getting at is that Luke/Acts is inspired but Luke admits he did historical research. John wrote what he saw and heard, but I think the term "intuitively" is operating like this:

Consider: did John physically go to heaven in Rev. 4:1? Did his body leave earth? I suspect most people will say he remained on earth. If so, then he saw these in a mental vision. Poythress is operating on the older use of intuition, which means something like non-inferential, immediate mental knowledge.

The point is that both can be inspired without committing to a dictation theory or ghost-writing.

Thanks, Jacob. I can't keep up a conversation about some ideas (non-inferential, immediate mental knowledge). I think we have to get our doctrine of cessation and continuation from the Bible, using biblical data and biblical terminology. Otherwise we veer close to simply babbling, I fear.

All the prophets in the Bible claimed to receive prophetic revelation directly from the Holy Spirit, including Agabus. Any modern claim to revealed knowledge from God that would be otherwise unknowable would by its nature have to be viewed as directly inspired; can you show from Scripture where that statement errs?

I understand that we have these stories from Reformation times of men saying things that seem to be predictive prophecy; but I think the Reformed view is to place those things in the category of extraordinary Providence in extraordinary times. (Did those men themselves believe that they were NT prophets, or were prophesying?) In addition, I'll note their station and calling (ministers of the gospel), and again, the extraordinary and revolutionary times of the church they were in.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks, Jacob. I can't keep up a conversation about some ideas (non-inferential, immediate mental knowledge). I think we have to get our doctrine of cessation and continuation from the Bible, using biblical data and biblical terminology. Otherwise we veer close to simply babbling, I fear.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with getting our ideas from the Bible. My point was simply to clarify what "intuition" means and why the bible doesn't have a one-size-fits-all mechanism of inspiration.

that would be otherwise unknowable would by its nature have to be viewed as directly inspired;

I'm not 100% sure what this means.

but I think the Reformed view is to place those things in the category of extraordinary Providence in extraordinary times. (Did those men themselves believe that they were NT prophets, or were prophesying?

I don't disagree. It is ad hoc reasoning and somewhat assumes what one is trying to prove, but I don't personally use that line of argumentation any more.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

My point was simply to clarify what "intuition" means and why the bible doesn't have a one-size-fits-all mechanism of inspiration.

Is it an assertion to say that "the bible doesn't have a one-size-fits-all mechanism...".... And is this not the begging the question fallacy?

Seriously, when and from whom did the idea of different mechanisms of inspiration in the Bible originate?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is it an assertion to say that "the bible doesn't have a one-size-fits-all mechanism...".... And is this not the begging the question fallacy?

Seriously, when and from whom did the idea of different mechanisms of inspiration in the Bible originate?

Observation:

To John, "Write what you see and hear."

Luke: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Hmm. Ok. But both men were writing what they saw and heard (or read); the inspiration from God was in what He guided them to record of the information they received, and with what words. Luke could have received his account by means of visions of the historical happenings, but God chose to provide accounts and stories and use him as a historian. It seems to me that there's no different mechanism of inspiration; it's not the varying ways these men and others received their information, but the fact that God inspired them all in the same way, guided them in the same way, to write what they did write. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

 

[RamistThomist]

Luke could have received his account by means of visions of the historical happenings, but God chose to provide accounts and stories and use him as a historian.

That's exactly what I am saying.

It seems to me that there's no different mechanism of inspiration

That's precisely what it is. Luke is inspired in doing historical research. John gets pictures put in his head. One is active. The other is passive. By definition they can't be the same.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

That's exactly what I am saying.


That's precisely what it is. Luke is inspired in doing historical research. John gets pictures put in his head. One is active. The other is passive. By definition they can't be the same.

The idea of inspiration pertains to the writing (or speaking) of the message, no matter how it's received. Luke and John were inspired to write what they wrote; both I would say are active inspiration.
Again, where did the ideas of different mechanisms of inspiration come from? I'm asking it honestly-- where did you learn this, did it come from Poythress and Frame? I'm curious.

The Bible seems to speaks only one way of inspiration. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).

 

[RamistThomist]

The idea of inspiration pertains to the writing (or speaking) of the message, no matter how it's received. Luke and John were inspired to write what they wrote; both I would say are active inspiration.
Again, where did the ideas of different mechanisms of inspiration come from? I'm asking it honestly-- where did you learn this, did it come from Poythress and Frame? I'm curious.

The Bible seems to speaks only one way of inspiration. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).

I am talking about the mode of receiving the revelation. Luke did his own research. That's active. John saw and heard. That's passive.

And Reformed have always pushed back against the dictation theory.

 

[hLuke]

Charismania and the false prophets that claim the name of Christ are wolves. May the Lord be pleased to grant them repentance or may His just judgment fall on them. As for Grudem, advocating for continuationism is a slippery slope. I would never recommend Grudem due to his view on this and his advocating for these wolves.

Amen. Grudem elsewhere says that he is thankful to charismatics because of the revivals they've brought in recent decades. I do think some non-denominational charismatic leaning church's like David Wilkerson's have. But one can be thankful without landing on that 'slippery slope'

 

[hLuke]

I haven't had time to read it, heading out to get a slow leak tire fixed.

But here we go again. Another, yes another, repost of a link to Vern Poythress and the Reformed history of such things. Scroll down to the history. It includes the beloved Sam Rutherford, Flavel, Mather, and others. Were they wolves? Rutherford? He helped frame the confession.

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

While I am disgusted with the modern charismatic movement, I know that the "extraordinary workings" of the holy spirit in an Agabus sort of way are part of the Reformed heritage I cherish, and were also active in Spurgeon's life. Plus I've seen them happen in modern times repeatedly. It is tragic that so many Reformed dump everything entirely, while trying to dump error.

I agree. I've seen real physical healings before. Myself being a testimony of God's healing power. I'll have a look at that link later today.

 

[hLuke]

I don't mean to sound negative or pessimistic, but I must accept the truth in my experience, no matter where that leads. I would totally be all for the charismatic gifts today if I was convinced they were real, but in my pursuit of them I have seen the opposite.

Hey Brother, personal experience can be deceptive. Some charismatics would insist that they're personal experiences are infallible. Not many. And this is where confusion comes in. I agree. I think the extreme side of the movement has really blocked the world from seeing God's power in some areas.

 

[hLuke]

Though I can't agree with many of the charismatic assertions in the statement, it still seems like a helpful corrective that generally moves things in a better direction. It (1) reminds ministers to be under the authority of Scripture, (2) admonishes them not to think of themselves more highly than they ought, and (3) condemns those who would risk deceiving the flock by speaking/acting on their own and insisting the flock follow them while rejecting the council of other ministers. Those are all corrections that much of the charismatic world needs to hear.

More importantly for us, they are actually things some Reformed-minded ministers and believers need to hear as well—especially in recent years. We who are Reformed may not have used charismatic methods and arguments, but some of us have responded to the heightened political or pandemic situations with similar hastiness or carelessness. Some have made bold assertions or accepted certain theories as fact without careful study of Scripture or without allowing for the Bible's full counsel to be taken into consideration. Some have pitched their views as a blueprint all believers must accept or else be considered enemies of Christ. Some have rejected the counsel and correction of other ministers and have insisted their flock follow them and what they have gleaned not so much from the Bible but from the internet.

In short, the upheaval of recent years has caused some of us to bypass the careful and relentlessly scriptural deliberation the Reformed world has generally demanded, and instead we have been quick to embrace whatever version of "truth" seems like it might lead in a political direction we like better. Though this may feel necessary at the time, it is not likely to end well. Rather than condemn the charismatics for how they have done this, we might gain more benefit from examining ourselves and making sure we are not doing some of the same.

Good summary. Self examination is important. Pray for the movement too. We can judge with right judgment but its true that looking inward we may find ourselves deficient. Thanks Jack for this correction.

 

[hLuke]

I thought this was a well balanced document actually that corrects many errors of charismatic leaders.

But for the life of me I can’t conceive of two streams of inspiration, one of which can be given to a person, but that person sometimes be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Scripture on the one hand is infallible and innerant, and... the voice of a mere mortal. So essentially the movement denies the sufficiency of scripture.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I am talking about the mode of receiving the revelation. Luke did his own research. That's active. John saw and heard. That's passive.

And Reformed have always pushed back against the dictation theory.

Not to beat a dead horse. (But I’ll try one more time anyway.) Luke’s work of research was not inspired. It was his writing of it that was inspired.

John’s eyes and ears as he saw and heard were not inspired. It was his writing down of what he saw and heard that was inspired.

I’m probably misunderstanding something about your views on these things. I’m just thankful for the clarity of God’s word.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not to beat a dead horse. (But I’ll try one more time anyway.) Luke’s work of research was not inspired. It was his writing of it that was inspired.

That's a distinction without a difference. If Luke's research wasn't inspired, it's not clear why he went out of his way to tell us about it.

I’m just thankful for the clarity of God’s word.

No one disputes that.

 

[FivePointSpurgeonist]

Charismania and the false prophets that claim the name of Christ are wolves. May the Lord be pleased to grant them repentance or may His just judgment fall on them. As for Grudem, advocating for continuationism is a slippery slope. I would never recommend Grudem due to his view on this and his advocating for these wolves.

Specifically which wolves did he advocate? thanks.

 

[hLuke]

I am talking about the mode of receiving the revelation. Luke did his own research. That's active. John saw and heard. That's passive.

And Reformed have always pushed back against the dictation theory.

By providence, today's daily 'renewing your mind' on Ligonier tackles the issue of divine inspiration. A common misconception (allegedly) is that people think inspiration is where the author would have entered a trance like state and receive a revelation from God in this way. But, contrary to this view, I too noted Johns encounter at Patmos. That seems like a directly inspired trance like revelation from God.

That's a distinction without a difference. If Luke's researcb wasn't inspired, it's not clear why he went out of his way to tell us about it.

I think it's better to see Lukes research as God's providence at work. For if one holds the position that Lukes research was inspired, Caesar Augustus, by the same principle, would have also been inspired when he decreed a nationwide registration causing Mary and Joseph to relocate to Bethelehem to fulfil Micah's prophecy. Since Augustus (like Pharoah) was used by God to fulfill His decree.

I'm probably missing something though, and my argument could be faulty.

Not to beat a dead horse. (But I’ll try one more time anyway.) Luke’s work of research was not inspired. It was his writing of it that was inspired.

John’s eyes and ears as he saw and heard were not inspired. It was his writing down of what he saw and heard that was inspired.

So then it comes down to the definition of divine inspiration. As per the bible this is right. The words recorded are inspired not necessarily the way in which those words were obtained. However would that mean that John's revelations were not inspired? I can see now where both of you differ.

 

[RamistThomist]

By providence, today's daily 'renewing your mind' on Ligonier tackles the issue of divine inspiration. A common misconception (allegedly) is that people think inspiration is where the author would have entered a trance like state and receive a revelation from God in this way. But, contrary to this view, I too noted Johns encounter at Patmos. That seems like a directly inspired trance like revelation from God.

I think it's better to see Lukes research as God's providence at work. For if one holds the position that Lukes research was inspired, Caesar Augustus, by the same principle, would have also been inspired when he decreed a nationwide registration causing Mary and Joseph to relocate to Bethelehem to fulfil Micah's prophecy. Since Augustus (like Pharoah) was used by God to fulfill His decree.

I'm probably missing something though, and my argument could be faulty.


So then it comes down to the definition of divine inspiration. As per the bible this is right. The words recorded are inspired not necessarily the way in which those words were obtained. However would that mean that John's revelations were not inspired? I can see now where both of you differ.

I am talking about the mode of inspiration, not inspiration itself.

 

[hLuke]

Poythress is operating on the older use of intuition, which means something like non-inferential, immediate mental knowledge.

I think I now know what you mean. This experience is like a profound insight or revelation, which by no means inspired, compels someone against their will to act in a certain way. For example, a cessationist Christian becoming utterly convinced for some reason, (perhaps a divine prompting), to cancel their flight. The next day they read the newspaper and to their shock that same flight crashed and nobody survived. Is this an accurate example of such knowledge?

Hence:

"Modern “prophecy” or intuitive speech is analogous to Revelation. Intuitive processes dominate. The general analogy between apostolic gifts and lesser gifts of the present day suggests that rationally explicit processes and intuitive processes can both be used by the Spirit today.

Cessationists argue that New Testament prophecy was inspired and has therefore ceased with the completion of the canon. But there are still noninspired intuitive gifts analogous to prophecy. Therefore, in order not to despise the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists must allow for a place for intuitive gifts in their ecclesiology.

The fact that we have analogy rather than identity means that we must respect certain restraints. Modern intuitive phenomena must be subject to the same restraints that are placed on preaching. Everything must be checked for conformity to Scripture."


...Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind... (Rom 14.5)
The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Rom 14.22-23)