This is one reason why Singapore mainstream Charismatism and the New Apostolic 'Reformation' deserves nothing but ridicule. Look at this video for yourself:
With deluded sheeple and their false prophets and apostles leading them, Christianity has become a mockery in the eyes of unbelievers. Cindy Jacobs is a false prophetess who should rightfully (in a biblical church setting) be excommunicated for blatent heresy. Here in Singapore, almost all charismatic churches are Third wave (or Word-faith) who support such nonsense, so pardon me if I do not think highly of Charismatics in Singapore.
And as this commentor has said, the chapter and verse division in the Bible are NOT inspired by God (they were created sometime during the Reformation) so this make the false prophecy even more moronic and blasphemous.
10 comments:
This video is pretty amusing, I have to say. I'm a charismatic and I take it with a pinch of salt. I won't say much about it. I don't think what they say is true, but I shall leave them to believe what they want. The good thing is that they're praying for people.
So please don't think all charismatics (in Singapore or abroad) would support this :)
Cheers!
Jonathan,
no, I do not think that all Charismatics would support this. Nevertheless, probably quite a lot of them would. After all, I was a former Charismatic and have participated in Charismatic events organized by the 'Love Singapore movement' before and heard the false prophecies which we were told to claim for Singapore, which incidentally didn't come true. 4-5 years in the wilderness of charismania no-go land is enough for me to know that such nonsense is constantly being accepted by the sheeple without discernment, and makes a mockery of our faith.
And I do not think that the mere action of praying for people is a good thing. Prayer is not effectual in and of itself; only right prayer to God is good, not prayer to other gods. And sad to say, the mess that is charismania oftentime teaches another god and another gospel (ie Kenneth Hagin and all the clowns at TBN, the so-called 'Full Gospel' and 'Five-fold' ministry, 'prayer warfare/ walk' etc.) Now, this is not to say that all people who identify themselves as Charismatics are like that, but enough of them are to taint the entire movement, not to mention that a significant proportion of Charismatics are Romanists too.
With regards to the video, the main problem is that it demeans God and His Word, and makes Him out to be a mockery. If you can live with that, then I will have nothing much to say to you.
Yes - this is at least embarrassing if not angering. However, as already pointed out, not every Charismatic approves of this.
I'm "third wave" and I hate this sort of thing. The few third wave friends I've discussed this with share the same view.
I cannot speak to the percentage but more than a couple of Charismatics/Third Wavers find this to be bad.
I try (and encourage others) to critique specifics such as this and resist categorizing a group of people (in this case Charismatics). I think you are correct in your analysis of this group but this group is not representative of Charismatics or Third Wavers.
I have friends that react negatively to all thing Calvinist because they have experience with some that are legalistic. And certainly our (Calvinists) high standard for Scripture can lead to that (just the opposite of Charismatics). These friends are correct in their concern but wrong to presume every time they see legalism it is due to Reformed Theology.
Hello Rick,
I don't know what is your definition for 'Third Wave', so maybe we can clarify things a bit here. I define "Third Wave" as those who believe in five-fold ministry, with a key important distinctive being the continuation of the office of Apostles in the modern-day church, in addition to the other distinctives of Charismatism of course. So do you believe that there are modern-day apostles today?
Maybe this would help things- I'll give you my take on the distinctive positions of the groups as I have classified them here:
Pentecostalism: Believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit for the body of Christ
Charismatism: Pentecostalism with continuation of the office of prophets. Also mostly accompanied with a loss in discernment and dumbing down of doctrine, with increased ecumenism, or at best toleration of error.
Third-Wave/Neo-Apostolism:
Charismatism with a strong emphasis on normative divine healing for today, and more importantly, the continuation of the office of Apostles. Mostly under the direct or indirect leadership of the NAR and her allies. Also highly Dominionistic.
I think Vineyard may be a unique case, so perhaps you may want to ask if Vineyard are not considered, are they any other Christians who would describe themselves as Third-Wave and would have a problem with this?
As much as I dislike MacArthur's Charismatic Chaos, I'll use that as a general source that we both might accept.
I see the Pentecostal distinctive as "baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues". Pentecostals would say you are not "baptized" if you didn't speak in tongues at that event. After that, the Holy Spirit baptized person receives one or more of the 1 Co 12 gifts. Pentecostals, although this is probably not official, also tend to be Arminian.
Charismatics differ from Pentecostals in their attitude towards doctrine. They tend to shun teaching on separation and encourage those who have ‘received the baptism’ to remain in their churches and denominations.
Charismatics believe in the doctrine of tongues but do not see this as "the" evidence of baptism in the Spirit. They also are not as focused on the event of baptism in the Holy Spirit and lean more than the Pentecostal to on-going filling of the Spirit. But, to be clear, it starts with that baptism event.
Third Wave is harder to classify. The term was coined by Wagner and he has "evolved" (or devolved depending on your point of view) over time. So depending on where you pick up with him you may have a different definition.
MacArthur would say the Vineyard is the premiere example of Third Wavers. Again, this is very much a function of where you jump into the picture at. He wrote this in the late '80s and early '90s.
Third Wavers rarely think about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We generally think that happens when one becomes a believer and part of the Church (universal). Some Third Wavers do not think that but they are a minority.
Third Wavers are continuationists like their Pentecostal and Charismatic friends but don't focus on the possessing of a gift -they think all gifts are available as God wills and it's more about the Kingdom of God than some baptism in the Spirit. They are bothered by Word of Faith, etc..
When speaking they tend to say "I think God might be saying ..." rather than "Thus saith the Lord ..."
MacArthur would say this is deceitful, false humility, etc. and worse than the other groups. We would say that it is a fundamental theological difference.
Third Wavers believe in the 5-fold (or 4 depending on how you count) ministry but the early ones put little emphasis on that while the later ones seem to focus only on that. The Apostle tends to be the largest point of contention. Early Third Wavers would say, sure there are men with giftings similar to the Apostles who identify, develop, release elders thereby planting churches, etc. but since they have no revelation of new Scripture, at best we could define them as apostles without the capital "A". We lack a word for these guys so we call them apostles but extreme care must be taken.
The later Third Wavers seem very focused on actively establishing the 5-fold ministry especially prophet and "A"postle.
Some early and many later Third Wavers are also very big on spiritual warfare in the strategic sense. That is also driven by Wagner. While some are big on that, others (me) are very much against it. I'd say more are like me than the other way around but I do not know.
Charismatics can hold to the doctrine of election ... Third Wavers very often do.
Either way - I don't think there is anything to the I-35 thing. :-)
Hello Rick,
thanks for the informative summary. That said, I don't think I will agree with your saying that Charismatics do not believe that the speaking in tongues is THE evidence for baptism in the Spirit. Perhaps the ones I have met are the minority, but certainly, at least some of them do.
As for Third-Wave, I see that there is a lot of history involved with the term. Yet, given all that you have said, I still would like to know why you think that the term Third-Wave can be used to describe movements like Vineyard (and MacArthur is not the authority on defining who's Third Wave and who's not, which I am sure you would agree with me on). Certainly, the NAR and her allies seem to claim a monopoly on the term, by claiming their movement is THE Third-wave of the Holy Spirit's outpouring. And my article was written assuming that their claim was correct. (It most certainly seems to be the case in Singapore, where we have quite a few resident Apostles (totally disproportionate for our size I may add)). That beind the case, either they are wrong, or you are wrong in claiming the term Third Wave for yourself. So which should it be?
Some of my experience is like yours regarding Charismatics but that's the problem with these labels isn't it. It's not like they are a church or a denomination with a single statement of faith; there's just our experiences with them, etc..
I just remember growing up around Charismatics being proud they weren't Pentecostals because they didn't make (although they prefer) you speak in tongues at "the baptism". But yes, I have run into others that pushed tongues.
I then remember being around Third Wavers who were proud because we didn't claim healing "by His stripes" and ignore the reality of an illness, etc..
NAR from where I sit is a fringe group.
So perhaps we need to agree to someone's definition, e.g., wikipedia; or back to my original contention - focus on the specific and that is that what this video promotes is not good regardless of the flavor of the persons behind it.
:-)
You got a point. However, what makes me think that NAR has more legitimacy to the term 'Third-Wave' is because they seek to continue on in this 'new third wave of the Spirit' Calling yourself Third Wave would mean that you must recognize the legitimacy of the first (Pentecostalism) and the second (Charismatism) wave. So do you think that movements like Vineyard is a continuation of the first two waves?
OK, Rick, I have make some modifications just to make the statements clearer. Hope this would be fine.
No problem. Thanks.
The Vineyard would not claim to be a 'continuation' of either the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. We always said we want the "power of the pentecostal and the theology of the evangelical". The quintessential book to describe that is The Quest for the Radical Middle. We think of ourselves as evangelicals but we think the Bible describes more.
We believe in the on-going filling of the Holy Spirit and the continuation of His gifts but we come at it from the perspective of the working of the King (i.e., the Kingdom of God) rather than a person possessing a gift and exercising it at will (or based on some faith formula).
Many of us hold to Reformed Theology (the solas) and until recently Complimentarianism was the norm.
Post a Comment