I think we could say that. In the post-Enlightenment world many people have found themselves in the same position. I’ve often heard preachers say that the spiritual world is more real than the world we see. I don’t know if I’d take it that far but I’m willing to say that it’s just as real as the world we see.

Quite honestly, I don’t have any problems believing the account given in this letter. I’ve witnessed similar events among believers and non-believers (more times than I would have liked to).

I don’t really want to join the whole continuationist/cessationist debate because it rarely if ever goes anywhere. I’m happy to just state my opinion and move on. IMO, cessationists don’t have an exegetical/theological leg to stand on, despite the comments above.

But as far as demonic “possession” is concerned, I like what one of your earlier commentators said about “demonized” not indicating “ownership” — I think that is a very valid argument. I see no reason to believe that believers are somehow exempt from spiritual attack.

Thanks for passing along the link.

Well Jesus, to be fair, charismatics should also be judged based on their doctrine, just like you say should be for cessationists. The claims you made against charismatics below are clearly not based on doctrine. You said:

There are also other problems with the charismatic movement. They allow women pastors, they tend to spend more time being “in the spirit” rather than teaching the Word, they have replaced order with disorder, they rely on emotion and spiritualism instead of logic and reason, they ignore the special revelation found in scripture for subjective revelation given to the individual.

Are these based on doctrine?

Steve, sorry the last half of my comment was really directed to Jesus Saenz’s comment, not yours.
Yes, some of the early church fathers said that tongues ceased or were rarely witnessed, but the fact was that they had not totally ceased. They had only decreased in percentage of those who practiced tongues because as the Church grew in numbers, the percentage of those who did not practice tongues also grew in numbers. But the montanists continued the practice of speaking in tongues throughout the centuries and so did Tertullian, personally. He even wrote a book on charismata and ecstatic utterances, however, the book no longer exists. A big reason why the charismata ceased was due to the institutionalization of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the popes actions even put a stop to the underground/cell church practice. This greatly hampered the charismatic church. This is not surprising in light of what is happening even today in authoritarian countries like China. The underground-cell church in countries like China is practicing the charisms like tongues, healing, etc. but the government is trying to put a stop to this through it’s sanctioning of the official state church and a prohibition against the underground church. In approaching it from this perspective, one can see how the charismatic church was systematically stamped upon throughout the centuries by the Roman government.

If you want to be fair, I can be fair too. I can tell you that I have witnessed cessationists who don’t appreciate “being in the word,” are disorderly and over-emotional, exhibit absolutely no reason and logic to what they say, and have no self-control. Now is this fair?

Kevin, for you to even begin to be fair, you need to demonstrate that these flaws in the cessationists are due to their doctrine.

If anybody is offended by the truth of the gospel, their problem is not with the messenger but with the Bible.

I was speaking of tongues. And I think you will agree that the Fathers stated blatantly their bewilderment at the cessation of tongues. For instance, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism#Historical_Evidence

I hope I don’t have to point out that the Montanist movement was widely viewed as heretical (have actually studied their claims?!), and made no evangelistic inroads as one would expect for so dynamic a ministry and as charismatics claim for today. I don’t know where you got your info, but Chrysostom agreed that tongues had ceased, and made no exception for the Montanists.

I have no idea where you’re coming from with the last half of your post. I never claimed that charismatics don’t love “to listen to the preaching and teaching of the word” or “logic, reason and the written and revealed word of Scripture”, or that they as a rule “lose control” when “in the Spirit”. I made no such statements. As a former charismatic, I have seen abuse as you claim that I claim, but I have seen others who try to systematically apply reason to their faith (Gordon Fee being a notable example).

I am very sorry that charismatic Christians south of the equator would be upset, but spare me the emotional appeal: any Christian the world over whose doctrinal beliefs and experiences are disparaged or critiqued may feel distressed, but that doesn’t negate the critique. And don’t misunderstand me as a typical run-of-the-mill cessationist: I don’t believe everything miraculous necessarily passed away. Tongues? Yes.

Jesus Saenz, as a cessationist, I can understand where you’re coming from. Your claims seem to dwell on the problem issues that crop up with some charismatics. And from what I’ve heard in the past, cessationists seem to have a strong tendency to do that.

Steve, yes it does sound like ethnic snobbery. If you tell that to charismatic Christians in the southern hemisphere, they would definitely not like it and would find that very offensive against their faith. To link the gifts of charismata to the spiritualism of their pre-Christian past is illogical and unreasonable. Tell that to the early church fathers like Tertullian and I wonder what he’d say about that. Many other post-New Testament church fathers recognized the practice of the charisms in the post-first century church: Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Hilary of Poitiers, even Chrysostom (4th c.) who tried to formalize a prohibition against tongues. Charismata has existed since the early church, including the Montanists who widely practiced tongues. If we look into the history of the early church, you’ll find that the charisms never ceased. The only people who tried to stop it also tried to wipe it out of history.

From my experience, the majority of charismatics love to listen to the preaching and teaching of the word, as well as “be in the Spirit.” They appreciate order and frown upon disorder. They understand and love logic, reason and the written and revealed word of Scripture too. It is impossible to lose control of oneself when s/he is in the Spirit. In fact, the Spirit desires to give us the fruit of self-control.

If you want to be fair, I can be fair too. I can tell you that I have witnessed cessationists who don’t appreciate “being in the word,” are disorderly and over-emotional, exhibit absolutely no reason and logic to what they say, and have no self-control. Now is this fair?

Though I’m charismatic, most of the criticisms of the current American charismatic/pentecostal movement are valid. I’m saddened by the false prophets, the heretical theology, the emphasis on feelings, the instability, the sensationalism, and so on.

I sometimes tell people, “Ask the Lord to fill you with his Spirit, and let him define what that means.” He has a right to fill you in whatever way he wants, but you can know that if it’s from him, it won’t contradict scripture, and won’t put the focus on you. The Holy Spirit will glorify Jesus, not glorify you.

As for speaking in tongues and the demonic, I’d think it would be possible for demons to produce speaking in tongues, but I’d want to be very, very cautious before telling someone that demons were the source of his speaking in tongues. We know from the Bible that the Lord can produce speaking in tongues. We know that the demons hate the Jesus of the Bible. If a person’s tongues are glorifying Jesus (the same Jesus of the Bible) and are done with humility, not for personal show; if they increase the person’s joy and peace instead of decreasing it; if they tend to make the person more eager for evangelism and for obedience, then I’d say they are from the Lord. On the other hand, if the person’s tongues are the opposite of all of that, I’d think they’re from self or from demons, even if the person thinks they’re a wonderful spiritual experience.

Whatever is from the flesh or from the devil will produce the devil’s fruit. Whatever is from the Lord will produce the fruit of the Spirit: Love, joy, peace, and so on; see the end of Galatians 5.

There are also other problems with the charismatic movement. They allow women pastors, they tend to spend more time being “in the spirit” rather than teaching the Word, they have replaced order with disorder, they rely on emotion and spiritualism instead of logic and reason, they ignore the special revelation found in scripture for subjective revelation given to the individual.

Getting back to the issue of demon possession, is it possible that allowing yourself to lose control while being “in the spirit” that you allow for the demons to control you instead?

There is also another angle that I would like to further explore. Is there a difference in seeing “things” and with possession itself. Yesterday I was at a friends house for the traditional “New Years Day eat Hawaiian food not till you’re full but you ’till you’re tired”. There was plenty of people coming in throughout the day to eat. There was a couple with their two kids, when my friend relayed a story about the couple and their kids seeing “ghosts”. Even a story of the father thinking that his 2 y.o son had jumped on him in bed yet there was no one there.

I come from a highly charismatic background. My family still is, and most of my thoughts on the matter are still kept from them for that reason. Allow me to show you some of the problems.

“Tongues” as practiced today is not NT “tongues”. This is manifestly the case. For one thing, the term “tongues” is a carry-over from the KJV, which if translated today would read “languages”: the Greek words used to describe the ecstatic utterance are nothing special and only mean “language” in the common sense. And sure enough, when we see the gift of tongues introduced in Acts 2, it is unequivocally human languages. In fact, throughout the rest of Acts it is never redefined!

Tongues were given as a witness to the Gentiles, but also as a stumbling block to the Jews. In 1 Cor. 14:21-22, Paul applies the judgment passage Isaiah 28:11 as the explanation of tongues: “Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people.” This ties the definition tongues in Acts 2 to the gift of tongues discussed in 1 Corinthians. Throughout Acts, we see that when tongues are given it was to the Gentiles and served as a validation for the Apostles’ inclusion of the Gentiles into the community of faith previously held by Israel.

Now, do we have any NT evidence of them ceasing? Well, besides the fact that they are predicted to cease (1 Cor 13), the fulfillment of it takes places after the NT, so we shouldn’t expect to see it described as a current reality there. Historically, though, we don’t really have any evidence of tongues after the first century. That is, until recent times, when Christians passionate about God yet ignorant of the gift’s original purpose began to seek it for themselves. The cessation of tongues (as well as the institutions of, although perhaps not all instances of, the other charismatic gifts) is easily explained: the judgment Peter described Pentecost as the sign of in Acts 2 was the judgment on the Old Covenant Jewish system that occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that occurred between AD 66-70 by Titus and the Roman armies.

I know this will sound like ethnic snobbery at best and racism at worst, but is it at all surprising that all the foreign countries with the most number of reports of charismatic activity were, as a rule, steeped in spiritualism and belief in sensational phenomena associated with their religions prior to the introduction of Christianity? So many of these peoples claim resurrection, healing, and other miraculous signs even with their pre-Christian religions, so why shouldn’t they when a charismatic Christian evangelist comes in talking about the same things?