Charismatic Anglicans: The Missing Link

When many people hear of the Charismatic Renewal, they roll their eyes and pray that the conversation goes another way.  It is amazing that a movement that had such a wide impact in its day is not only forgotten but gleefully so.  There are a few holdouts out there–the Charismatic Episcopal Church is the main reminder, but there are pockets in the AMiA and even the TEC if one looks hard (and fast at the rate things are going) enough.

It is our opinion that the Charismatic Renewal was the great missed opportunity of North American Christianity in the twentieth century.  Had it succeeded, it could have stopped liberalism dead in its tracks and brought the disparate Christian groups and "traditions" (we hate that word but don’t know a good alternative to it) together in a more positive way than the sappy "ecumenical movement" could or can do.

But it didn’t do these things.  It did a lot to fuel an exodus out of the "Main Line" (the capitalisation is deliberate) and Roman Catholic churches into many places–in some cases classical Pentecostal churches, but more frequently conservative Evangelical churches and even more independent Charismatic churches.  It left these churches in the control of others: the Main Line churches in the hands of the liberals, the Roman Catholic church in the hands of John Paul II.

How did this result take place?  One problem was the lack of support from the hierarchy of their respective churches.  Their idea of renewing the church from within was ground to powder from above.  But another part of the problem was a lack of effective leadership, as we discuss elsewhere. Many of the leaders of the Renewal were inexperienced and basically not up to the job.

The one group of people with the experienced leadership that could have helped were the classical Pentecostals, but they (with a few exceptions) did not do so.  Part of the problem was a turf battle; after years of carrying the standard of the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, they looked askance at those who not only had found it without them but weren’t planning to join their churches after receiving it.

But another, more serious problem, was doctrinal.  Pentecostals had a very definite sequence of events in mind for the believer.  You first got saved, then you were sanctified (whether this was an event or a process was a matter of dispute) and then baptised in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.  Charismatics were unwilling to accept the Pentecostals’ rigid idea of holiness, leading one very prominent Pentecostal preacher to tell his denomination that there could be only one standard of holiness, not one in the North, one in the South, etc.  (We deal with what this could mean in At the Inlet.)  Moreover many Charismatics, although speaking in tongues, could not bring themselves to rigidly link tongues with the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

The Charismatics’ "open-ended" approach to tongues has led to much of the silliness that surrounds the subject today.  Many consider the whole thing as a "tradition" or a "spirituality" on par with meditation or whatever happends to be trendy at the moment.  They ignore the central role of Holy Spirit baptism had at the founding of the church or throughout the book of Acts.

Beyond that, however, the Charismatics’ greatest mistake surrounding the baptism in the Holy Spirit–the "missing link," if you please–is their overlooking of the importance of sanctification preceding the baptism.  Coming out of the Holiness-Wesleyan stream, Pentecostal pioneers knew that personal holiness had to be in place before the baptism in the Holy Spirit.  The alternative is chaos, which is pretty much what we had in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Pentecostals’ concept of holiness in rigidly legalistic terms has come in for justified criticism–to which many Pentecostals have responded by chucking the whole holiness business altogther–but the idea is correct.

And this leads us to the centre of our contention: as shocking as it will sound to some, the whole modern Pentecostal-Charismatic movement is the end game of the English Reformation from a purely doctrinal standpoint, if not an institutional or liturgical one.  This deserves an explanation, and with God’s help we’ll give one.

Reformed theology made inheriting eternal life a simple matter: you had faith in God (an act which God caused,) your name was written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, and that was it.  There was no need for penance or the church, but there was no need for spiritual growth or having to do anything, good, bad or indifferent.  The logical end to this is a butt-sitting religion where people can pompously proclaim they’re going to heaven without any further action on their part.  Mercifully many members of Reformed churches have not "connected the dots" in this way, and they are a blessing to themselves, the people around them and to God himself.

But, when things get across the Channel, there’s Article XVI.  The whole idea that people can fall way ("backslide," to use the traditional terminology) implies movement.  If people can move back in their relationship with God, they can move forward.  This turns the Christian life from a static to a dynamic business.  It puts movement into one’s relationship with God.  It also puts movement into one’s life to serve God and to do the work that he left us here to do.  The "fuel" behind this, from Jewel to Wesley, is sanctification, personal holiness that enables the believer to “… lay aside everything that hinders us, and the sin that clings about us, and run with patient endurance the race that lies before us…” (Hebrews 12:1b)  Sanctification as the work of the Holy Spirit means that God interacts in a positive with us after we are reborn in him.

And this leads us to the baptism in the Holy Spirit.  It is more than a tradition; it is rooted in the early church from the day it started.  But, as explained in LifeBuilders Essentials, it is not a principally emotional experience either.  It is the "fuel" to empower the believer to share one’s faith with others in whatever way that God has directed an individual to do so.  Once again the idea is the same: progress for the individual in one’s walk with God, and progress for the church as it seeks to fulfil it’s God-given mission.  This is why, after barely a century on the earth, so many Christians consider themselves to be Pentecostal or Charismatic, and show the gifts and manifestations that go with that.  But in the process many were saved through the exercise of the same power, so the movement that is seen to be demonstrative is also evangelistic.

So where does this leave Anglicans?  Like the Charismatic Renewal, Anglicanism is one of those great missed opportunities in Christianity.  As we explained in Taming the Rowdies, the Church of England started off with everything: state support, Protestant doctrine (with the seeds of fixing the Reformation) and a rich liturgical worship.  Unfortunately the whole thing got caught up in both the doctrinal tug-of-war between Reformed and Catholic and in the socio-economic conflicts of seventeenth-century England.  The result was that the truly comprehensive, scriptural Anglicanism of Elizabeth I died with Laud and Charles I.  Ever since too much of Anglicanism has felt duty-bound to present a "nice" religion that didn’t offend people or create controversy, and in North America that meant one whose primary appeal was to the upper reaches of society.

But that wasn’t the original idea.  And there’s no reason why Anglicans can’t be the leaders in the sweep towards the new Pentecost that they, in one way, initiated.  There’s no reason why liturgical worship cannot be Spirit-led (it has been done.)  And there’s no reason why the religion whose foundational doctrinal statement implies the important of forward movement cannot emphasise personal holiness instead of losing itself in aesthetics or social niceties.

But one major obstacle to the last point is the emergence of the business of "Affirming Catholicism," and it is to this we will turn next.

30 thoughts on “Charismatic Anglicans: The Missing Link”

  1. I used to be a Lutheran who was sort of involved with the charismatic movement before coming to Canada. I became very discouraged with my church. I recently joined an Anglican Church in Vancouver. I asked the priest if there were any charismatics Anglicans. He did not know.I would love to find such a fellowship of Anglicans and a priest who is aware of the gifts of the spirit. The Anglican Church believes in casting out demons, healing, anointing of oil, and the laying on of hands, that is pretty charismatic to me. The Anglican Church has a richness that the Lutheran Church does not have. The Anglican Church by it’s historical practice is charismatic. It is liturgical,and sacramental. It has the gifts, use them, teach them, practice them for the enrichment of the believers, to do battle in a world that is filled with the demons of unbelief, power, addiction, corruption and war. We long to see Christ. We long for the presence of the Holy Spirit, for it is our peace and comfort. We are called by our baptism to good into all the world to preach., to share good news to a hurting world. We don’t need to preach about the law. For God sake we live feeling condemed. Preach the Good News of Love in Jesus Christ. Love builds life.

    Please is there a fellowship of Charismatic Anglicans. We have the spiritual gifts, let’s not be afraid of who we are in our baptism and faith in the Lord Jesus. Greater things than these shall you do in the days of the Spirit. Lutherans and Anglicans are so close together why is there not a fellowship of spirit led Christians. We have the sacraments of grace. Let’s hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.

  2. Yes, there is an organization of Charismatic Anglicans. We are The Charismatic Anglican Catholic Church. We use the 1928 Prayer Book and allow for the working of the Holy Spirit in our worship services and daily life. Our Sacraments provide for the working of the Holy Spirit. Why should we not acknowledge who we are? Fully charismatic, fully liturgical, fully catholic in our heritage. We are different than the Church of England where we specify that we ARE catholic and not protestant. We are part of the heritage and worship that affirms to be fully Anglican without the subtractions of the protestants and without the additions of the Romans, the ancient faith once taught by the Apostles. Some of us came from COG, some form TEC, some from the Orthodox Church, sone from the CEC, all various expressions coming together listening to what scripture has told us is the way God has said he wants to be worshipped. We are NOT an inclusive church and believe churches who make up their own scriptures or interpretations of scripture that are inconsistent with the ancient church to be heretical and have separated themselves from the Church.

  3. Holy Laughter, holy bark, holy drunkard and etc. are not found in the book of Acts during the Pentecost. Some Charismatic churches might use the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. from the Old and New Testaments to support these movements. However, bear in mind that the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. are mentioned instead of the full phrase of holy laughter, holy bark and etc. What if these practices are not from the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these practices are from the work of Holy Spirit has caused one to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and it would have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the wrong saying that these are the work of them. However, the Holy Spirit does not do it. One has indeed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by abusing the name of the Holy Spirit despite he does not do it. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgivable according to the New Testament.

  4. Jonathan, I’m not sure what in this piece elicited your response, other than it discusses the Charismatic Renewal.

    The one thing that is found on the day of Pentecost is the speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there are many who tell us today that this is no longer possible, as if we have a new covenant with the death of the last of the original apostles. It is blaspheming the Holy Spirit to prevent the speaking of other tongues?

    Back in the 1970’s the Beverly Hills Baptist Church was expelled from the Texas Baptist Convention because of the speaking in tongues (and the fact that this church experienced the miraculous, which was something else that was supposed to die out with the original apostles too.) At the stormy meeting, Beverly Hills’ people warned that the Convention might be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Were they?

    In the early years of classical Pentecost (before World War I,) we had the “holy lyddite” and “holy dynamite.” But, as one Pentecostal historian told me, one of the practicioners of this fell out of the barn loft and this came to an end. In any case, at that time more discerning leadership prevailed and problems such as this were brought to an end, which left us to focus on those things which the New Testament actually describes. But it’s still possible to err on both sides.

  5. HOLY LAUGHER, HOLY BARK, HOLY DRUNKARD & ETC.

     Holy Laughter, holy bark, holy drunkard and etc. are not found in the book of Acts during the Pentecost. Some Charismatic churches might use the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. from the Old and New Testaments to support these movements. However, bear in mind that the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. are mentioned instead of the full phrase of holy laughter, holy bark and etc. What if these practices are not from the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these practices are from the work of Holy Spirit has caused one to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and it would have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the wrong saying that these are the work of them. However, the Holy Spirit does not do it. One has indeed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by abusing the name of the Holy Spirit despite he does not do it. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgivable according to the New Testament

    DEFINITION OF BLASPHEMY IN HEBREWS/GREEK

    blas’-fe-mi (blaphemia) in classical Greek and Hebrews means primarily ‘defamation’ or ‘evil-speaking’in general; ‘a word of evil omen’, hence, ‘impious, and irreverent speech against God’. The above is the extract pertaining to the meaning of blasphemy in Greek. Consider carefully about holy bark, holy laugher and etc. For instance, if these are not the work of Holy Spirit, the abusing the name of Holy Spirit by saying that these are the work of Holy Spirit is indeed delivery of irreverent speech against the Holy Spirit. For instance, if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these should be directed from the work of the Holy Spirit might have abused the name of the Holy Spirit and caused defamation of its name and one might have in turn grieved the Holy Spirit since these might not be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit might be ended up to bear the name for the doer of holy bark, holy laugher and etc. What if it has grieved the Holy Spirit by insisting that these are the work of the Holy Spirit, our ignorance has ultimately caused the ultimate abusing and/or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

    HEALINGS IN CONTEMPORARY CHARISMATIC CHURCHES

    In miraculous healings among Charismatic churches today, we could easily spot out that many sick will fall down before the healers lay hands on them. However, many sick would remain unhealed after the rally despite they did fall down before the healers, i.e. Pastors that perform miraculous healings. God is definitely powerful and can heal all kinds of sicknesses. However, there is a deficiency in the healings in contemporary Charismatic world. What if the wonders are not the work of the Holy Spirit, the commenting to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit that it is he that does the work might have grieved the Holy Spirit in case if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit and it ends up that one has abused the name of the Holy Spirit and has ultimately blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

    ALL BLASPHEMIES WHETHER TOWARDS THE HOLY SPIRIT OR GOD OR JESUS CHRIST ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SINS

    Matthew 12:31-32, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the BLASPHEMY AGAINST the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speak against a word the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever SPEAK AGAINST the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” As the phrase, speak against the Holy Spirit, is mentioned in Matthew 12:31-32 with the phrase, blasphemy against the Spirit, it implies that a person blasphemes against the Holy Spirit even if he speaks against the Holy Spirit. The same for abusing the name of the Holy Spirit in which it might have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the false saying what if the works are not from the Holy Spirit. The word, forgiven, is mentioned in Matthew 12:31-32 with the phrase, every sin & blasphemy, it implies that all blasphemies are to be considered as sin or else why we should need God’s forgiveness for the blasphemies. The same in abusing God’s or Jesus’ name to support their miracles are from God or Jesus respectively and these are the acts of blasphemies to be considered as sins too.

    THE  WELL-KNOWN VERSES IN MATTHEW 7:21-23

    Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!”
    What are the elements could be found in these verses above? There are:
    1) They believe in Jesus Christ since Matthew 7:22, “(mentions that) Many will say to me..’LORD, LORD”. These people must have believed in Jesus Christ or else how they could call Jesus Christ to be their Lord as mentioned above then.
    2) These people could use Jesus’ name to perform miracles since Matthew 7:22, “(mentions that) Many…have..prophesied…in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?”
    3) Will they be accepted by Jesus Christ? Matthew 7:23, “…I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me”.

    THE PRIDE AMONG CONTEMPORARY CHURCHES FOR THEIR NON-REPENTANCE

    This is my general discovery upon Charismatic churches: Some Charismatic churches might not repent in order to do away their so-called, gift, in the churches due to they feel thieir reputations are most precious than the truth of the Bible and that causes them to persist in the practice. However, bear in mind that the insisting the so-called, gift, in their churches to be the work of the Holy Spirit might cause them to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and that causes them ultimately to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit what if the miracles are not from the work the Holy Spirit. The act of insisting to defend their reputation more important than the truth of the Bible has indeed violated the great commandment of the Lord. For Matthew 22:37, “(mentions that) Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The act of having a high preference for their reputations rather that upholding the truth of the Bible implies that his love towards his own reputation is more significance than his love towards God.  For Matthew 22:37 has commanded us to put our love to God first instead of that has to be in replacement of our reputation.

  6. Jonathan CHM, you still have not answered my reply to original comment.

    The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil, which was the Pharisees’ error.

    I wouldn’t argue with you for a minute that there are things going on that have no business going on. I have worked for a Pentecostal denomination for 12 1/2 years and have seen and experienced things that even you are unware of. But that doesn’t stop the fact that what the NT describes as the work of the Holy Spirit is still going on today, irrespective of the fact that there are tares amongst the wheat.

  7. Holy bark, holy laughter and etc. are not mentioned in the book of Acts at the time when the apostles received the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What if these works that are exercised by contemporary Charismatic Churches are not the work of the Holy Spirit, they would have abused the name of the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ with the wrong saying that all these are their works and these would cause them to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ.

    The extract of Matthew 7:21-23: Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!” From Matthew 7:21-23 that I have quoted above, I do not mean that Christians would lose salvation. However, please kindly meditate the verses above since the so-called people as mentioned above, could call Jesus as Lord and they could even perform miracles in Jesus’ name are Christians, why should they be rejected by Jesus in the last day as mentioned in Matthew 7:23?

    What if that is mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23 have turned up to be the truth that those contemporary Charismatic people would turn up to be rejected by the Lord in the Last Day, these people would regret definitely for their act now. Should I have your reasoning why these people be rejected as mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23 then?

    Some Christians might support that God would not punish the elect. What the Bible should speak about these unrepentant Christians? Luke 18:6-8, “Then the Lord said, ‘Hear what the unjust judge said, ‘And shall God not avenge his own elect who cry out day and night to him, though he bears long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nev ertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he really find faith on the earth?”

    Romans 6:12-13, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.”

  8. The following are the proves that tongues are languages and these tongues needed to be interpreted and yet the tongues in contemporary Charismatic churches are most of the time not in languages and nobody could interpret their tongues too:

    Acts 2:8-10, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, Medes”.” From the above verses, we know that tongues are indeed languages and/or dialects. 1 Corinthians 14;21, “in the law it is written, ‘With (men of) other tongues and other lips will I speak with this people and yet for all that will they not hear me’, saith the Lord.”” As the phrase, other tongues, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:21 with the phrase, I speak with this people, it implies that tongues are definitely languages and/or dialects or else how God could converse with us then.

    1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him)”.

    For 1 Corinth 14:4, “He that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue edifieth himself”. For instance, if tongues are not languages and/or dialects and it cannot be understood by the speaker, how the tongues could edify the speaker himself since 1 Corinth 14:4 mentions that tongues have to edify the speaker.

    1 Corinth 14:10, “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them (is) without significant.” As the phrase, many kind of voices, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:10 with the phrase, the world, it definitely refers to languages and/or dialects in the world instead of outside the world, ie. alien language. McArthur claimed to have other tongues that could not be understood by human beings are not biblical.”

    What if the so-called, tongues, in contemporary Charismatic churches are not from the work of the Holy Spirit, the comment that their tongues are from God or the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ would cause one to abuse the name of them and it in turn blasphemes any one of them.

    1 Corinth 14;14, “For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue pray that he may interpret”. The above verse demands a tongue spoker to pray for his understanding of tongues. 1 Corinth 14;37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”. The phrase, the things that I write to you, in 1 Corinth 14:37 is in present tense and it implies that the words that Paul just delivered for his message to the Church of Corinthians is indeed God’s commandment and this includes 1 Corinth 14:14.”

    1 Corinth 14:15, “What is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with understanding also; I will sing with Spirit, and I will sing with understanding also.” For instance, the speaker could not understand the tongue, how could they sing and pray with understanding and this contradicts 1 Corinth 14:15.”

  9. The following are the proves that angels speak in human languages instead of alien languages or else how the people could understand what angels speak:

    Genesis 16:9, “And the angel of the Lord said unto her…”

    Luke 1:30, “And the angel said unto her, Mary…”

    For instance, if angels speak in alien languages, how could the examples above show that angels ever spoke to human beings? As angels did convey message to human beings in human languages, that proves that angels speak in human languages instead of in alien languages.

  10. 1 Corinth 14:2, “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him;however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.”

    If my guessing is not wrong, contemporary Charismatic churches might have abused 1 Corinth 14:2 to be interpreted as some tongues to be alien languages so as to suit their practice:
    1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him), howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries”.
    Meditate carefully the above verse again since the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned as above. For instance, if the phrase, no man understandeth (him), in 1 Corinth 14:2 is to be interpreted as alien language, the interpretation would turn up to be in hay wire for the fact that nobody could understand tongues speaking and this interpretation definitely contadicts Acts 2 that mentions that the disciples spoke in foreign languages (tongues). Bear in mind that the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:2 instead of the phrase, some tongues. For instance, if the phrase, some tongues, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 14:2, one could argue that some tongues are in alien languages and some are in foreign languages/dialects. However, the phrase, an (unknown) tongue, is mentioned here.

    The most acceptable way of interpretation for 1 Corinth 14:2:
    1 Corinth 14:2, “for that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth (him), howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries”. The word, mysteries, in 1 Corinth 14:2 should not refer to the general conversation between God and men. Instead, it could refer to the message pertaining to the mysteries in heaven and/or God and/or angels and/or whatsoever. Human beings might not be able to comprehend the tongues (languages) if they are in mysteries and/or in parable forms. This is the same as when Jesus was on earth when he commented about the mysteries in heaven in the form of parables, nobody could understand it and not even the twelve disciples. As it is a mysteries that are delivered through tongues, these are tongues spoken with God through the speakers.

  11. Prophets from contemporary Charismatic Churches ever prophesize the end of the world in year 1987, 2000 and etc. and yet prophecies were not fulfilled and this proves that they did deliver false prophecies. As we know that God never sin and He never lies and He has foreknowledge about the future and that all His angels and Holy Spirit are under His control, contemporary Charismatic Churches should never deliver false prophecies for the instance if the Holy Spirit would have carried out its task in giving revelation to their Churches nowadays. As they did deliver unfulfil false prophecies to us, these prove that the so-called, prophecies, revelations, words of wisdom, words of knowledge and tongues speaking that were exercised from their Churches might not be from God. This is by virtue of God would have corrected all their false prophecies during the time when they exercised the so-called, prophecies, revelations, words of wisdom, words of knowledge and tongue speaking since they mentioned that God would speak to them directly through revelation currently.

    The deficiencies in their prophecies, tongues speaking, revelations, words of wisdom and words of knowledge give a serious doubt whether their so-called, spirit-filled to have continuously received Pentecostal experience might not be the work of the Holy Spirit.

    What if their prophecies, tongues speaking, revelations, words of wisdom and words of knowledge are not the work of the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ, the insisting to abuse the name of Holy Spirit or God or Jeus Christ would have caused them to blaspheme against Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ respectively.

    I would like to have your explanation of the above-mentioned statements.

  12. You have mentioned that the gifts of the Holy Spirit is still working today. Can you prove to me whether the experiences that you have in contemporary Charismatic Churches are truly the work of God or the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ.

    The phrase, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in the Bible refers to those Pharisees that addressed the miracles that were performed by the holy Spirit to be demons and they are told to have blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

    However, the word, blasphemy, in Hebrews and Greek has been defined as speaking against. What if the miracles, wonders and etc. are from the Holy Spirit, we, Christians, must admit that they are the work of the Holy Spirit. What if the so-called, miracles, wonders and etc. are not the work of the Holy Spirit, yet we, Christians, addressed them to be the work of the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ would have caused us to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ and it would have in turn grieved the Holy Spirit and ultimately cause Christians to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ respectively.

    Matthew 12:31-32, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” The phrase, whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, in Matthew 12:32 gives us an undeniable fact that we, Christians, must not speak against the Holy Spirit. What if the miracles or wonders in contemporary Charismatic Churches, we, Christians, must not grieve the Holy Spirit to insist him to bear the name to have performed it.

    I prefer to be rational Christians not to call it to be the work of the Holy Spirit in case if the wonders in contemporary Charismatic Churches are not the work of the Holy Spirit and it ends up to have spoken against the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ for them to bear the name of doer even though they are not.

    What if these are the work of the Holy Spirit, you’ll address these to be the work of the Holy Spirit is acceptable.

    However, what if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit, you’ll address these to be the work of the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ would have sinned against the Holy Spirit or God or Jesus Christ once the wondes are perfomed and you’ll have addressed these to be so.

  13. What if the wonders are not the work of the Holy Spirit, contemporary Charismatic Churches would have committed sins every week/month/year for their expressions that these are from the work of God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit and they would commit continual sins.

  14. 1 Corinth 14:14 mentions that tongues must be interpreted in the Churches and 1 Corinth 14:37 mentions that God is the one that delivered this commandment to us.

    For instance, if the revelation and the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic churches are trully the work of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit should have given the advice to contemporary Charismatic people through tongues speaking, or prophecy, or the word of knowledge or the word of wisdom. However, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit did not speak to them through their so-called, spiritual gifts. As nothing has been informed among contemporary Charismatic Churches for the warning to have interpretation of tongues, there is a question whether the so-called, revelation, in contemporary Charismatic churches is from God since the Holy Spirit would definitely obey God to guide the followers according to the truth in the Bible.

    1 Corinth 14;14, “For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue pray that he may interpret”. The above verse demands a tongue spoker to pray for his understanding of tongues. 1 Corinth 14;37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”. The phrase, the things that I write to you, in 1 Corinth 14:37 is in present tense and it implies that the words that Paul just delivered for his message to the Church of Corinthians is indeed God’s commandment and this includes 1 Corinth 14:14.”

    What if the tongues speakings in contemporary Charismatic Churches are from God, we must uphold that these are from God. What if the tongues speakings in contemporary Charismatic Churches are not from God, we insist the Holy Spirit to be the doer would have grieved the Holy Spirit to insist he is the one to do it even he did not and in turn we might have abused the name of the Holy Spirit to cause the defamation of his name.

  15. I believe that many people forget that the Spirit of the Lord has instances in more than just the New Testament. David was known to dance and leap when the Spirit came upon his heart. Plus in Acts the image created by pentacost is one of drinking too much( Hence “these are not drunk as you suppose”) Now I can’t remark on Holy Barking (I’m not sure what that is). I would caution that saying that something that Holy spirit has done, is not done by Him; could also be concieved as blasphemy. It would be best not to judge unless corruption is affirmed. Remember that the just because Jesus sent the Holy Spirit after He returned to heaven, Doesn’t mean that the Holy spirit is limited to the New Testament.

  16. I have read through the theory of latter rain doctrine that supports that Contemporary Charismatic churches support that all the miraculous healings during the book of Acts have been classified by you’ll to be the first rain and that the gifts during that period has been ceased.

    Now, Contemporary Charismatic Churches experience latter rain in the sense that the gifts to be granted will be greater than the first rain.

    However, Bible mentions that God never changes. As God never changes, why should there be first rain then latter rain?

    1 Corinth 4:6, “…You may lean in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be buffered us on behalf of one against the other.” As the phrase, not to think beyond what is written, is mentioned in 1 Corinth 4:6, it implies that our interpretation of the Scripture has to be restricted from Scriptural point in it. However, the interpretation in contemporary Charismatic Churches has gone so far beyond it that outside the scope of what is written. For instance, when Rev 22:18-19 mention that cannot add words or substract, yet you support that you are interpreting it and not adding words or substracting especially the so-called, antichrist, is not mentioned in Rev 13 and nothing is mentioned it to be antichrist and not even its meaning and yet you have mentioned the Holy Spirit has interpreting it. However, no proof that the Holy Spirit is at your side in interpreting it. What if the so-called, interpretation of the prophecy is not from God, you are indeed committing sins against God.

  17. Great! You have found one chapter 2 Peter to explain the end time. There are some more that explains how the end would come about. Plain verse. Need not me to explain and just as you did to show 2 Peter.

  18. The Bible contains a wide range of knowledge for us to know instead of relying upon the knowledge what is passed down from the past. A Christian with humility that would flip through and meditate the Bible would be enriched by God through His wisdom.

    Let me explain the meaning of ‘love’ in the Bible to broaden your knowledge since what is passed down from the past has the definition of ‘love’ to be restricted to such as, care, concern, assistance and etc. Does the Bible restrict the word, love, to this definition?

    1 Corinth 13:2, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest is love” and that 1 Corinth 13:2, “…though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

    The above verses seem to imply that faith is not significant and that we must exercise our love to God significantly and faith to be secondary. Is this what God means to us? No, this is not true. Referring to the verses extracted below and your knowledge of ‘love’ will be broadened:

    1 Corinth 13:4-8, “Loves suffers long and its kind; love does not envy (or it means no jealousy); love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely (or it means to be polite); does not seek its own (or it means not to be self-appraisal or self-egoism); is not provoke, thinks no evil (or it means to avoid sinning); does not rejoice in iniquity; but rejoice in the truth (or it means to reject false teaching but accept the truth); bears all things, believes all things (or it means to cover faith), hopes all things (or it means to cover faith on future hopes), endures all things, love never fails..”.

    If I would tell you the word, love, covers whole range of thoughts instead of restricting to the definition of ‘sympathy, concern and etc., and if you have not read through above verses, you would blame me that I have brought in new teaching to cover the word, love, with all kinds of thoughts or some might give comment that I receive new revelation from God. Those people, that dare to listen to me and browse through the words of God, would give comment that he indeed delivers the words of God rightly from the Bible.

    The same as now that when I mention that the Bible does reveal the sequence of the end of the world and yet nobody believes but in reality, it is there.

    If one day you have known that our God is not the God of confusion has given us the knowledge of the end of the world in the Bible in plain verse, you might be pondering why nobody has discovered it then. I believe that it is God’s plan and I could not explain this to you but God knows in whom I fully trust.

  19. I really appreciate you wanting and looking for a Charismatic renewal movement within Anglicanism.

    Aside from The Charismatic Episcopal Church, and an AMiA Church or two that share this idea, I’ve never seen this within Anglicanism.

    I’d like to mind you, but I never have.

    Thanks for pointing in the right direction anyways!

    Blessings in Christ, Albion

  20. Nothing is worth mentioning about me since I am just doing the will of God. All glory should go to God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit.

    You should thank God since God has given to us the Bible. Without the Bible, we could not be led to the right truth.

  21. Romans 14 (Let People Accept Their Own Convictions!)
    Basically all of Paul’s writing at some point or another (Don’t argue foolish arguments)
    1 John 4 (Show Love to One Another as Christ Loved You)

    For Christians, and I say this from a peer’s perspective, I think this was way too far and yet I find no apologies to one another.

Leave a Reply