Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - Printable Version
+- SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum (http://www.seekgod.ca/forum)
+-- Forum: Discussion Boards (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Christianity (/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? (/showthread.php?tid=99)
Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - Vic - 01-09-2009 02:54 PM
Many get caught up in the hype of a meeting, going "to the front", and we see the emotional rhetoric with regard to physical displays in such groups as pentecostals and charismatics, including being "slain in the spirit". Some say they are just "spirit" filled. But what spirit? and can calls to having to "go" to meet the Spirit of God to receive the "blessing" at certain places, such as Toronto etc, Scripturally sound? Aren't all Christians "Spirit" filled?
Some Scriptures for consideration:
(23) Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(25) Behold, I have told you before.
(26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight.)
(9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
(10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Jump right in and let's talk about the belief in these "manifestations of the spirit".
RE: Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - sheep wrecked - 01-09-2009 03:33 PM
I think the charis movement is definitely into the "displays" of the spirit. It's as if one has to feel and observe what they believe is God by an experience and then call that faith.
After spending 100s of hours in the charis venue and observing altar calls, it seems the more dramatic they were, the more assured people were that the person had a "real" experience with God.
This was also the standard for people who flocked down front for a "blessing" after the message [they are primed to do this] - which typically means getting hands laid on to get slain in the spirit, get spirit filled with manifestation of tongues, jerking, vibrations, fire in hands/arms/legs/body, laughing, jumping, and a number of other ungodly displays.
However; there are no valid Scriptures to support all these exhibitions which resemble practices in other unBiblical religions that are based on existentialism as well.
RE: Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - strefanash - 01-09-2009 04:05 PM
Emotionalism is dangerous, but its opposite error is both legalist and dangerous in its own right.
Incidenatlly that charismatic church i went to was very much into emotional repression. they "taught dont trust your emotions". "make the act of will" and the like, all of which are dangeorus legalism that produce psychosis and breakdown in those poor fools who take them seriosuly, as I did.
But if we are to Love the Lord with all our hearts minds soul and strength then clearly emotions are involved.
If we feel nothing as pertains to any doctrine then i might surmise that we do not believe it. Of course I never said our emotions indicated the truth of anything, but they do have some bearing on our relationship to said truth. I admit that this too can be counterfeited, but to repress emotions in the name of faith is not faith, it is attempting to hide ones own heart from the All Seeing One..
I submit that the charismaniacs try and force emotion as they will not admit their unbelief, being too fearful and proud, as I have been. But to reject emotion, or to deny that it has any connection with belief or faith is dangerous.
IF unbelievers see us a grim will they not be justified in thinking our religion is nasty?
Joy and peace are emotions. Jesus FELT compassion
Note one of the prophecies of the new covenant: I will take out your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. THis is one instance where flesh is used as a metaphor for something spiritual and good. It means a heart tender and feeling, as oposed to hard, cold and unfeeling.
I have hated the idea of emotion all my life, for i wouold rather not feel at all, in order to aboid the pain. But hard biblical logic rquires that I moderate rthis view or break down yet again.
The charismaniacs abuse this flagrantly, but it is a dictum of logic that abusus non tollit usum
(abuse does not detract from valid use). Put in plain and common speech, dont throw the baby out with the bath water
being slain in the spirit is of course fleshly nonsense, and I speak as one who was so laid out many times. they never pushed me but i was suggestible and the fervid madness of their meetings will produce this, even in one as skeptical as I. It never hurt, and i actualy felt nothing which, given my own desperation at the time, was a disappointment. Bjut it was not the power of God. These people know nothing of depth psychology and ignore the fact that the heart of man is deceitful above all things, which truth to me is th efoundation of a proper psychology.
As to being "slain in the spirit" they refer to a scripture in revelation where John saw the risen Christ and fell over as one dead. But this simply does not apply here. There was no visible sighting of the Holy and Terrible Risen Christ in any charismatic meeting.
Im sorry Vic, but to me your citing of Matthew 24 is not valid here. None of them are claiming to be christ, and none are claiming that the second coming of christ has happened and is manifest there. they claim a mainfestation of the events of pentecost, and if we are to reject what happens in their churches for the reason you cite we are to reject pentecost for the same reason.
I accept the principle that charismatic manifestations can and should happen. I just happen to reject the ones called as such these days.
I still hold that a non charismatic church is a dead church. But I now hold that the charismartic churches are so to speak, undead churches; that is to say dead but very animated
I do not reject charismatic manifestations on the grounds that they ceased with the apostles, nor that they claim a coming of the lord.
I reject them because they are , by their fervid madness, counterfeits of real biblcal manifestations which should never have ceases withe the apostles. IOW I reject them because of their fruit and the extremity which degrades into irrationality. Abusus not tollit usum
I do not reject charismatic doctrines, as much as i might like, i insist that they are abusing them through idolizing them. But rejecting them is to quench the spirit.
Thus the terrible burden of responsibility of charismanics: they sought spirital reality, as opposed to the dead dullness of religous living, but they would not repent of sin and so sought the wrong thing, cheap highs rather than the joy of the lord. So they would not enter the door of spiriual living, so to speak, but by their foul example stopped others from doing so also
as for being filled with the spirit, it says that John was in the spirit that day on patmos when he got the revelation. For the term to mean anything it must mean that there is some sense in which he was not in the spirit before this event.
Also St Paul somewhere commands in ephesians 5:18 to be filled with the Spirit. If all christians by definition were filled with the Spirit then this would be a meaningless command. Incidentally i take being drunk as a contrast to being filled with the Spirit, not as a comparision. What they seek is Nieztschean, the wrong kind of divine exaltation
However I continue to assert that the charismatics, though appealing to a sound principle, have flagrantly abused it and sought a high that is violent and manic rather than a joy which is in peace, gentleness and rest.
Thus they seek religious mania and often achieve it, but the hard dull grind of church going and religious duty the rest of the church has is of no value and they are right to disdain it.
They just cannot, for all their talk, replace it with anything valid
RE: Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - Vic - 01-10-2009 03:45 PM
There is a huge difference in emotion based beliefs and faith based beliefs which provide us with peace, joy, love and so on. It's what the focus is. If the focus is on Jesus Christ and believing who He is, there will be an emotional response, but first there has to be faith.
The incredible desire for signs and wonders replaces the faith of many. The focus becomes feelings over faith, manifestations over Scriptural truth, new revelation over God's Word and they move into another gospel and another Jesus who will allow that focus.
Those who belong to Christ and love Him have emotions also. As you say, if we are grim and lack joy, who would want the Christ we serve. But the difference becomes the application of faith and desire of what we are serving. Him or ourselves.
RE: Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - HumbleThySelf - 01-12-2009 06:18 PM
(01-10-2009 03:45 PM)Vic Wrote: There is a huge difference in emotion based beliefs and faith based beliefs which provide us with peace, joy, love and so on. It's what the focus is. If the focus is on Jesus Christ and believing who He is, there will be an emotional response, but first there has to be faith.
I reminded by your statement "If the focus is on Jesus Christ and believing who He is, there will be an emotional response, but first there has to be faith." of when Jesus appeared before "Doubting" Thomas and showed him the nail holes in his hands and then Thomas was emotional.
I thought this was a fitting illustration. We don't get to put our fingers into nail holes into Jesus's hands however, what a joy we experience when we come to learn who Christ is.
RE: Emotional Based Beliefs--sound or filled with error? - sheep wrecked - 01-12-2009 06:43 PM
(01-12-2009 06:18 PM)HumbleThySelf Wrote: Vic,
I was thinking about this Thomas believed in Jesus Christ, so he already had the faith. He doubted that Jesus rose again, just as ALL the other disciples doubted did as well I wonder if it was their faith that was an issue, or just plain old disbelief in what Jesus had told them would happen