Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; jo kus; wmfights
This was the pivital point in my wife's conversion.

Thank you very much for the ping. I would agree with your wife that charismatic worship (from what little I know of it) is probably not the way to go. They appear to me to focus much more on experience, and much less on scripture. I am very glad she has found a Christian home.

[from the article:] The congregations I'd been part of were for the most part assuming that they had recovered a New Testament model of strictly spontaneous worship, local government, and Bible-only teaching. But the early Church, I found, was in reality liturgical in worship; trans-local and hierarchical in government; and dependent on a body of sacred Tradition that included the Scripture, yet stretched far beyond it as well.

I read the Wiki entry for spontaneous worship, and it was associated with charismatic services. It didn't sound like anything I've ever seen in a church service. (Granted, I have very little experience outside of my own SBC church.) In any event, it didn't sound like something I would want to be a part of.

The local government part I do agree with, however, I don't know where the claim by the author that early churches were governed in a hierarchal system comes from. I thought the very first churches were basically autonomous. (Is that right, WM?)

And as for Bible-only teaching, we use Bible-authority-only teaching. That does not preclude the use of other materials, as long as they are consistent with the Bible. Therefore, all tradition is not bad. In my church we employ the man-made tradition of the altar call. However, our faith is not DEPENDENT on any man-made tradition. That dependence itself is wholly man-made. For example:

Mark 7:8 : You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men ."

To me, this verse does NOT say that all traditions are wrong. It just says that we cannot replace the scriptures with such traditions. Therefore, if there is any dependence on traditions that contradict scripture, then scripture has been laid aside. Re-interpreting scripture to match the tradition is not a legitimate practice because that would have man trumping God's word.

-------------------------

It seems to me that the author used his charismatic background to arrive at Catholicism. I'm not saying that makes sense, but I would not recommend using the charismatic "way" to arrive at anything. :) It really doesn't surprise me at all that he found nothing of lasting value in Bible-believing Protestant churches. They are not experiential-based. Throughout the whole testimony, the author returns again and again to his experiential base. Apparently, he found something in Catholicism that matched that.

I've never actually drawn any connections between Catholicism and experiential faith so I would be interested in your comments. In addition, I noted in the testimony that the author spoke approvingly of "Charismatic Catholics". I've never heard of them. Are they legit?

9 posted on 11/05/2007 6:03:12 PM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Forest Keeper
the very first churches were basically autonomous

A good source for that are the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, as well as of course the letters of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans)

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church. 18 As if I would not come to you, so some are puffed up. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will: and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power. 21 What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?

(1 Cor 4)

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

(Ibid. 12)

"Charismatic Catholics". I've never heard of them. Are they legit?

Yes; this is a movement out of the Theological Seminary in Steubenville, OH. I know little of them. Their signature Practice are healing masses.

10 posted on 11/05/2007 6:38:03 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Luke14.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Forest Keeper
I thought the very first churches were basically autonomous.

They were. The churches selected their Elders and Deacons. It was after the Apostolic Era ended that there began to be a push for a hierarchal system. The justification for this was to combat heresy.

As with all things that man does to try and improve on God's plan it didn't work out.

13 posted on 11/06/2007 12:08:09 PM PST by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Forest Keeper
In my church we employ the man-made tradition of the altar call.

In my church we have Altar Call every Sunday. It's called Holy Eucharist. We are all about charisma. That is what Holy Eucharist means, Eu = True, Charism = Anointing. It's just that the charism is not about personalities in our church because we have the True Body of Jesus Christ present on our altar and on our tongues. Talk about your gift of tongues!

23 posted on 11/06/2007 2:56:26 PM PST by ichabod1 ("Self defense is not only our right, it is our duty." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson