The Charismatic Reversal of the Reformation: 5 Demons, demons and more demons

Previous posts in this series:

1 Background

2 A Rejection of Sola Scriptura

3 Counterfeit Miracles

4 Unquestionable Authority

The famous Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon once made the following remark in relation to demon possession; ‘Satan is not inside our heart now, he entered into Judas, but he cannot enter into us; for our soul is filled by another who is well able to hold his own’^a. The true believer cannot be possessed by the devil nor any of his demons. When Christ was accused of casting out devils through the power of the devil in Matthew 12, he responded by saying ‘how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house’. The devil cannot take control of one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, as every believer is, having received the Holy Spirit at their conversion, for he is the ‘strong man’ that cannot be bound by any demon. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell alongside a demon within a believer for ‘what concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Indeed no example can be found in Scripture where a demonic spirit has ever inhabited a true believer. Also it is not the norm today for people in general to be possessed by demons. Only where they voluntarily and purposefully invite demons into their lives by involvement in occult practices can people today be demon possessed. When Christ ministered upon the earth he invaded the domain of Satan, confronted demons and demonstrated his power over them. Yet this was a unique period. Satan himself realised that his ability to deceive the world would soon be greatly restrained and so was in a heightened state of activity. The ushering in of the gospel age that followed Christ’s atoning death and resurrection has resulted in Satan being bound and greatly restricted in his ability to deceive the nations.

The Charismatic Reversal of the Reformation: 4 Unquestionable Authority

Previous posts in this series:

1 Background

2 A Rejection of Sola Scriptura

3 Counterfeit Miracles

At the 1st Vatican Council on 18th July 1870, the Roman Catholic Church passed one of its most absurd doctrines, that of Papal Infallibility. The decree passed at that council stated that ‘when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable’^a.

Although this was the first time that the infallibility of the Pope had been officially declared by the Vatican, the idea that the Pope and indeed the Roman Catholic Church could not err had long been a part of Roman Catholic church history. In 1075 Pope Gregory VII stated that ‘the Roman Church has never erred and will never err to all eternity, according to the testimony of the holy scriptures’^b. Even though the doctrine of Papal Infallibility only teaches that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, it still teaches that a mere man can infallibly define a doctrine, without rebuke from any other man. More importantly, it means that no-one can bring the teaching of that person or church to the bar of scripture to challenge whether they are true or not. 

The Charismatic Reversal of the Reformation: 3 Counterfeit Miracles

Previous posts in this series:

1 Background

2 A Rejection of Sola Scriptura

On Sunday 27th April Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII were declared saints in a ceremony at the Vatican. Necessary for their canonisation were two authenticated miracles. In the case of John Paul II a woman in Costa Rica was supposedly cured from an inoperable brain aneurysm after the pontiff appeared to her in a vision, and a Polish nun was cured from Parkinson’s disease after praying to the deceased Pope. These claimed miracles are no new development in the Roman Catholic Church; from appearances of the Virgin Mary, to bleeding and weeping statues, to the healing of incurable diseases, miracles are an extremely important part of the Roman Catholic faith. Many pilgrimages are made by Roman Catholics to locations where miracles are reported to have occurred; one of the most famous examples being Lourdes, a place regularly visited by millions of Roman Catholics in the hope of being cured by the water there. Yet with every miracle which it claims, the Church of Rome faces the same problem – a lack of authentication. Even as the Vatican was seeking to canonize John Paul II, reports were abounding that Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, the Polish nun supposedly cured of Parkinson’s, had fallen ill again.^a Time and again this same issue arises with miracles in the Roman Catholic Church, they are either proven to be false, or they are authenticated only on the most tentative of evidence, and rarely if ever supported by medical verification. Yet in spite of this, Roman Catholics continue to enthusiastically seek after miracles. Since the time of the Reformation mainstream evangelical Protestantism has rejected the belief that the supernatural sign gifts of the New Testament such as healing are still available today, and has been highly sceptical of the claimed miracles of Rome. Yet with the advance of the Charismatic Movement many Christians have turned once again to seeking after miracles, and to a belief that the power of healing which was bestowed on the apostles is still available today. Here once again we see the common ground between Roman Catholicism and the Charismatic Movement; a seeking after miracles that, when they are examined, are shown to be at best exaggerated, and at worst counterfeited.

The Charismatic Reversal of the Reformation: 2 A Rejection of Sola Scriptura

Previous posts in this series:

1 Background

The gospel message which was rediscovered in the 16th century has often been summed up in what is known as the Five Solas of the Reformation. Although they were not articulated in this form until the 20th century, the writings of the reformers clearly teach that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, as revealed in scripture alone. These Five Solas are a direct response to the errors of Roman Catholicism, and mark out the differences between the reformed church and the Church of Rome. Where the Roman Catholic Church teaches that were are saved by a combination of God’s grace and our own good works, the reformers responded that it is by grace alone. Where they teach that we approach God through Christ, Mary and the saints, the response is that it is through Christ alone. To turn away from any of these biblical truths is to depart from the faith and begin the journey back into Roman apostasy. Of the Five Solas it is surely that of ‘sola scriptura’, or scripture alone, where Rome's difference with Protestantism has its root, for it is by appealing to scripture plus tradition that they are then able to support all of their other erroneous doctrines. This rejection of scripture as God’s complete and final revelation to man, and his only rule for faith and practice, is something of which the Charismatic Movement is also guilty, and by so doing it turns away from the biblical principles of the Reformation, back to the error of Rome.

The Charismatic Reversal of the Reformation: 1 Background

The Charismatic Movement; what’s the big deal? Surely it is just another manner in which some Christians worship, as acceptable as any reformed, more conservative style of worship? Why is there such a strong reaction against the Charismatic Movement from many evangelical preachers today? Is it really that big an issue? On one occasion John MacArthur described the Charismatic Movement in the following terms; 'It's a kind of Spiritual AIDS. AIDS is a deficient immune system, and this kills the Church's immune system! The Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement kills the immune system, because it makes it a sin to question their theology'^a. To many people this statement will be a great exaggeration of the issues in the Charismatic Movement and an outrageous thing to say. To compare a particular form of Christianity to a deadly disease is surely too much. Yet when we examine the Charismatic Movement closely, when we understand what the Charismatic Movement actually is, and consider what is actually taught within it, then we will find that it is very difficult to argue with that statement. As we look at the serious errors, and indeed heresies, that are found within that movement, we believe that an honest analysis of the facts can lead to only one conclusion; that the Charismatic Movement is indeed a form of ‘spiritual AIDS’, and that it leads Christianity in only one direction; back to the darkness of Rome.

Who should we quote?

How can we determine which preachers we will quote? Whether it be from the pulpit, on social media, or in some other way, discretion and discernment are required in choosing which preachers and teachers we will quote. Whether the quote is in itself scriptural is not sufficient reason for it to be used but consideration must also be given to the one to whom it is attributed. If that person has seriously erred on some major point of doctrine then consideration must be given as to how freely, if at all, we can quote them. Whilst it is not necessary to agree with someone on every absolutely everything, we cannot justifiably quote someone with whom we disagree on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. What should we consider when choosing which Christian preachers we will quote?

1. Adding a caveat to the quote

There are some preachers whom we can quote without the slightest hesitation, men such as Spurgeon and Calvin. Any differences which we may have with these men are of such small issue that we can quote them freely. Yet what of those with whom we disagree on more significant matters. On these occasions it will be necessary to state clearly that we we do not recommend all that they teach, in order that we would prevent others from following their errors. When it comes to essential doctrines however, we must look elsewhere, for we cannot in good conscience quote those with whom we are at serious and fundamental disagreement.

2. The unquoteable

Heretics and apostates. When the major doctrines of the gospel are abandoned and serious error and compromise takes place then those involved should not be the ones whom we would seek to quote in a Christian context. Likewise those who have evidenced an openly immoral lifestyle during their ministry, women who have usurped the position of pastor and those who have advanced the cause of ecumenism. The difference between these and others whom we might quote under some caveat, is that of erring on fundamentals, compared with specifics.

3. Our audience

If we quote a particular preacher will it result in others following that preacher? This is not a concern where we are in agreement with a sufficient amount of their teaching, but does become a greater issue the more we disagree with them. Do those who will read or hear the quote have the necessary discernment to recognise any doctrinal failings which that preacher may have. Who we quote may depend not only on their theology of that person, but also on those who will read or hear the quote.

4. Living and dead preachers

It is easier to quote the preachers of years gone by for we can already see how they have finished. If they have erred on some issues we can see the full extent of their error, and can easier evaluate whether it is appropriate to quote them or not. With those however who are still living we may wonder if, having deviated on 'minor' issues, they might also do so in the future on major issues. This is not to suggest that we should only quote preachers from the past, only that it is easier to do so.

The Dilemma of a Young Adult

There comes a time when young believers in the church, often in their mid to late 20's, feel that they have now outgrown the traditional Youth Fellowship environment. They become what we often term the 'young adults' of the congregation; a group which consists of a mixture of young married couples and unmarried persons aged approximately 20 to 40. Some churches will organise specific meetings and events for their young adults, effectively as a follow on from their Youth Fellowship days. This period in a believer's life is a pivotal one; they have come through the difficult and testing years of secondary school and university and are still part of the church, yet there seems to be the question of where they go from here. What should be the position of the young adult in the church?

Calling the Sabbath a delight

'If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it'. (Isaiah 58:13-14)

When the subject of the Sabbath is considered it is very often done from the negative point of view. The focus will be on what we ought not to do, those things which we should refrain from on the Lord's day. And it is true that observing the Sabbath does require us to cease from particular activities. In Exodus 20:10 the fourth commandment says of the Sabbath that 'in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:' Question number sixty one in the Shorter Catechism says that 'The fourth commandment forbiddeth the omission or careless performance of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.' Clearly a right observance of the Sabbath includes ceasing from particular activities, yet if we only focus on the 'negative' commandments regarding the Sabbath then there is the danger that we will consider the Lord's Day in a negative light, and even regard it as an inconvenience. The prophet Isaiah says that we are to 'call the sabbath a delight'; it is a day which should be viewed positively by the Christian because of the great benefits which it holds.