The Ohio Independent Baptist, May 1971

• leaders has been carefully studied. Two examples will be sufficient to illustrate the fact stated above: (a) Arnold Bittlinger has written a commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-13-14, in defense of the movement. 1 This book is recommended by Rev. David DuPlessis who is described in their literature as 44 an apologist for this movement for many years.'' The book reveals the author's position to be that of progressive revelation be)'ond the canon of Scripture (pp. 31, 32, 45). It endorses the doctrine of transub– stantiation (p. 39 ), and a general liberal attitude to– v. ard the doctrine of inspiration (pp. 68, 69). In ex– planation of ,the gift of prophecy, he depends large– ly upon the theories expounded by Paul Tillich, whom he quotes at length (p. 69), and gives considerable credit to Karl Barth by stating, "The reader may notice that I am indebted to Karl Barth in my whole discussion of 1 Cor. 13." (Footnote p. 121). His position of adherence to destructive higher criticism is much more pronounced than even the liberal Re– \·ised Standard Version as revealed in his comments on 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 (pp. 110, 111). Bittlinger be– lieves that the gift of teaching cannot be "contained in static dogmas," but that it conforms to whatever new situations may arise (p. 114). Sufficient evidence has been advanced to demon– strate that the position of this spokesman for the Charismatic Movement is well outside the main stream of Christian Orthodoxy. He obviously rejects the doc– trine of plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures as understood and taught by the historic denomina– tions and as explicitly set forth in their several creeds. A Confused Interpretation ( b) Laurence Christianson has written a book en– tttled HSpeaking In Tongues" 2 Throughout its pages J111111an experience is put into the position of instructor v.'hich should be occupied by the Scriptures. He con– sistently confuses the baptism of the Spirit with the ft1lness of the Spirit, as do most Pentecostalist writers and speakers, and begs this question by stating, "But the baptism with the Hol y Spirit is not a theology to be discussed and analyzed; It is an experience one enters into.'' (p. 40). He believes that through water baptism individuals are united to the "Body of Christ, the hurch (l or. 12:13)." (pp. 40, 51, 68). Chri tianson gives advice on how to have thi5 ex– perience of peaking in tongues. One is to quit speak– ing in any known language, lift up the voice and peak out confidently, and "take no particular thought of vll1at )'OU are aying." (p. 130) . Since the Word of 1od is specifically given in knov.' n hurnan lan– guage , thi must involve freeing tl1e n1ind of tl1c vcr)' language of Scripture-an exccedingl)' dangerous • practice. It eems a1>parent that l1uman xpcrier1cc i st1b ti- tutecJ for tl1e \~lord ,of od i11 tl1e \l. 1 riting of tl10 e ,vl10 are regarded a 1>ologist for tt1e t1ari 111atic Mo,,c– n1ent. J,·urtl1er citation i unnecc ary. An)' cl1ild of od \'l10 i sine r I)' cking tl1e n1i11d of 1l1e lJ rd alJ> ut tht n1 tter, nd v. 1 l10 n1a)' 11, ,,e l>cen i11 on1e me ure of con u ion on tl1 ubjcct, ill quickl ' d1 rn tl e l) iou rnings e n in l>rief an a,, .. l I a l ilI • 3) !1 1r b ic pl11l oph)' of ul> tituting t1un1 n - or th \ 'ord of od l1a~ pr ided tl1e re)i ... 111 t r I • r I 11 i h. l,een ap f m ni n1 . Jt liould 5 no urpr1 to la'-.1~ ' I that a tzeabl gr up of Roman Catholic Priests are now active in the Char– ismatic Re\ ival. The basic philo oph)· of the Charis– matist is the same as that of the Romanist. The Bible itself is considered to be the Word of God, but insuffi– cient for the church. Something else needs to be added. The Papacy arose around the idea of equating tradition with Scripture, and eventually giving to the former a posi tion of actual supremacy over the latter . When all of this is done in an atmosphere of what portends to be both mysterious and miraculous, the illusion is com– plete and the influence is powerful . (b) The religious apostasy of Liberalism. It should further be no surprise to discover that many liberal churches have been involved in the Charismatic Re– vival and that the Movement is well received by the N .C.C. and the W.C.C . It is frequently described by its friends as "Ecumenical." Bittlinger's writings, quoted above, are typical of this stance. It is unneces– sary to make further references to the similarity be– tween the attitude of the Liberals toward the Scriptures and that of the Charismatists. While the motives may be entirely different, the inevitable resultant philosophy of approach is precisely the same. The Bible is con– sidered to be insufficient. A Dangerous Path It is not without significance that those gifts which are emphasized by the Charismatists are precisely those which were designed to be the media of the communication of the Divine Will. While the sincere and devoted follower of this modern Neo-Pentecostalism may very well begin with the best and highest of motives, and whereas he may actually be possessed of a deeper sen e of pure de'Votion to Christ than many of his critics, yet it must be recognized that he is on a dangerous path and v. ill eventually find himself allied with the Lord's enemies if he pursue it to the end. The Charismat ic Movement i in the incipient tage of the disease ,vhich has once developed into the n1alady known as the Papacy, and yet again in the cot1rge identi– fied as Liberalism. Any course which ren1ove the cr1p– tures from their unique po5i tion a ab olute authortt)' 1 fraught ~ith the mo t terrible dangers. The highe t of motives cannot al ter tht . The Biblical position. take n by our piritual ance ' tor , that the Holy Scripture are our "onl}' , 1nfallihle, and all– sufficient rule of faith and practice," 1 still a afc rt1le to follow. This wa the pos1t1on taken by the l orJ ot Glor ' when H e \A+-as Hn1ade of a \VOn1an. ,r1a<le ,,,,cltr r/1t; Ja,v." (Gal. 4:4). It ~ as the attitt1dc ot the apo tie , as den1011- strated throughout the Act and the "'pt cles. 1 he n1a1n– stream of h1stor1c hri tianil)' has like\, t'-le giv~r1 to the Bible tht~ pl,1te o t st1prc111ac ' as the i11strt1111ent that the Hol)' p1r1t t1scs to teacl1 and t) gt1i ll~ ·l 'his P"-)siti(>n t plainl}' set do\vn in tl1e histotri rt:.t·J, R<.ln1e and the l ... i berals, llO\.\'ever, l1a ve contt sted th1s . Tl1e l1arisn1atist of toda)' is st1l'>sti1uti11g hi e111otit,1z 1/ ,e.;rperie11ce for tl1e \ _or l f , ll.i i_n 1,rc is ly . the ~a11~e \l.' U) tl1at tl1c Ro111a111 1 anll tl1 l 1heral t•h. t1tt1te thc:1r raticJrzal e:xpe, ie11ce for th \\ 1 ord of ,od. \\ 1 l11I tllc re are n1an , otht:r rens 11 f r c nclttliing tt1at tl,t: pr ~ nt -ailec.l " }1, ri "01 ti I c\ iv I" i riot a g r1\1in \\ rk f the ti 1, JJirit , tt1i c.li Jlla "' n1ent f tl1e 1nal, i, i11 t1tt1 rit ' stand lit a tt1 n1 t ig11ifi 1nt. I . " 0111n1entar) on I or1nthian 1 l rnold B1ttl1nger. Publ1 hed b rdn1· n , and r ce " r nd R pad 1967 2. h p king In ·ongue " l u 1 e 1 1 e h1 l t n on 1>ubl1 he b) 13 th n J ello :,l11p anne p h l 6 MA , 1971 9