APOSTLE PAUL’S CHARISMATISM OR PENTECOSTALISM
The early Christian Church was into charisms, miraculous powers, in a big way
(Acts 2, 8).
Paul recommends and praises the charisms in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and makes
regulations about them in chapter 14.
Now, a charism might have a natural explanation and still be a charism for
religionists consider all things to be presents from God. But Paul probably
regards his flock’s charisms as unnatural when he includes the working of
miracles as one of them. He says that the least charism, tongues, speaking
gibberish, can be interpreted by an inspired person meaning that something
supernatural is happening so when that one is a miracle so are the better ones.
Paul needed to regulate the charismatic activity to prevent chaos and confusion
(1 Corinthians 14:33). The hysterical nature of Paul’s cult is given away by the
fact that Paul needed to regulate the charisms which would not have been
necessary if God was behind them all. He said that God would not send gifts that
do that so are the charisms real and divine? How could they be real and divine
when they confuse and cause discord? Christians say they are real for it is not
the charisms but the way they were expressed that Paul is objecting to. But
would God speak to somebody who was ready to keep the message to himself until
the wrong time?
Another proof is in Paul’s statement that the spirit of one who speaks in
tongues can be praying without them knowing what they are praying about (1
Corinthians 14:14,15). He claims that this is the person praying – it is not an
alien spirit praying in her or him. You cannot pray unless you know what you
mean. It might be thought that the spirit was an artificial personality created
by hypnosis. But it praying would not be the person praying. Paul was just being
dense.
The fundamentalist anti-Charismatics lie that these people were praying in real
languages that they knew (page 18, Speaking in Tongues). This lie is told for an
excuse to get speaking in tongues as it is practiced today seen as heresy.
Modern Charismatics cannot speak in French unless they have learned French
first. Many fundamentalist bodies don't like the free-spiritedness of
charismatism. They see its ways and theology as a danger to fundamentalist
power.
His benightedness grows until he gets to 14:22 where he pronounces that the gift
of tongues, babbling nonsense or snatches from other languages, is for
impressing and converting those who do not believe. If it is for doing that then
it shouldn’t be. And then he forgets himself and says it should not be done
before unbelievers (v23) who will scoff and say that the Christians are all mad.
Paul’s Pentecostalism was heretical for the Old Testament averred that God would
only speak through prophets who wouldn’t misrepresent anything he said or make
mistakes. Read it in Deuteronomy 18. An honest God couldn’t do otherwise. But
Paul’s charismatic prophets could issue oracles that were not of divine origin
(14:29). And yet Paul wanted them listened to. He said he believed that since
God came first, God’s word came before all other teachings so you have to be
extremely sure that it is God’s word first. That is why the rigid standard in
Deuteronomy 18 makes perfect sense. He was a con. He didn’t care about God.
Jesus never appeared to him. Why would he waste the time?
Or does Deuteronomy refer to prophets who give revelation that counts as
scripture unlike the charismatics who only give revelations in support of
scripture? Paul means all prophets for it does not specify one kind of prophet.
What use would charismatic prophets be if we could not listen to them until we
checked them if what they said was in the Bible? It would be better to read the
Bible ourselves in the first place. The testing standard used then was the Old
Testament. It was not easy to derive Christian doctrine from it so there would
have been little or no testing of the prophets. And it is certainly true that
Jesus was not foreseen in the Old Testament and that the idea that it contains
the gospel is wrong which was another complication. It is most probable that
Paul never insisted that the message must be checked alongside the Old
Testament. This means that all earliest Christianity had to spiritually live on
was posthumous revelation from the enigmatic risen Christ whom they had never
seen.
The Charismatics who admit they are not infallible when they get their
revelations are heretics. They pay lip-service to the Old Testament as the word
of God. Jesus would have been a fraud if he wanted a Pentecostal Church. There
would have been nothing wrong with limiting the charisms to a few trustworthy
souls as he allegedly did at Pentecost on a temporary basis but giving them to a
lot of people is risky.
Paul knew that many who listened to the prophets would have had no way of being
sure that what they revealed was already in the standard revelation they were
obliged to accept that is in the Bible. They could not use the measuring
standard well. If a prophet told them that Jesus was born of a virgin and they
couldn’t prove that it belonged to the infallible standard then that prophet was
the same to them as the prophet who writes in the Bible who received the news
from God that Jesus came from a virgin and that this version of his origin must
be believed.
Paul’s approval for the charisms despite their errors implies that miracles
justify no religious doctrine and that God is often untruthful all of which
proves that his religion was one of blind faith though he despised blind faith
when he condemned blind belief of various kinds. Blind faith is a great evil and
a threat to all that is noble. If God is good and is truth then the Devil was
behind the outbreak of Christianity and its charisms.
The Corinthians prophets even tried to block others prophesying by prophesying
themselves. It is an error to tread on the toes of another prophet by
prophesying too much so that that he or she cannot get their tongue in edgeways.
God must be making errors then despite being all-powerful and all-knowing! Or
you might want to say the conflicts are indicating that God does not approve of
the prophets who have a message from God and can't get a chance to say he for he
would not be preventing them if he did approve.
Paul ruled, “If an inspired revelation comes to another who is sitting by, then
let the first one be silent” (1 Corinthians 14:30). This implies that God has
stopped revealing to the first and has started the second. If the first says any
more then it is not from God. But Paul should not allow interruptions unless the
first person is finished or makes an error. His rule allows any fraud or
devil-inspired prophet to extinguish a real revelation from God.
Paul reminded his followers that the spirits of the prophets among them were
under their own control (14:32). Does he mean that there are spirits possessing
them to speak and that they can shut the spirits up at will? The spirits are the
prophets own spirits and part of them so he doesn’t (14:14). He told the
Corinthians to be eager to receive and follow the “spirits” (14:12). You have to
dig deep to find out that Paul said spirits and not spirit for most translations
hide this. Raymond E Brown has made it more known that it is spirits he said
(page 107, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine). He tries to make out however
without any evidence that spirits means the manifestations of the Holy Spirit so
they are the one spirit and not many though spoken of as many! It is just the
one Spirit acting out different roles but remaining one spirit. That
interpretation is nonsense and there is no reason to accept it. Paul was writing
to the headstrong and heresy prone Corinthians who knew little about the faith
so he would not have confused them. He really meant to say that there were
spirits. The early Church was Spiritist or spiritualistic. The Church cannot
afford for that to be known for it would mean that it was probable or possible
that the apostles trained themselves to have visions of Jesus which would
indicate that the resurrection belief came from unconscious fraud and
self-delusion.
The Charismatic activity that got Paul’s sanction was a hoax – sometimes wilful
and sometimes brought on by religious madness or hysteria.