Posted on 12/01/2009 6:03:15 PM PST by Jedediah
As you say theological disputes can arise among those who do recognize the possibility of modern day prophets, i.e. pro and anti Catholicism beliefs and also pro and anti Mormonism beliefs.
The alternative is to caucus Jedediah's prophecies under the label "Pentecostal."
As a final point, even though an article has been caucused, an RF poster may repost a similar article for immediate "open" thread RF discussion or wait for the four hour no-duplicates-allowed bar to pass and then repost the same article for "open" discussion.
This initial caucusing essentially provides a "safe harbor" for discussion by those who share a common belief in modern day prophecies spoken in first person.
That one would have my vote.
My biggest beef is when the "Catholic" topic tag gets put on it -- my sidebar lists all "Catholic" topic threads and I am not particularly interested in even seeing these threads come up under that banner. You appear to have fixed that now and I appreciate that.
“I am caucusing Jedediah's prophecies in the Religion Forum to avoid provoking personal attacks and flame wars by those who are deeply, deeply offended by anyone alleging to be a modern day prophet speaking in first person.”
I understand. Perfectly reasonable.
But here's the thing: I'm not deeply, deeply offended by someone alleging to be a modern-day prophet speaking the first person.
Having spent many years in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, I listened to many people give prophecies, and I was not offended per se by their witness.
That doesn't mean that I checked the requirement for discernment at the door. Sometimes, after reflection, I came to the conclusion that the prophecy given may well have been from God, and may well have been worthy. Other times, after reflection, I concluded that the “prophecy” was not of God, and probably more related to the person's ego. Still other times, the prophecy was given by someone that experience had shown might be mentally not fully balanced. In these cases, prayer group leaders tried to deal gently with these folks, but in some cases, we actually had to physically prevent some of these folks from coming to the meetings.
But it worked in part because the prayer meetings were organized and run by a specific set of core group leaders who were recognized as having the authority to make these judgments and to act accordingly.
Here, we have at least one person claiming to make these prophecies, and those of us so inclined to listen and discern may or may not judge these prophecies as being valid, possibly valid, or certainly not valid.
But there is no leadership mechanism to achieve order. So that's something that's unavailable.
So what's left is the individual judgment of each member of the forum.
Now, certainly, those folks who make no claim at all to being charismatic or pentecostal should stay out of these caucus threads.
But what about folks who are, to some degree or other, charismatic or pentecostal (and this isn't as easy to pin down as whether one is Catholic or Methodist or Presbyterian)? Even if they don't go to an overtly charismatic assembly, if they count themselves charismatic or pentecostal, may they enter the caucus and give their possibly negative judgment?
“The alternative is to caucus Jedediah's prophecies under the label ‘Pentecostal.’”
I'm not sure what that buys. Many Cahtolic charismatics wouldn't balk at being labeled “pentecostal,” even if they aren't part of a formally pentecostal denomination. As well, there are denominations and non-denominational groups that specifically call themselves “charismatic” to contrast themselves with more fully “pentecostal” groups that nonetheless are broadly speaking, “pentecostal,” in the actual meaning of the word. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some here who identify strongly as charismatic, but if they were honest, would point out that they wouldn't want to be categorized as “pentecostal.”
Then, there are serious theological disputes within those who might properly be defined as “pentecostal” which could easily make one person denounce a specific prophecy while another fully endorsed it - all the folks involved being rightly called “pentecostal” (or “charismatic”).
I guess my point is that if we're trying to do things in an intellectually honest way, “charismatic” or “pentecostal” caucus threads have a much, much greater inherent capacity for theological battles and harsh disputes than, say, Catholic caucus threads. If we are saying that by “charismatic” or “pentecostal,” we're talking about folks who accept that in the current day that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including speaking in tongues, interpreting speech in tongues, prophecy and healing, then I properly belong to this caucus.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I accept as prophecy what is offered here as prophecy.
sitetest
That doesn't necessarily mean that I accept as prophecy what is offered here as prophecy.
Jedediah, label your prophecy threads either "Charismatic Caucus" or "Pentecostal Caucus" and use "other" as the only denominational topic. This should help avoid personal attacks and flame wars and provide "safe harbor" for sharing prophecies spoken in first person.
So are you saying that Catholics (and others) who believe in the current-day existence of the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are properly speaking members of the charismatic caucus?
Thanks for your time.
sitetest
As sitetest has already posted, "the problem runs a bit deeper." I am a Charismatic Christian who believes it is wrong to record and distribute prophetic utterances outside the local body. Furthermore, I would never state this in the form of a personal attack or a flame.
As sitetest has already posted, "the problem runs a bit deeper." I am a Charismatic Christian who believes it is wrong to record and distribute prophetic utterances outside the local body. Furthermore, I would never state this in the form of a personal attack or a flame.
Yes, much like an RF poster who believes in amillennialism, dispensationalism, preterism (etc.) would be part of that caucus whether he is Catholic or Protestant, etc.
That would be considered a family dispute around the dinner table. As long as you are a member of the caucus, you can post whether to agree or disagree.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Dear RM,
As I see it, you’ve done yet another masterful job of waltzing through the mine field here . . . or was it ballet?
I think the only quibble I have is . . .
Using “Catholic” or “catholic” instead of “Roman Catholic” or “Vatican Affiliated Congregations”
IS A THEOLOGICAL POSITION which many Protestants would disagree with. We vigorously protest their claim to exclusive ownership of catholic/universal or Catholic/universal as their exclusive term.
Making it a distinction as outlined above in caucus titles sides with them on that theological point.
Thanks tons for all you do so wisely by His Spirit.
The point was that a Freeper who wears a Catholic or whatever label could also be Charismatic and therefore be a member of this caucus. It’s like a Rapture Caucus - Freepers from various religious groups may believe in the Rapture.
Thanks.
I wasn’t real clear on how the term had entered the caucus discussion anyway.
Just wanted to make the point because it had come up on the thread.
Certainly Roman Catholic Charismatics should be welcome on such a thread. Some of us Protestants would just like them labeled that way or some similar way if the label is to appear in a title.
Thanks tons for all you do to keep this herd of cats somewhat sane and civil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.