QUOTE :I am afraid that nowadays everything has to be verified, especially in the States. We are living in days of great confusion, and scrutiny and discernment is certainly needed. If one's heart is right, one should never have to apologize for being careful. 20 years ago, so many were attacked for being critical of the Toronto movement. Just recently the same thing happened again with Todd Bentley. It was suggested that those critical of these people and movements were Spirit quenchers, Pharisees and legalists.QUOTE
------------------------------------------------------------
Discerning the spirits is not just a modern day phenomena, it should be expected by those involved in any potential move of God at any time or place, and more so welcomed. Any reluctance makes one think that the people involved are of the attitude that the events belong to them somehow and any questioning, is rather like someone coming into your home and questioning the decor. If God is moving then all believers are deeply impacted and involved and especially those in the UK who may have to answer questions by unbelievers about what is going on.
It is also rather arrogant to think one cannot be deceived and this is a danger when one is deep in the midst of it and outside views should be welcomed especially from those who have studied revival for a long time and in depth.
Checking out the history of the leaders and influences is part of this. Tommey Tenney has some question marks over him especially over his quotes that the written word is `old love letters in a dusty book`. Although it is to be applauded for believers to want to know the presence of God, it is a slippery slope to think that there can be anything which cannot be verified by scripture and Tenney skirts the issue too closely for me.
I am not a cessationist, nor a charismatic though I have attended charismatic and Pentecostal churches, enough to know that both sides are biased.
Colin`s questions are very relevent and important.
QUOTE :
Tenney’s View of the Holy Scriptures
John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
God chasers have a lot in common. Primarily, they are not interested in camping out on some dusty truth known to everyone. They are after the fresh presence of the Almighty. . .If you’re a God chaser, you won’t be happy to simply follow God’s tracks. You will follow them until you apprehend His presence. (Introduction, bold type added).
Biblical truth and doctrinal truth are denigrated from the book’s introduction to its last chapter. Tenney believes in the erroneous concept of "Present Day Truth" (PDT).
The Bible is where God has been, but the goal of Tenney’s God Chaser is to go beyond the Bible to where God is.
The difference between the truth of God and revelation is very simple. Truth is where God’s been. Revelation is where God is. Truth is God’s tracks. It’s His trail, His path, but it leads to what? It leads to Him. Perhaps the masses of people are happy to know where God has been, but true God chasers are not content just to study God’s trail, His truths; they want to know Him. (Introduction, bold type added).
The Bible is the past, it is where God has been. Biblical truth is God’s tracks, the trail He has left. However, true God Chasers are not content just to study God’s truths (the Bible), they want to know Him.
To begin with Mr. Tenney’s view of truth is incorrect. God & truth are inseparable. Truth is one of the aspects of God’s nature, theologically referred to as His verity:
When God is called the truth, this is to be understood in its most comprehensive sense. He is the truth first of all in a metaphysical sense, that is, in Him the idea of the Godhead is perfectly realized; He is all that He as God should be. . .He is also the truth in an ethical sense, and as such reveals Himself as He really is, so that His revelation is absolutely reliable. (Systematic Theology, Louis, Berkhof, pg. 69).
Truth by its very nature is eternal and unchanging. If something was ever true, it is true today. Somehow the God Chaser (who is not content to study the passé truth of the Bible) is seeking a direct experience of God apart from the Scriptures. The God Chaser, according to Tenney, knows there is more to knowing God than the Bible can supply.
A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth he must have present truth. God chasers don’t want to just study from the moldy pages of what God has done; they’re anxious to see what God is doing. (Introduction, bold type added).
The Bible is more than enough to satisfy the soul of this variety of God Chaser. Tenney’s God Chaser must be fed a diet of present truth. Where does this truth come from? What form does it take? How can it be verified as being true? These are questions Mr. Tenney does not answer.
What is especially upsetting is the manner in which he continually refers to the Bible. In just two pages he has referred to it as: (1) dusty truth and (2) the moldy pages of what God has done. The past is interesting and it has its place in Tenney’ s thinking, but what is of paramount importance is to see what God is doing now.
There is a vast difference between present truth and past truth. I’m afraid that most of what the Church has studied is past truth, and very little of what we know is present truth. (Introduction).
Tenney makes a non-existent distinction between "past" and "present" truth. Since God Himself is the fount of all truth, and He is eternal, neither past, present or future — how can "truth" be considered past or present? To believe such a thing is epistemological suicide!
According to the "Tenney interpretation" most of what the Church has studied is the Bible (aka past/dusty/moldy truth) but knows little of present truth. Present truth accordingly exists somewhere outside the confines of the 66 books which all truly orthodox Christians call the "Bible."
We have studied God’s Word and His old love letters to the churches so much that some of us claim to know all about God. (Pg. 1, bold type added).
I have never heard anyone claim to know all about God. Tenney is advocating some other means than biblical study as the method by which we can know God. As a former charismatic extremist I am very familiar with his line of reasoning which can be boiled down to the following statement:
By studying the Bible one can at best know about God. There is a vast difference between knowing God and knowing about God. Knowing God comes through direct power encounters and through biblical study. These power encounters are usually of a variety which cannot be found within the context of the dusty moldy pages of God’s past tracks.
This is a false argument, it presupposes that knowing about God through His Word is something different than really knowing God. The only manner in which any believer can know truly know God is through His Word. It is by His Word that we are to judge any and all spiritual experiences. The reason for the confusion and heresy within any Christian group is very simple — they have sought to know God apart from the scriptures and the end result has always been disastrous.
I don’t care how much you know about the Bible, or what you know about Him. . .I’m afraid we have satiated our hunger for Him by reading old love letters from Him in the Epistles of the New Testament. (Pg. 15, bold type added).
Tenney continues to downplay the centrality of biblical study in the life of the believer. He continues to refer to God’s holy and inerrant Word as "old" love letters. What he does not tell the reader is what they are to study in order to come to this subjective alleged knowledge of God. Tenney, like all extremists bases his argument solely on experience and not solid biblical footings:
But a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with only an argument. . .If we can lead people into the manifest presence of God, all false theological houses of cards will tumble down. (Pg. 20, bold type added).
This is one of the favorite arguments of the extremist "personal experience is superior to rationality." Tenney’s view can be restated in the following manner: "I’ve had an experience and you cannot talk me out of it regardless of what the old love letters may state to the contrary."
Muhammad had an "experience." Joseph Smith alleged to have seen an angel, Kenneth Hagin claims Jesus appeared to him 9 times, Mary K. Baxter claims Jesus took her to hell for 40 days, "Rev." Moon claims Jesus appeared to him and told him complete His "failed" mission. All these folks had "experiences" and all of them were deceived by them, and went on to deceive others based on the powerful effect their experiences had on them.
Experience is not the final court of appeal. In fact, experience is the weakest argument anyone can make.
• Personal experiences are just that, personal and thus subjective and as such they are unable to be independently verified.
• All of our personal experiences are perceived through fallen corrupted senses which are untrustworthy. Thus any spiritual experience should be closely questioned. How? By seeking verification within the context of scripture.
We’ve become satisfied with church proceeding in the dim "normal and status quo" mode. We just keep going through the motions, lighting the lamps and shuffling from dusty room to dusty room as if God was still speaking to us. (Pg. 31,boldtype added).
The Church has become "satisfied" with merely reading the Word of God, studying the Bible (shuffling from dusty room to dusty room, i.e. the books of the Bible). . .as if God was still speaking to as! That is a blasphemous concept of the Church and of God’s Word. The last time I checked into a "dusty mom" called Ephesians I learned Jesus Christ is still in control of His Church: QUOTE
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/GodChasers.htm