<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent, Scholarly, Challenging Resource
Review: For all those who truly desire to examine the biblical and historical roots of the healing issue, this is one of the best books available. In a non-biased fashion, the author meticulously provides references and observations which help to clarify why so many sincere Christians have both embraced and rejected the supernatural manifestations of God's power. The result is an opportunity to prayerfully decide for oneself what the Lord's will is in this regard. Personally, it was both edifying and spiritually challenging. In short: a must read!
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible Apologetic you say? I don't even see an apologetic
Review: I bought this book because I'm studying the charismatic issue and I want to hear defenses from both sides. This was the wrong book to buy. Instead of defending charismatic doctrine, this book just focuses on ad hominem arguments against "heresy hunters."I looked for the section that says, "no, glossolalia is not a misinterpretation of scripture, and here's why." And then after that, I was going to read about how subsequent Spirit baptism actually is described in scripture as normative for the church. But much to my chagrin, all the book talks about is a bunch of dead people that are supposedly pharisees or something. So what if they are? I care about what Paul and Peter and John say, not Holmes Herbitoglooshan from 1785 who spoke out against the Quakers and their constipatory oat cereal. I'm beginning to like those heresy hunters, because at least they say something useful.
Rating:
Summary: a defining work
Review: I held off getting this book because it was my (false) impression that the defense of the charismatic position had no biblical backing. I also trusted that Hanegraaff and MacArthur's caricatures of charismatics were the norm. It had not yet occurred to me that the case for biblical charismata has both biblical and historical evidence on its side. The Apostle Paul criticized the Corinthians for spiritual pride and lack of order but he never dismissed the manifestations as false nor did he tell them to cease pursuing them.
DeArteaga quite capably states that the burden of proof lies with the opponents of the charismata to prove that the gifts are no longer active. In Quenching The Spirit, the author makes the case that charismatic critics have yielded to the spirit of the Pharisees time and time again throughout church history, repeatedly denying, allegorizing or explaining away tons of scriptures as well as ignoring various historical outbreaks of revival simply because they could not control living stones!
This is one thorough scholarly defense, and is written with a peaceful pastoral heart and a love for the brethren which once again is in line with the biblical spirit. I would dock him half a star for calling Kenneth Copeland's take on Jesus as a god-man as "completetly orthodox" because in the same sermon Copeland says Jesus had to be a god-man "just like the first one" (Adam), but I honestly believe it was a simple oversight on DeArteaga's part since he quotes the whole section anyway so anyone can read it for themselves.
DeArteaga's credentials (and extensive notes section) prove you don't have to commit intellectual suicide in becoming charismatic. He even gives quantum physics a moderate tackle in one chapter, correlating it with an idealistic view of faith. He neither brushes off excesses nor errors, but they are dealt with a kind apologetic. As are the critics of the movement I should add which is probably more than their judgemental rants deserve. See the sympathetic chapter devoted to critic Dave Hunt's life. There are no straw men nor is there any name-calling in this book.
BTW, another plus: it has thick paper so your highlighter won't bleed through the pages when making notes!
Rating: 
Summary: Helps our understanding of vicious attacks
Review: I read the first edition some years ago and decided to buy the updated edition from Amazon.com. Rev. DeArteaga shows that throughout history there has always been what he terms a "Pharasaicle" attitude towards certain movements within the body of Christ. He shows how those who have stood against these movements have "quenched" what the Spirit of God was doing. He then shows how this same pharisee type of attitude is used against the Word of Faith movement and the Pensacola and Toronto revivals. He uses the writings of men such as Dave Hunt, Hank Hanegraaf, and D.R. MConnell to show the error of their attacks. He also shows how Charles Farah attempted to point out problems in the WOF movement without going to the ungodly extreme that Hanegraaf, McConnel, and Hunt did thereby falling into error themselves. No one would deny that there have been problems and errors in the WOF movement but it is an even graver thing to accuse these men of being herectical and cultic. Rev. DeArteaga's book is very helpful from a historic standpoint and although he attempted to defend E.W. Kenyon I do not believe that he totally helped his cause too much. ... For a more accurate picture of Kenyon's life and the origins of his theology I would suggest reading "E.W. Kenyon: The True Story" by Joe McIntyre. However, I still recommend this book for it's historical content and it's ability to look at the controversial Word of Faith movement from another Christian's perspective. Finally, I would recommend "Heresy Hunters" and "Bleading Hearts and Propaganda: The Fall of Reason in the Church" both by James R. Spencer. While you are at it by "Christianity in Power" by Michael Bruno. For the truth about balance in Word of Faith buy "Faith, Foolishness, or Presumption" by Dr. Fredereick K.C. Price.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful text
Review: It appears that reviewers either hate this book or love it. I am in the latter group. This book put a lot of things into perspective for me and answered a lot of questions. I have read it at least twice in the last four or five years. Various members of my family have read it. I have given copies to friends. This book gives historical evidence that main stream denominational Christianity resists supernatural signs and wonders and workings of the Holy Spirit which were characteristic of the New Testament church. The intellectual challenge presented by the book is to be willing to lay down preconceptions of what Christianity is, to allow your worldview to change.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent resource, timeless classic, a must read
Review: Quenching the Spirit is a must have for any Christian library. What DID St. Paul mean when he wrote, "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption"(NIV Ephesians 4:30)? Rev. De Arteaga provides a meticulously researched historical overview of this trap we humans fall into time and time again.
Even the godliest Christians will sometimes have a little Pharisee within. The work of the Holy Spirit threatens our comfort zone. We love it when it's manageable. But as soon as God is clearly in control instead of us, that gets uncomfortable. Read this book and see there's nothing new about that. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."(NIV Hebrews 13:8) And so are we! By understanding what De Arteaga terms "Quenching the Spirit" we can gain historical perspective and ability to recognize when it happens today--hopefully avoiding it's pitfalls.
Where do YOU fall within the spectrum of Pharisee to Charismatic?
Rating:
Summary: Typical
Review: This book is by far one of the best defense against critics of the pentecostal/charismatic movement. This book gives an often overlooked overview of church history through a charismatic perspective. Remember there are 2 sides to every story. This book deals with revival history, revival critics and even deals with abuse. Please don't hesistate this one of a kind book. For more on this subject, read let no one deceive you or revival handbook by dr. michael brown, bleeding hearts and /or heresy hunters by James Spencer.
Rating: 
Summary: There Are Better Charismatic Apologist Books
Review: William De Arteaga is praised in charismatic churches for standing up to the non-charismatic works of John MacArthur or Hank Hanagraff but his book does little in the way of charismatic apologist. His work is simply not factual. He often will reintepret historical Christianity (such as Jonathan Edwards or John Wesley) for charismatic experiences. Furthermore, De Arteaga fails to point out the unbiblical aspects of the charismatic movement that he and I both know are there from false prophecies to excess of the flesh.
My biggest problem with De Arteaga is that while he seeks to urge believers not to be so judgemental, he fails to give us reasons not to question doctrine. Paul commands us to teach that which accords to sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). Purity of doctrine and life go hand in hand (1 Timothy 4:16). Jesus told us to beward of false shepherds (Matthew 24:23-25). John said many false teachers have gone forth to deceive (1 John 2:18). We must question all things by Scripture alone (1 John 4:1) and not by our own subjective, personal experiences.
Further, De Arteaga tries to link anti-charismatic views to Calvinism. While many Calvinist have indeed spoken out against charimatic theology (MacArthur, James White, B.B. Warfield, Charles Ryrie, Charles Stanley) many Calvinist do embrace non-cessastionism (Sovereign Grace Ministries, C.J. Mahaney, J. Rodman Williams). To try to link Calvinism as the cause of cessasionist views is simply misleading.
Rating: 
Summary: A Horrible Apologetic From Someone Who Should Know Better!
Review: William DeArteaga (henceforth, Bill) has written what many consider the "definitive" work on the charismatic movement. The many, however, are sincerely wrong to put it mildly. Bill is supposedly a historian, but he misses the mark BADLY. His entire thesis is this: there are two groups of people in the church, charismatics and Pharisees. He then rips everyone who holds to cessationist theology (of which I am NOT one by the way) as being a Pharisee and destroying the works of Jesus going back 20 centuries. He proceeds to attack the ministries of John MacArthur and Dave Hunt after spending several chapters arguing that that is precisely what a brother should NOT do. He dismisses both as Pharisees. But read what he says about the Pharisees on page 18: "The Pharisees' real problem came from two sources: First, they drastically overvalued the role of theology in spiritual life; they made theological correctness the chief religious virtue." The problem for Bill is that Jesus NEVER rebuked the Pharisees for "theological correctness;" instead, He rebuked them for not being CORRECT ENOUGH!! He also makes the claim that the nemesis of Jonathan Edwards, a pastor named Charles Chauncy, killed the Great Awakening by "using the assumptions of Calvinist theology" (p.52). Yet just seven pages earlier, DeArteaga argues that Chauncy leaned towards Arminianism (p. 45). So he's left with the question of HOW an Arminian ended a revival by utilizing doctrine that he abhorred? Finally, this book is friendly towards Catholicism but despises Calvinism, a strange fact given that Roman Catholicism has MUCH more in common with Rome than does historic Calvinism.
Rating:
Summary: A Horrible Apologetic From Someone Who Should Know Better!
Review: William DeArteaga (henceforth, Bill) has written what many consider the "definitive" work on the charismatic movement. The many, however, are sincerely wrong to put it mildly. Bill is supposedly a historian, but he misses the mark BADLY. His entire thesis is this: there are two groups of people in the church, charismatics and Pharisees. He then rips everyone who holds to cessationist theology (of which I am NOT one by the way) as being a Pharisee and destroying the works of Jesus going back 20 centuries. He proceeds to attack the ministries of John MacArthur and Dave Hunt after spending several chapters arguing that that is precisely what a brother should NOT do. He dismisses both as Pharisees. But read what he says about the Pharisees on page 18: "The Pharisees' real problem came from two sources: First, they drastically overvalued the role of theology in spiritual life; they made theological correctness the chief religious virtue." The problem for Bill is that Jesus NEVER rebuked the Pharisees for "theological correctness;" instead, He rebuked them for not being CORRECT ENOUGH!! He also makes the claim that the nemesis of Jonathan Edwards, a pastor named Charles Chauncy, killed the Great Awakening by "using the assumptions of Calvinist theology" (p.52). Yet just seven pages earlier, DeArteaga argues that Chauncy leaned towards Arminianism (p. 45). So he's left with the question of HOW an Arminian ended a revival by utilizing doctrine that he abhorred? Finally, this book is friendly towards Catholicism but despises Calvinism, a strange fact given that Roman Catholicism has MUCH more in common with Rome than does historic Calvinism.
<< 1 >>
| 
