Can a Baptist be Charismatic?

Let me throw in something with pastorjeff. Whether we are discussing illumination or revelation.

WHY, do we need to go through the process of speaking in an unknown tongue when everybody in the church can understand plain English?

What is the PURPOSE of this "foreign" or "unknown" tongue to start with?

In Acts, it was used to allow many different cultures to hear the same message in their own language.

You mentioned one case of a Greek man hearin the gospel in his language, but that was only one case.

It seems as if the majority of speaking in tongues is the "nobody understands it period until it is translated by someone else" type of speaking in tongues. (I know there is a term for it, but it escapes me at the moment.)

Even if Paul was referring to this in Corinthians when he was correcting the church, why is it necessary? Cannot God speak English?

I wonder if there are any Pentecostal KJVO's. They wouldn't accept a Bible printed in "Angelese"?

 

Phillip,

Yuo make several good points.

 

Again, you are inserting your own interpretation into the context of this passage ('inheriting of eternal life'). Nothing is mentioned in Chapter 13 about eternal life. The motivation of the believer in using the revelatory gifts was to be made out of love (13:1-7). The cessation of the revelatory gifts would cease when 'that which is perfect' would come to supercede and replace the imperfect revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge. The Greek word cannot refer to anything else but that of an object (noun) of revelation. This is referring to the written Word of God at its completion.

 

Bump!

 

Bump....fall....lay....babble....

Sorry

 

LRL71, you are likewise inserting your own interpretation. Only God knows which of us is right...we are entering into a dialogue of the deaf here so I don't propose to say anymore on 'teleion'.

Philip, I agree with you that 'tongues'+ interpretation is superfluous - why not just have prophecy or word of knowledge in English? That's kind of why, whilst I believe tongues is a gift for today, I don't think the babbling done by most charismatics is the real deal; tongues for me is a foreign language which, whilst known, is unknown personally to the speaker.

'Illumination' vs 'revelation' - I think we are parseeing terminology here. What I've descrobed is what I mean by 'revelation not outside the word of God'; if you choose to call this 'illumination', so be it.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt, I am not asking this to be critical or even for purposes of debate.

I am honestly curious to know how tongues are used in your church.

Does someone step up and speak in a unknown tongue and then someone translates it to the church? Or does it work some other way?

Could you provide maybe a scenerio of how it might occur? Does it occur often? Is it from the pastor or maybe people from the audience?

I guess what I'm asking is, what would I expect to see if I were to visit your church. And this is out of curiousity, not meant for the spirit of debate.

Just curious. . .

 

How am I inserting my own interpretation into the passage in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10?? I have proven my point three times and yet you have not refuted any of them. You may say that only God knows which of us is right, but since the evidence overwhelmingly supports cessation, why would you think that this passage is ambiguous? Are you not sure of your own interpretation?
He who is convinced against his will is unconvinced still.

I don't intend on being rude, but it seems that you do not have a firm grasp of doctrines, or that what you define doctrine is different than that of the mainstream of fundamental/evangelical Christianity. Perhaps you could define, in either your own terms or of the terms of theologians, what each of these terms mean in regard to bibliology:

Inspiration
Inerrancy
Infallibility
Illumination

Methinks that those of the Pentecostal/Charismatic persuasion do not have their theology straight, in that it is not in harmony with the Written Word of God.

 

LRL71, you are exactly right and this is my problem, because Matt has already accepted OTHER Pentecostal doctrines after he told me that he would not. He only believed in gifts.

Then later, he admitted Baptism of the Holy Spirit could happen any time after salvation and that eternal security is not a correct doctrine. Two very important Pentecostal doctrines.

Once you start down the road, you continue. I too agree with the lack of grasp of Baptist doctrine and actually call them Pentecostals calling themselves Baptist. No more, no less.

 

LRL71, with respect, neither you nor I have proven anything. You have merely restated your interpretation of 'teleion' in the context of I Cor 13; I similarly have given mine. We are not going to agree on that, so why flog a dead horse?

Definitions - bear in mind the mainstream of evangelicalism over here is different from the US on a number of fronts...:-

1. Inspiration = inspired by God in the manner described by II Peter 1:20-21
2. Inerrancy = without error
3. Infallibility = truthful and trustworthy
4. Illumination = when the Holy Spirit 'quickens' the meaning of a particular Scripture to you, making it come alive.

That do you?

Philip, in my church we do not have public 'tongues' as Pentecostals would use them; the only situation where that would be permitted publicly is the genuine foreign language scenario described above. The only time we would permit 'babbling' is when someone is praying privately.

Please show me where I have 'amended' my doctrines on this thread; I have nowhere asserted the doctrine of subsequence, indeed, I reject it. As for eternal security, I am agnostic on that subject as I am not a Calvinist but neither am I convinced by the claims of Arminianism. That no more makes me a Pentecostal than it does other non-TULIP Baptists (of which there are many...)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

According to your reasoning, many of the seventeenth century Baptists were really Pentecostals! Many, if not most, of them believed in a post conversion 'baptism with the Spirit.' Your doctrine is a result of the influence of Protestantism and Plymouth Brethrenism, so that YOU are the one who does not hold true Baptist teaching.

 

dean198,

IMHO it doesn't matter WHAT Baptists in the early 1700's preached, taught or believed. I certainly know that they did not believe in speaking of tongues as in "unknown" or "angelic" language the way the Pentecostals do. The point is that all three of these put together equals today's Pentecostal core.

When I say, Baptist, sure there are groups that are off track. Primarily individual churches, but I am talking about a mainstream belief; in my case SBC TODAY. When I pick a church to go to, I will pick one in my area that IS closest to the New Testament as possible. In this area it just happens to be Southern Baptist. If I was where Dr. Bob lived it might be his version of Baptist. I don't or could not care less what a 17th century Baptists preach, except for historical interest. I do not believe in Landmarkism, so tracing the roots is not the issue here.

If you put "Speaking in tongues" (as described here), loss of salvation and Baptism of the Holy Spirit later, then you have what is TODAY called a "Pentecostal".

 

Matt,
I do want to appologize for implying that you changed beliefs. I believe I might have gotten you confused with someone else. I did talk to someone who said that they would not believe other beliefs of Pentecostalism just because they were speaking in tongues. Even if it was you, this does NOT mean that you have "changed" your doctrine.

We can beat a dead horse, but I agree with you and I am sorry again that I implied (or actually said) that you had changed doctrine.

 

Poll on this topic

 

"If you put "Speaking in tongues" (as described here), loss of salvation and Baptism of the Holy Spirit later, then you have what is TODAY called a "Pentecostal". "

Yes, and you are what was originally known as a Baptist, before they apostasised with Plymouth Brethren and Protestant beliefs - with the exception of tongues - the early Baptists did believe in tongues, but not as gibberish, as taught in modern penecostal/charismatic churches. Oh - by the way - you cannot use an American definition of Baptist to exclude British General Baptists who still hold, and have held since the 17th century, that one can lose their salvation.
Dean

 

Thanks for the apology, Philip

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Would you please provide some reference material to back up your assertion of historical Baptist beliefs? And who wrote it?

 

I have already given documentation, both on this thread (p.9 - incl. possible references to Spurgeon having words of knowledge), and on the very first page of the Bapticostal thread that you started!

Dean

 

I think I can hear the crickets.....

 

dean198,

With all due respect, the few 'scant' references of Baptists in history having the 'revelatory gifts' is somewhat meaningless. If Baptist history is replete with its roots in the so-called revelatory gifts, then why so few alleged examples from history? C.H. Spurgeon never stated that he had any sort of 'revelatory' gift, and had he known, he would have said so. The use of tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge has never been a tenet of Baptists, historically or otherwise. Again, the assertion with like-minded Baptists like myself is that Pentecostal/Charismatic/"Bapticostal" beliefs are NOT BAPTIST! The Bible no longer is our sole authority for faith & practice if the revelatory gifts are still with us today. It is true that many Pentecostalists/Charismatics have a few 'traits' of Baptists (i.e. -- baptism by immersion, the two ordinances), but this does not make one a true, historic Baptist.

All of this banter about the 'revelatory gifts' from Baptist history is moot if the Word of God states itself that the revelatory gifts have ceased! I think that I've proven that point already.