-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can a Baptist be Charismatic?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
"The apostles didn't go to the local leper colony and heal everyone either....even Jesus could only do what he SAW the Father doing....he didn't just heal whenever and whoever he wanted to."
Humm, how do you know? John 21.25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
Humm, how do you know? John 21.25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
Though not every miracle of Jesus is recorded, I believe that every TYPE of miracle and working is shown. The consistent testimony is that people came to Jesus 'to hear and be healed.' And when the power of the Lord was present, Jesus healed. Do you believe he visited leper colonies and healed everyone? For your criticism to be valid [that people who heal today must heal everyone], you would have to believe so. Do we ever read of Paul doing such a thing in his ministry?
I cannot let untruth go unchallenged. Don't know what "original" Baptists you're talking about, but remember, the TONGUES MOVEMENT, WORD OF KNOWLEDGE, NEW REVELATION - which are the gifts we are talking about in direct conflict with the written Word of God - did not exist ANYWHERE until 1900!
Lots of baptist came and went before there was ever an inkling of this TERRIBLE PERVERSION of "gifts" that goes on in charismania today.
We are NOT talking about God healing or doing a miracle. God can do that. We are talking about the basis of GOD'S WORD in charismania. Let's keep the focus.
Can someone be a baptist that says the Word of God is 100% total revelation AND be a charismatic that says new revelation/tongues, etc happen all the time?
NO NO NO
Nope, don't know, as you don't know, all that Jesus or the apostles did, nor do I assume to know 
That wasn't a critisism as much as wondering how you apply your belief. Since you have non-Scriptural reason not to go out healing that explains it
What view do you take on Mark 16.18 "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
That wasn't a critisism as much as wondering how you apply your belief. Since you have non-Scriptural reason not to go out healing that explains it What view do you take on Mark 16.18 "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
My assertions are clearly based on the contextof this passage. The revelatory gifts (tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge) are being mentioned here, and therefore the context of the passage is the use of the revelatory gifts. The passage cannot be read into another use of 'teleion' except by the context: God's use of the revelatory gifts to mankind, and the supreme accomplishment of God's revelation to mankind: The written Word of God. If teleion has any other 'meaning', then where is the context that will lead one to 'isogetically' read into the text other than revelation? The realm of possibility would force one to conclude that the 'imperfect' revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge would be superceded by a final, complete revelation of God. The context of the passage cannot refer to anything other than an object of revelation.
Secondly, your understanding of Greek needs serious improvement. Most of the passages you quoted used 'teleion' in verb form, and all of the others were adjectives in the predicate. In no instance did you give an example where teleios is used as a noun. When translating Greek, all of the grammar is used with the context, hence the historical/grammatical translation and interpretation of the verse which is exegeted to give us the meaning of the passage at hand. You cannot be fast and loose with the Greek, by asserting that, "I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and company have multiple meanings". Well, duh!
That's true if you are just doing word studies of teleios divorced from the grammar and context of the passage you are translating! Are you going to leave the translation of 'teleios' blank because you feel that making a decision based on context is too difficult to make? You have failed to reason the various usage of teleios in the verb form versus the noun/adjectival form. Again, translation from Greek does not necessarily mean that the context of the passage cannot dictate its interpretation! Whether you translate the noun 'teleion' from 1 Corinthians 13:10 as 'perfect', 'mature', or 'complete', its meaning cannot be divorced from the context of the passage. Various translations of the same word in the Greek NT does not mean that its meaning is difficult to ascertain; context has its hand in determining the meaning of the word and the interpretation of its meaning.Thirdly, whether or not Irenaeus referred to the revelatory gifts is somewhat irrelevant. I would like to see the statement Irenaeus gave if you could provide proof that he made any such comments. Just like the charismatics/pentecostals of today say, just because they claim that they are speaking in tongues doesn't mean that God is the cause of this revelatory gift. The rampant abuse of the revelatory gifts by charismatics/pentecostalists today proves that their aberrant beliefs don't line up with what the Bible says how tongues is to be properly used. Irenaeus would have been just as wrong as the charismatic/pentecostal. Based on my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, I strongly prefer to believe the Word of God rather than of the errors of charismatics/pentecostalists-- and Irenaeus!
I can assure you that Irenaeus of Lyons, who was raised in Asia Minor in the second century, and sat at the feet of Polycarp, knew Greek better than you, and he taught that the teleion was the second coming.
What kind of speech is that? Why are you lifting yourself up in your pride and speaking so disrespectfully towards a brother?
How can you say something is untrue, and then admit you "don't know what Baptists" I was talking about? Perhaps you should find out what Baptists they were before you make statements which are simply not true. Of course you don't know what Baptists - modern-day Protestantized and Plymouth Brethrenized Baptists don't want to know what the churches of the Baptized way taught. I am talking about the early General and Paricular Baptists - Hansard Knollys teaching that all of the gifts of the Spirit shall be restored -"There are diversities of Gifts, but the same spirit. As in the Days of the Apostles, so shall it be in the last Days" - Thomas Grantham, the leader of the General Baptists could not have been clearer: "the Gifts of the Spirit, together with the Fruits thereof, belongs to the Church of Christ, as her right, to the end of the World." How can you say there was never an "inkling."?
It amazes me, not that you have not read them, but that you can make claims about them, not having read them!
Under Jessey, a woman was delivered of an unclean spirit in the Broadmead church. What about William Kiffin and others walking up to a blind woman and confidently saying, "the Lord Jesus restore thy sight" and the woman being healed - you accept THAT kind of healing today?
How can I remember? I would have to forget, not remember. I would not be able to remember that Justin, in mid second century, wrote: "For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time." I would have to ignore Ireaneus', Origen's and Novatian's similar testimony in the second and third century. What about the clear words of direction and guidance received by Patrick? I would have to forget Pilgram Marpeck reproving Bucer for rejecting what the latter thought of as "God's temporary gifts." What about George Wishart, who according to no less than John Knox, the Reformer, "was so clearly illuminated with the spirit of prophecy, that he saw not only things pertaining to himself, but also such things as some town and the whole realm afterward felt, which he forespake, not in secret, but in the audience of many."
What about the prophetic gift of Knox himself? I would also have to forget the prophecies related in the lives of John Huss and Oliver Cromwell. I would have to pretend that some of the early Methodist preachers did not receive prophecies, tongues, and visions. I would have to ignore the probable account of tongues in the life of Charles Finney, and the possible words of knowledge and tongues in C H Spurgeon's ministry. I would have to ignore the accounts of tongues following the ministry of D L Moody. I would have to call Pastor Hsi of China a liar. I would have to put the Indian revival of 1860-81 under Aroolappen, the disciple of A N Groves, down to delusion, since they spoke with tongues and prophesied. I would have to ignore the testimony of Brother Yun and other house church leaders in China.
So how can I remember something which isn't true? And how can you assert something isn't true when obviously you have not dug very deep into the matter?
I am glad you accept miraculous healing with the anointing of oil. That would be considered 'charismatic' by many.
This answer is just childish. You have made false assertions without dealing with the details of my past posting. Without proof, grammatically, contextually, or historically, that which is perfect ('teleion') cannot refer to the second coming of Christ. Sorry to burst your silly little bubble, but the charismatic/pentecostal heresies don't hold up to the Word of God.
I would again reiterate that your childish rantings only prove your inability to deal with the truth. My dialogue with another is merely academic, and not meant to be demeaning, but if one makes postulations that cannot be supported, then they must be corrected. One's ability to understand the Greek language should also reflect one's ability to exegete the passage properly and reflect a scholarly understanding of the Greek NT.
Dean, it is considered very good manners to identify in the first instance who you are quoting.
And it is even better manners, y'all, to identify all of your quotes.
And it is even better manners, y'all, to identify all of your quotes.
My apologies. I should have given the reference to Irenaeus on teleios is Against Heresies, 4:9:2:
"And Paul declares: ‘Not that I have already attained, or that I am justified, or already have been made perfect. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect has come, the things which are in part shall be done away.’ As, therefore, when that which is perfect is come, we shall not see another Father, but Him whom we now desire to see (for "blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.’)"
Urbanus (or someone) c. 235, wrote: “For the apostle [Paul] deems that the gifts of prophecy should abide in all the church up to the time of the final advent."
Asterius Urbanus, Extant Writings, 10.
I Cor 13 Paul is trying to straighten out the abuse of some of the gifts (BTW, gifts like tongues, etc are NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN in NT writing - they were in Acts and the early faux tongues at Corinth, then GONE . . )
"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect [thing] comes, the partial will be done away.
[Illustration] When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things."
Paul looked to the perfect thing coming. This is a neuter adjective and must describe a neuter noun. The noun is "understood" by the Corinthians, but somehow people have trouble figuring it out today.
What is he talking about? REVELATION OF GOD'S WORD/MESSAGE. Tongues/Word of Knowledge/Word of Revelation are the childish message. The perfect REVELATION is coming.
And thank God, as tongues ceased (until 1900 when the faux tongues of today's charismania) the REVELATION of God's Word was completed! We have all we need.
To say that God is "speaking" (giving NEW REVELATION) today is to deny that the Bible is the sole authority for our faith.
"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect [thing] comes, the partial will be done away.
[Illustration] When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things."
Paul looked to the perfect thing coming. This is a neuter adjective and must describe a neuter noun. The noun is "understood" by the Corinthians, but somehow people have trouble figuring it out today.
What is he talking about? REVELATION OF GOD'S WORD/MESSAGE. Tongues/Word of Knowledge/Word of Revelation are the childish message. The perfect REVELATION is coming.
And thank God, as tongues ceased (until 1900 when the faux tongues of today's charismania) the REVELATION of God's Word was completed! We have all we need.
To say that God is "speaking" (giving NEW REVELATION) today is to deny that the Bible is the sole authority for our faith.
Originally posted by LRL71:
Allow me to retort...My assertions are clearly based on the contextof this passage. The revelatory gifts (tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge) are being mentioned here, and therefore the context of the passage is the use of the revelatory gifts. The passage cannot be read into another use of 'teleion' except by the context: God's use of the revelatory gifts to mankind, and the supreme accomplishment of God's revelation to mankind: The written Word of God. If teleion has any other 'meaning', then where is the context that will lead one to 'isogetically' read into the text other than revelation? The realm of possibility would force one to conclude that the 'imperfect' revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge would be superceded by a final, complete revelation of God. The context of the passage cannot refer to anything other than an object of revelation.
Secondly, your understanding of Greek needs serious improvement. Most of the passages you quoted used 'teleion' in verb form, and all of the others were adjectives in the predicate. In no instance did you give an example where teleios is used as a noun. When translating Greek, all of the grammar is used with the context, hence the historical/grammatical translation and interpretation of the verse which is exegeted to give us the meaning of the passage at hand. You cannot be fast and loose with the Greek, by asserting that, "I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and company have multiple meanings". Well, duh!
Thirdly, whether or not Irenaeus referred to the revelatory gifts is somewhat irrelevant. I would like to see the statement Irenaeus gave if you could provide proof that he made any such comments. Just like the charismatics/pentecostals of today say, just because they claim that they are speaking in tongues doesn't mean that God is the cause of this revelatory gift. The rampant abuse of the revelatory gifts by charismatics/pentecostalists today proves that their aberrant beliefs don't line up with what the Bible says how tongues is to be properly used. Irenaeus would have been just as wrong as the charismatic/pentecostal. Based on my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, I strongly prefer to believe the Word of God rather than of the errors of charismatics/pentecostalists-- and Irenaeus!
'Teleion' could equally mean 'goal' here - that would fit the context as pointing towards Paul's (and our) inheriting of eternal life; that fits with particular reference to Paul referring to his childish ways.
The Irenaeus reference come from Adversus Haereses . I will try to dig it out and come back to you but in the meantime would refer you to Dean's reference which I shall have to assume is correct - it's certainly from the same work. Please don't take this personally (anymore than I should!), but as Irenaeus lived much closer to the time of writing of I Cor 13 than you or I, he's more likely to been acquanted with its correct interpretation (particularly against the backdrop of the gnostic and montanist problems of that time - I also find it noteworthy that Kiffin and Knollys had similar 'montanist' problems with the Quakers and yet similarly managed to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater) than you or I - hence I trust his lack of negative comment on the late 2nd century charismata more...
Oh and wot Dean sed
Yours in Christ
Matt
Glad you noted it was an adjective and not a noun as the previous poster erroneously asserted (and he called it a diminuitive - "duh").
Revelation - yes! The question is, Which? The faith was already Once delivered to the saints by the apostles....there was nothing in scripture to add or take away from that. They already saw into the 'perfect [teleios] law of liberty.'
What about your erroneous statements re the early Baptists and church history in general? A better man would acknowledge errors of statement, and at least admit that there are records of these things in Christian history, and that the early Baptists allowed for them. Burying your head in the sand is not something I can respect, but it is (sadly) something I expect.
The question is this - Is the New Testament normative? Is it to be the pattern on which churches are organised. You don't believe so, but I do, and so did the early Baptists, the Anabaptists, the early church etc., etc. The faith was already once delivered, but how can that be used to attack the prophecies of Huss, of Knox, of Wishart, etc? How did what they say from the Lord in any way add to the one faith delivered to the saints in its entirety and preserved for us in the pages of the NT?
Huh? Early Baptists allowed for God to heal or do miracles. Some of us OLD Baptists today still do. He is God! But don't lump in "Speaking in tongues", okay? No way, Hosea!
Remember, the modern faux tongues is from 1900 CE, so when you see "gifts of the Spirit" mentioned in pre-1900 literature isn't the modern nonsense.
Remember, the modern faux tongues is from 1900 CE, so when you see "gifts of the Spirit" mentioned in pre-1900 literature isn't the modern nonsense.