Can a Baptist be Charismatic?

[Phillip]

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"?

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Churchboy, we are dealing with two different things here.

Maybe I can try to put it into perspective for you with some examples:

Let us assume that a person comes into the church and announces that God told him last night that churches should dissolve and we should start accepting muslims and all faiths as going to heaven.

Okay, in this situation, we have someone CLAIMING to have heard a "latter day" message from God. First criteria, it is NOT scriptural, so therefore, it would be a "latter day" inspiration or message from God. Actually, it would be worthy of being written down as part of the Bible because it is a correction.

Conclusion: We throw it out.

=============================================

Now, let's take another:

Person comes into church and says God has called me to the ministry.

First criteria, this is NOT against scripture (unless that person is unqualified for other reasons).

Second criteria, we have to take that person's word for what he says. It would be foolish of us to accept what someone else says as coming from God. It may not have. It may be just his emotions or a feeling, or even a wrong spirit (remember Paul said to test the spirits).

Conclusion: We accept this person's word and give them the support they need to follow what in their heart is God's will as long as they remain scriptural.

============================================

I guess my point is that God will talk to us and God will point us towards open doors, but we are to be skeptical and there is nothing wrong with questioning whether or not it really came from God.

I have heard people say that God has told them the KJV is the only English Bible there is in the world.

First criteria kills it because it is not scriptural that only one translation is allowed in each language, especially one that is actually not quite in the same language that we speak today. (Although the scholars will argue that it is, in fact English, in real-world, it is not what we speak today.)

So, yes, God can speak to you, but when someone comes to you and says: "God told me this." Do not act upon it if it does not meet criteria listed above AND you pray about it yourself.

I know a church that has a problem right now. The pastor had them all pray for weeks on end on whether or not they should build a new building. 52% voted Yes, 48% voted no. Each side claim they prayed about it and that was their answer. Which one is right. They meet criteria one (obviously a new church building would not go against scripture). So, who is right? Half are receiving the correct message from God and the other half are receiving the wrong message.

The pastor, in his infinite wisdom, is continuing the building program. I would have to say, "Wait a minute." God isn't going to tell half the church one thing and the other half another thing, so let's go back to prayer and hold off on this until we get a better sign from God.

YES, God speaks to us. BUT, are we listening? ...and if we are, are we hearing him properly, or are we hearing what WE want to hear?

I hope that is not more confusing than it was meant to be.

Phillip,

Yuo make several good points.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Allow me to retort...

'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.

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.

 

[LRL71]

Bump!

 

[Pete]

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

Sorry

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Phillip]

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. . .

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
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'.

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.

Again by Matt Black:

'Illumination' vs 'revelation' - I think we are parsing terminology here. What I've described 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

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.

 

[Phillip]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[dean198]

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.

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.

 

[Phillip]

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".

 

[Phillip]

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.

 

[Pete]

Poll on this topic

 

[dean198]

"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

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for the apology, Philip

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by dean198:
"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

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

 

[dean198]

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

 

[LRL71]

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

 

[LRL71]

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.