Baptists, Contemporary and Charasmatic

Bob, I do not see how 1 John 1:9 supports your theory. Would you please check your verse and make sure it is correct?

Sure we should confess, but I don't see anything in the verse that indicates that we get "more" spirit as we confess. The Holy Spirit dwells in us upon salvation and therefore it is our choice whether or not to follow Him in His guidance. The Holy Spirit will guide us to do as the Father wishes us.

I'm sorry, but unless you can come up with another verse that backs your theory, I can't buy it.

 

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Bob's illustration is a good one. It is sin that keeps us out of fellowship with God.
Let's examine the command that Paul gave us in Eph.5:18 more carefully. Why did Paul contrast being filled with the Holy Spirit to being drunk with the Holy Spirit? An odd contrast don't you think?
What happens when one gets drunk? He does things (normally that he regrets), because he is under the influence of a power that is not his own. He is under the influence of an outside power, in this case, alcohol. The consequence is that he does things that he normally would never do.

When one gets filled with the Holy Spirit (submits himself completely to Him), he comes under the power of an outside influence (the Holy Spirit), and does thing he normally would not do. He boldly witnesses in public. Just as a drunk person comes under the influence of alcohol and does things he normally wouldn't do; a saved person ought to come under the influence of the Holy Spirit and do things he normnally wouldn't do--be a bold witness for the Lord.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Filling of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with baptism of the Holy Spirit.
We need to pray to be continually filled with the Holy Spirit, just as we need to continually submit ourselves to Him. If we have sin in our lives we cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit. That is where 1John 1:9 comes in.
Take a look also at Psalm 66:18

Psalms 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:
--How can we be filled with God's Spirit, if He won't even hear us?
Complete submission requires confession of sin.
DHK

 

There is a difference between indwelling and filling.

 

Please see http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/030881/m.htm

John Piper, Baptist pastor, author, and Reformed in theology, also is not a cessationist. He is an example of how it is possible to believe that some spiritual gifts may still exist. He may not be right in his view, but I can see nothing from this sermon, for example, that makes him either a liar or one who denies the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

Karen

 

Please see http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/030881/m.htm

John Piper, Baptist pastor, author, and Reformed in theology, also is not a cessationist......

Karen </font>[/QUOTE]On another thread, Grudem's work of systematic theology is endorsed by several. He, along with Piper, is a non-cessationist. So I would argue that we need to be careful to define clearly what we mean by terms such as Bapticostal. I would hold to the view that a non-cessationist can be a true Baptist.

Karen

 

Karen,
The bottom line here is the actual belief in "tongues" as used by the Pentecostals. Babbling, tongues that are a result of emotions. They are NOT the tongues as described by the New Testament.

Tongues (or languages) were a gift that allowed people to hear the gospel in their own language.

The Bapticostals on this website have admitted that they believe in all three of the major Pentecostal doctrines.
A) Speaking in tongues in the way the Pentecostals practice it today.
B) A baptism of the Holy Spirit AFTER salvation -- often accompanied by the "sign" of speaking in tongues.
C) The lack of eternal security.

This has nothing to do with non-cessationism. This is obviously not Biblical and therefore, the Baptiscostals, themselves CALL themselves "Bapticostal". You need to go and read the other threads regarding this issue.

 

I visited Piper's website. First, as described by someone else (I believe it might have been RSR), the first thing he looks for on a website is a Statement of Faith right near the top of the front page.

Piper's site looks more like a bookstore for his and other people's products than it does a ministry.

Let us put it this way. Piper is definitely not going to sway my opinion on this subject or any other subject. I certainly was not impressed.

 

Correction:
The first 'Baptist' distinctive is Biblical Authority, not 'Biblical Atonement'.

The GARBC website posted this information as to what constitutes Biblical Authority:

"The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority."

Hence, the Bible is the sole authority of the Baptist's faith and practice. This Baptist distinctive is also known as "Bible as sole authority".

 

Interpretation of such which varies from Baptist member to Baptist member as evidenced on this board. Some take it literal, some take it figurative, so stating "sole authority" has various meanings even within those who state it is the sole authority.

 

My personal experience with Charismatic churches, whether they be Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic is that they have a passion for evangelism and spiritual growth that is most serious lacking, if not completely absent, in many "Baptist" churches today that are extremely critical of what God is choosing to do in our midst.

As a Baptist minister I served as the senior pastor of an interdenominational, inner city Church for six years. Our church NEVER closed its doors before midnight, and we remained open seven days a week, including all holidays, with at least one member of our pastoral staff on duty.

As the senior pastor it was my responsibility to hire the associate pastors, and I hired an Assembly of God pastor who had a gift for counseling. He was so very much used of God that on many days there were people waiting till 2:00 in the morning for his help, and after he counseled the last person for the day, he and I went for a walk and he counseled me.

The first associate pastor that I hired, however, was a retired 70-year-old Pentecostal Holiness preacher dead set on the oneness doctrine. When he came to apply for an associate pastorship and I learned of his doctrine, I slammed into him in a very brutal fashion and told him that the oneness doctrine is a stupid, ridiculous heresy. His response to my attack (which lasted for about a half hour) I shall never forget, “Well, brother, what do you think? Can we work together or not?” I paused for a few seconds, and hired him on the spot. The church had a sudden burst of growth—both in numbers and spirituality—and this man kept his oneness doctrine to himself and was mightily used by God.

The third associate pastor that I hired was a Baptist friend of mine who was a Baptist to the core, and I feared of conflicts between him and the Pentecostal Holiness pastor, but the two of them became very close personal friends.

The fourth associate pastor that I hired was an Independent Assemblies of God pastor with whom I had one very serious conflict, but the Assembly of God pastor (the counselor mentioned above) assured me that I was in the right and that God would prevail (even though it certainly did not look like it), and the Holy Spirit spoke to the Independent Assemblies of God pastor and told him that he was not in the church to oppose me but to support me, and that was the end of the conflict and the beginning of more blessings for the church.

God is not a Baptist rag doll. God is God, and when pastors yield their will to him they are in for a real treat, as is the church that they pastor.

But there is another side to this story. Although our pastor’s were all men of God being led by the Holy Spirit, we had a number of individuals in the church who were not—and those who caused the most trouble (of what very little trouble there was) were some “charismatics” who thought they were spiritually mature Christians when in fact they were very immature, and they did not always have a great deal of respect for me as a Baptist. And if it were not for the charismatics on my pastoral staff, these individuals may have gotten out of hand. But God, in His infinite wisdom, blessed me with those men to serve with me that were most able to bring about His perfect work.

 

This statement is complete falsehood! The first Baptist distinctive is that the Bible is the sole and final authority for our faith and practice. No other form of revelation, whether 'word of knowledge', tongues, or prophecy can supercede the written Word of God, nor is it even on par with the written Word of God. Baptists are not those who accept other 'forms' of revelation that have ceased; tongues, prophecy, and biblical knowledge have ceased their ligitimate use back in the first century. To accept the notion that Baptists can accept various meanings as to what constitutes their final authority in faith and practice is erroneous. This Baptist distinctive is clearly taught to only mean the written Word of God. The GARBC statement is clear about this! Those who accept/change/alter/add/subtract from this important Baptist doctrine are no longer Baptist.

 

Regarding divine healing and the Assemblies of God belief, I believe that the Assemblies of God are mistaken, largely due to my understanding of Romans 8:23.

23. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (NASB, 1995)

But in all fairness and truthfulness, I need to add a personal testimony here.

During the years that I served as the senior pastor of the church I described in my post above, I personally witnessed the following:

One night I heard the sounds of someone stumbling badly in stairwell leading to our second floor fellowship hall. I was in the fellowship hall and close to the stairwell so I went into the stairwell to investigate. Upon opening the door and looking down the stairs I saw a young man of about 20 years trying to drag himself up the stairs. I went down to him and helped him into the fellowship hall and sat him in a wooden chair. The Independent Assembly of God minister (see my post above) came over to see what the problem was and the young man told us that he had very badly injured his leg and was going to have surgery on it the following Monday. We talked further with this young man and learned that he was in the U.S. Navy and very active in the martial arts and that his injury to his leg was causing him to be extremely depressed and he was very much dreading surgery. The Independent Assembly of God minister asked the young man if he believed that God could heal him, and the young man replied that he did believe that. I wanted to intervene and prevent the prayer as I did not at all believe that the young man would be healed, but others had gathered around and I could not prevent the prayer without causing a scene, so I kept my mouth shut. The pastor prayed for God to miraculously and instantly heal the young man’s leg, and then asked the young man how his leg felt. The young man, still sitting in the old wooden chair, slightly raised his injured leg, set it back down on the floor, and then raised it a little more, and then some more. Then, with his leg somewhat raised, he began to bend his injured knee, just a very little at first with great caution, but then a little more and a little more—and then, without warning, the young man jumped out of the chair, ran down the stairs praising God, ran around the block, and dashed back up the stairs completely healthy and whole and joined our congregation for the remaining time that he was stationed in our city.

And not only that, this very precious young man had a very beautiful spirit about him and brought much joy into my life.

God is God, and He is not bound or limited to any man’s interpretation of the Baptist Distinctives or the Distinctives themselves, and many Baptists are cheating themselves of Gods blessings through personal prejudice and unbelief.

 

Personal experience cannot justify departing from the truth and doctrines of the Word of God. Just because you feel that people's lives are being affected by your church's ministry does not mean the the end result justifies the means. I can also state experiences of how God is moving in non-pentecostal, fundamental Baptist churches, but how does this justify what I do? Yes, God will honor His Word and complete His work in people's lives, but to those of us who do His work, we are to be faithful to the truth laid out in the Word of God. Perhaps this discussion would be better debated out more into the dichotomy between fundamentalists and 'new evangelicals', but enacting and practicing pentecostal doctrines does not justify departing from Baptist distinctives.

 

Hogwash!

(GARBC, the emphasis in bold type is mine)

The doctrine that the gift of tongues is still operational today, whether a true or false doctrine, is in No way in opposition to the GARBC Baptist Distinctives!

 

I would just like to note that contemporary does not necessarily equal charismatic.

 

What part is 'hogwash'?? One simple word doesn't negate anything that I had postulated. One who holds to charismatic/pentecostal beliefs CANNOT be a Baptist.

I used the GARBC Baptist distinctives in order to illustrate a common belief amongst Baptists that the written Word of God is the sole authority of our faith and practice. To insist that other modes of revelation (tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge) are compatible with this Baptist distinctive is.... hogwash! Perhaps you have a poor view of revelation in general, in that these imperfect modes of revelation are in fact the Word of God, equal in authority to the written Word of God. If, on one hand, one says that he is a Baptist and believes that the Bible is the final authority of faith and practice, and then on the other hand also believes that God is still using the imperfect revelatory gifts (tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge), then the Bible is no longer the final authority! If you believe that the imperfect revelatory gifts are still being used by God, then why aren't these revelations from God, being interpreted correctly, considered equal in authority to Scripture? Are they no less authoritative than Scripture? Do you not see the contradiction here? The Scriptures state that these imperfect revelatory gifts ceased when 'that which is perfect' is come (see 1 Cor. 13:8-10, and the discussions on the Fundamental Baptist board). Again, I assert that one cannot be a Baptist and at the same time believe that the imperfect revelatory gifts are being used by God today.

 

Obviously, you didn't understand my post. I'll try again. Which "version" of the Bible would that be? Some Baptists are KJVO. Some Baptists accept a literal interpretation of the Bible and some accept a figurative interpretation of the Bible. Just look at the posts on this board for proof. For example, some Baptists say the Biblical account of the rich man and Lazarus is a real account. Others say it is a story. Some Baptists say the Great Flood in Genesis really happened. Other say it is a myth. Some say the tithe was an old testament law and does not apply to the New Testament Church. Others say it does. So the phrase "Bible as sole and final authority" in reality means nothing unless that phrase is clarified and spelled out in no uncertain terms. Which Bible? Which version? Literal or figurative? You are posting to someone (me) who was raised GARBC, BTW. Most GARBC churches I know use the King James. Actually, the contact I've had with AOG, they use the King James, too. Think out of the box. God does.

 

LE,
The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. There are positions, as noted above, where there is some room for disagreement. Good men have often "agreed to disagree" on many points of doctrine, but never on the fundamentals of the faith, and especially on those doctrines that affect our salvation (soteriology), and the person of Christ (Christology).
For example, which Bible you use is of no consequence to me. It is a matter of preference, a simple matter of soul liberty--whether or not you be a KJVO. Let it be.

But you cannot be a Charismatic and a Baptist at the same time, just like you canot be a Catholic and a Baptist at the same time. Both appeal to another authority other than the Bible. Both have extra sources of revelation. The Catholics have their Oral Tradtion; the Charismatics have their tongues, Word of Knowledge, prophecy, etc.

No one has ever answered the argument that if the gifts were today why don't we see anyone exercise the gift of healing as it was exercised in the New Testament such that all that came to them were healed. Why can't anyone go up and down the corridors of a hospital and heal all that are there? Why doesn't any one today exercise this gift that was exercised in like manner in the first century. It is obvious from this one point alone that the gifts have ceased.
DHK

 

Your entire post betrays the fact that you are grossly ill informed on these matters about which you write. The most absolutely ridiculous part of your post, however, is the portion which I have quoted above. Pauline literature has been my primary field of study for more than 20 years and I have NEVER encountered even one commentator, Baptist or otherwise, on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians who agrees with your grossly incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8-10. It may be well for you to get your own house in order before finding fault with others.