Baptists, Contemporary and Charasmatic

This is simply not true. Good men have been debating the eternal security issue ever since that doctrine was first taught in the 16th century. And this is only one example out of very many. But the issue here is not soteriology or Christology, but pneumatology, the very most complex and difficult of all the branches of theology for the very reason that one’s pneumatology is almost always governed to a large extent by one’s own personal experience.

For a good introduction to the experiential aspects of pneumatology pertaining to the subject at hand, I suggest the reading of the following 390 page treatise on that subject and the use of the 34 page bibliography included in that book:

Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit, The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, William B. Eerdmans/Publisher, 1970

Most certainly our pneumatology must be based on the Holy Scriptures, but our view and understanding of the Holy Scriptures is to a great extent a function of our experiences with God and other Christians, and most of us experience God primarily through the person of the Holy Spirit.

 

When it comes to salvation, soteriology and Christology are essential doctrines. You cannot deny the deity of Christ and be saved. You cannot say that Christ is an angel or just a prophet and be saved. You must believe in the Christ of the Bible.
In soteriology, the plan of salvation must be clear. It is only the atoning work of Christ that can save. We are saved by grace through faith. We are not saved by works. These are essential doctrines to salvation.

There can be much division in Pneumatology as is seen in this thread alone that does not affect our salvation. The very difference in definitions is half the confusion here. What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and filling of the Holy Spirit. Ask five people and you get five different definitions.
"By one spirit we are baptized into one body."
Try a discussion on that verse and see how far you get. How many differing points of view there are. There are many. But the differing points of view have no effect on our salvation.
The doctrines of soteriology and Christology are essential to ones salvation, and to that end cannot be ignored. You are right in that we are not discussing those doctrines, but then neither are we discussing salvation. That is why I said that Baptists don't disagree on those doctrines.

It is obvious that they do differ, and some greatly so, on the doctrines that constitute pneumatology.
DHK

 

What do soteriology and Christology have to do with this thread? What is the point that you are making that is relevant to this thread?

 

"Are ye also without understanding?"
You replied to my post that I replied to Lady Eagle. If you did not read Lady Eagle's post but just jump into the middle of a conversation, then you would be lost and not know what I would be talking about, and now we start all over again. Sigh!

Part of your quote of me:

Notice the LE. It means Lady Eagle--addressing the previous post. She was referring to Baptists disagreeing on many points of doctrine while still claiming to hold the Bible as their final authority in all points of faith and doctrine. My point was to show Lady Eagle that the distinctive remains true. Good men disagree in many areas, such as the areas that she mentioned in her aforementioned post. Those are areas not relevant to salvation (pneumantology being one of them). Christology and Soteriology we do not disagree on for they (generally speaking), give us the fundamentals of our faith, especially concerning our salvation.
That is why good men can agree to disagree in many areas (such as baptism of the Spirit, filling of the Spirit), and still have the Bible as their final authority--a distinctive that LE was questioning because of so much disagreement on these and other matters (non essential to salvation and the Baptist faith).
DHK

 

Apparently so. I thought that this thread was about charismatic and contemporary influences in Baptist churches rather than the doctrines that are essential for salvation.

 

Only if the gift of tongues is used correctly as in Acts. In other words, the spoken word is heard and understood by a person in their native language. It is NOT the Pentecostal style of babbling that we see today.

Also, the AOG and Pentecostals get their healing from the verse Isa. 53:5 ". . . with His stripes we are healed." The same Pentecostal that was correcting me on this also told me not to call "Satan", by the name "Lucifer" because that was Old Testament and they don't follow the Old Testament anymore. Both of these were told during the same conversation.

 

THANK YOU, untangled, I was wondering when someone was going to figure this out!

 

Please tell us how babbling in church is in conflict with the Baptist Distinctives.

I believe that the Assemblies of God wrongly interpret Isa. 53:5.

This is most certainly not the position of the Assemblies of God.

 

Correct. And, good grief. It looks like there are as many areas of disagreement in the AOG as there are in Baptists! It's all a matter of interpretation.

Even so, Come Quickly, Lord Jesus! This is too much to bear. (where's that cross-eyed emoticon when you need one?)

My dad always quoted the passage in Isaiah whenever he served communion. (GARB)

Isa.53
[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

So, literally, we Baptists (the ones I know anyway), take the literal interpretation of Isaiah 53 up until the semi-colon.

And then the rest of the verse "and with his stripes we are healed" becomes figurative?

Bummer, and I disagree.

The perfect "healing" may be our arrival over in Glory, though.

 

LE,

My arguments have nothing to do with the KJVO argument, which in fact, is a pack of lies. If a person claims to be a Baptist, yet denies the grammatical/historical veracity of the Scriptures as being 'God breathed'-- as historic Baptists have-- then one is not a Baptist, and could be considered an apostate. Those who call themselves Baptists and either adhere to KJVOnlyism, on the one side, and on the other side, those who deny that the Word of God as originally written as being inspired, inerrant, and infallible, are neither being Baptist. There is no room for those who deny the historic Baptist doctrines and distinctives to claim themselves as being Baptist. The version debate, as well as the inspiration debate, delineate those who should be called Baptist. Thus, the KJV-onlyist and the liberal both have no claim to being called a Baptist.

 

Perhaps you should consult Spiros Zodhiates about my assertions on the exegesis from 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Let alone, my college (Clearwater Christian College) and seminary education (Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary), both of which confirmed and taught that the revelatory gifts ceased, with this passage being a good proof that they indeed did cease when 'that which is perfect is come' (KJV). Despite your insulting tone, you have done nothing to disprove my earlier statements. Twenty years of Pauline study and you have not heard the arguments for cessation? I beg your pardon, sir! If my assertions about 1 Corinthians 13 are so 'grossly incorrect', then what is the correct interpretation from this passage? Please do tell us!

In order to respond to your ingnorant gibberish, I will post the links to what I had written on the passage at hand in I Corinthians 13:8-10 from the Fundamental Baptist board:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/48/725/6.html?

also,
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/48/725/7.html?

also,
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/48/725/9.html?

finally,
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/48/725/10.html?

 

I am not very familiar with Spiros Zodhiates. I know that he wrote some commentaries for laymen on various parts of 1 Cor. and I have here in my home library his commentary on 1 Cor. 15, Conquering the Fear of Death which is an expositional commentary on the English text with occasional brief comments on some Greek words, but there is no discussion of their syntactical or grammatical use in the chapter. The only other book by Spiros Zodhiates that I have here in my home library is his three volume commentary on James which is also an expositional rather than exegetical commentary. Indeed, the word “expositional” is used in the subtitles of both commentaries.

If you would be so kind to quote, word for word, what Zodhiates wrote that supports your interpretation, and cite the name of the work and the page numbers, I would be interested to know what he wrote.

It is very unfortunate that you were taught such a wrong interpretation. In better schools they do not teach you the correct interpretation of any verses in the Bible, but rather they teach you who held to which interpretations and the strengths and weakness of the various interpretations and the factors that led to these interpretations and why they changed during the course of the history of the Church.

We have not gotten to that point and we need not get to it because there are many exegetical commentaries on 1 Corinthians that are widely available and which more than ably make manifest the correct interpretation.

I can assure you that I have heard them all many times. After all, I am a Baptist and your interpretation is very common among Baptist laymen and even many Baptist pastors who have not made an adequate study of the passage.

8. 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.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10. but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
(NASB, 1995)

10. hotan de elthe to teleion, to ek merous katargethesetai.

To is, of course, the neuter definite article in the nominative case and is singular in number.

Teleion is a neuter pronominal adjective singular in number in the nominative case modifying a noun that is understood but not provided in the text and must be determined from the context. It is something that is contrasted elsewhere in the passage and that can only be the present tense found in verse 8. “For we know in part, Ek merous gar ginoskomen.

Ginoskomen is a present indicative verb in the active voice connoting present ongoing action which is contrasted with the end of this present age, the Eschaton.

Thus when this present age ends and "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,” that which is partial will be done away.

The interpretation that to teleion is a reference to the full canon of scripture is impossible for the very simple reason that such a concept was entirely foreign to the Corinthian church and everyone else for another 100+ years. The concept of the end of this age, however, was a concept that the Corinthian church was very familiar with and the ONLY concept that fits the context under discussion.

 

Dr. Bob wrote,

Dr. Bob must be speaking in tongues here!

The first Baptist Distinctive says:


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.
2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21

(GARBC, the emphasis in bold type is mine)

 

Craigbythesea,
I am utterly amazed that you are able to even post on this site. You are no more a Baptist than Iam a catholic. Your doctrine is nothing more than a hodge podge of ecumenicisim. You waste peoples time and resources arguing over tounges which true baptists have already settled in their hearts to be done away with. If you cannot read the book of Acts and see that you pentacostals are deceived and using tounges improperly, then you need to go to prayer and seek truth.

I read another of your posts on another site and was amazed at the affiliations you have had with Assemblies of God and other pentacostals. You are NO BAPTIST and should stop the masquarade!!

 

The following website is Zodhiates' biography. It is impressive, to say the least! He is a well-known Greek scholar in our day.
http://amg.gospelcom.net/amg/PPF/pg/ntlight/toc/aboutzodhiates/default.asp

Specifically answering your question, AMG Publishers prints a study bible (in multiple versions, but I am mentioning the KJV study bible) called "The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, by Spiros Zodhiates", see the notes listed for 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. I do not have the direct quote from the study Bible, but Zodhiates does mention that this passage refers to the completion of the canon, and that the use of tongues today is not biblical.

Spiros Zodhiates wrote a book on the very subject we are discussing. You can purchase it at Amazon.com for $10.99. The book's title is "Speaking in Tongues and Public Worship: First Corinthians 14 (Exegetical Commentary Series)". Zodhiates started this book in 1974 with the simple title "Tongues!?", and then added the exegetical commentary in this later title.

These other books also hold to either a cessationist view or strongly view the charismatic 'tongues' movement as unbiblical:

Charisma Versus Charismania - Chuck Smith
Charismatic Chaos - John F. MacArthur, Jr.
The Corinthian Catastrophe - George E. Gardiner
The Church Subtly Deceived? - Alexander Seibel
The Divine Comforter - J. Dwight Pentecost
The Modern Tongues Movement - Robert G. Gromacki
The Holy Spirit - Charles C. Ryrie
The Holy Spirit - John F. Walvoord
New Testament Teaching On Tongues - Merrill F. Unger
The Person And Work Of The Holy Spirit - Reuben A. Torrey
Speaking In Tongues? - Kurt E. Koch
Talking In Tongues! - J. Vernon McGee
Theological Roots Of Pentecostalism - Donald W. Dayton
Tongues!? - Spiros Zodhiates ***

Have you had a formal education of any kind? How well do you know what I was taught in college and seminary? Differing views were always presented, along with the professor's view. We weren't taught to toe the party line, but rather to challenge our beliefs and accept the reasonings behind such views from my professor. The views held by myself is in agreement with Independent, Fundamental Baptist churches of which many vary from Free Will (Arminian) to Sovereign Grace (Calvinist) Baptist persuasions. You seem to assume too much about your own views on the revelatory gifts; I could accuse you of getting 'erroneous teaching' from wherever you got your education from!

OK, perhaps you could list such commentaries as I have done above. I could suggest Wayne Grudem's book titled "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?", which posits four different views on the subject! Or, perhaps you aren't familiar with him, too.

For one thing, you are not a Baptist since you apparently reject 'sola scriptura'. Two, your views on the charismatic gifts is the one which is inadequate. I'll explain why below.

Good observation. Keep going......

Bingo. It's the context! Here's your problem with the context: You stated that,

Problem #1. There is nothing to be drawn from the context, whether immediate or from chapters 12 and 14, that discuss the 'kingdom of God'. The context is completely silent about adding to the meaning "the kingdom of God". Your analysis of 'ginoskomen' in verse nine is also baffling; where do you find 'the eschaton' anywhere in the context? You are isogeting the passage and inserting your fantastic 'contextual meaning' into your interpretation. You have erred by inserting your own man-made interpretation.

Problem #2. The context of the immediate passage is the imperfect revelatory gifts. You said it! Context determines the meaning of 'teleion' in the passage, and the context is speaking of the revelatory gifts. The Greek word 'teleion' (that which is perfect) is neuter in 1 Corinthians 13:10, and the greek word 'teleion' is also a diminutive neuter pronoun. Also, the tenses of the verbs 'katarghesontai' (will be done away) and 'pausontai' (will cease) from verse 8 are in the future, indicating that the use of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will cease once 'that which is perfect' is come. These gifts are revelatory, that is, being the kind of communication from God that is of the quality equal to that of inspiration. The tense of the verb 'elthei' (is come) in verse 10 is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood in this verse is important since the subjunctive mood indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances. The possibility that the biblical use of tongues was still in use at the time when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians is not in question, but rather the question lies in whether the biblical use of tongues is valid after the time when 'that which is perfect is come' (KJV). Since we know that 'that which is perfect' is in the neuter gender, it *cannot* refer to a person, such as Jesus Christ. The context of the passage, from chapters 12 through 14, is devoid of any context that infers something about 'the kingdom of God'. The word 'teleion' is referring to an element of revelation that is not incorporated in the first three conditions: tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. Since these three revelatory gifts were given as 'imperfect', then this is clearly referring to a form of revelation that is complete and perfect, adequate for the doctrines and teachings of the church.

Also, the nouns "prophecy" and "knowledge" (vs. 2, 8) are feminine in the Greek. But in verses 9 and 10 we have verbs, not nouns, thus requiring neuter modifiers. In verse 9 the verbs "know" and "prophesy" are both modified by the adverbial expression ek merous ("in part"). But in verse 10 those verbs and their modifiers are brought together and replaced by the single substantive expression to ek merous ("that which is in part"). Whatever is partial in verse 9 is "that" which is partial in verse 10. And since to teleion ("the perfect") is the counterpart to 'to ek merous' ("that which is in part"), it is absolutely clear that the "perfect" also refers to those same verbs. Therefore, the word "perfect" describes the completion of inspired preaching and points to the consequent cessation of the spiritual gifts which enabled and confirmed that preaching.

The truth is that 'when the perfect comes' refers specifically to the completion of the full revelation of the New Covenant to man. The church exists in an immature corporate, collective state until this revelation is complete, at which point gifts are no longer needed and the church is fully mature.

OK, here's all that I can state for now. As Dr. Bob said earlier, I won't let those who hold to the WRONG views on Baptist distinctives, Biblical Doctrines, and the so-called 'charismatic gifts' get away with denying the truths of the Word of God.

 

Good point, and AAAAAMEN. I've wasted enough time with Craig by now.

A heart convinced against its will is unconvinced still!

 

In keeping with the conversation:

Besides speaking in tongues and the loss of salvation what other acts do people here consider charismatic?

In Christ,

Brooks

 

One may argue until you are blue in the face, but a tongues-speaker today is NOT a Baptist. If a person is sucked into the tongues nonsense, they are deceived and surrender the right to call themselves Baptists.
.............</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Dr. Bob,
I asked you this before, but you did not respond. So you would say that John Piper is deceived and has surrendered the right to call himself Baptist?

I am SBC. I do not speak in tongues, etc., nor does my church practice or teach those gifts. However, from what I have studied and seen, your argument has a faulty basis. Many charismatics do not claim that revelatory gifts such as prophecy or tongues have anything to do with doctrine. The messages they believe they receive are personal words of exhortation, direction, and encouragement, sometimes for their church body. Believing you received a personal exhortation from God to stand fast in trial or that your church should do A instead of B is NOT the same as doctrinal content that overrides the Bible.

I am sure there are groups that put their "revelatory" experiences on par with Scripture and therefore dismiss Scripture. And they are wrong. But we are very inaccurate if we say that every tongues speaker claims new revelation that corrects the Bible.

Karen

 

These two topics are fairly prominent within the charismatic movement, although tongues is its hallmark trait. Theological views of many charismatics also lean toward healing, visions, prophecies, and ecumenism.