Can a Baptist be Charismatic?

Sorry for additional post, but if I can give an even-closer-to-home example, at my church we have about 200 adult members. Of those, roughly half would consider themselves charismatic in one form or another ie: theologically non-cessationist. About 10% of the remainder are cessationist, but they're generally not bothered because only about 10% of the charismatics speak in tongues publicly, and then only discreetly so as to not upset the cessationists. About 40% are neither one nor t'other and couldn't care less about it. Only one couple were into watching the GOD Channel and WoF theology - and they left about a year ago to go to another church more in keeping with their beliefs (largely, I suspect, because of the queer looks they kept getting from the rest of us!)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Our big problem here is the definition of terms. What is meant by "charismatic" to one person can be very different to another. I have Roman Catholic friends who use that term to mean folks who actually study the Bible and like to sing upbeat music and pray non-scripted prayers. Parishes advertise "Charismatic prayer group meetings," and that's all it is.

But the real meaning of the terms - Pentecostal and Charismatic - regardless of what else they believe and practice - always include the speaking in toungues thing. And that has no place in a congregation that uses the title "Baptist." Cuz WE don't do that.

 

I have come to the same conclusion about definitions, but Baptist distinctives do not specify which gifts a beliver can use. This would fall under autonomy of local church. The real question here is whether or not the Charismatic Baptists believe in added revelation or Scripture alone. That would fall under a Baptist distinctive.

 

So one could be Baptist and be charismatic, but not be scripturally correct, especially the brand we have in America.

 

I used to view myself as charismatic until i moved to America - now i don't want nothing to do with it! - and I haven't changed my beliefs either!

 

By strict definition- no, Baptist and charismatic beliefs are mutually exclusive. However, as one of the posters said earlier, people have the ability to mislabel themselves any way they want.

 

To clarify this, in what ways are "baptistcostals" or whatever you call it actually baptist?

 

The term Bapticostal is a term you can use to discribe a person that is a cloud without water. Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. No real standards of theological roots. Can easily be convinced to compromise as long as it suits the flesh. Very little standard for the truth . A very unflattering term.

 

nah... the term for that is churchian...

Bapticostal is something else entirely.. although.. I must say I never realized other people used that term..
Probably the best way to look at it.. at least from my standpoint.. is that a Bapticostal is a Baptist that realizes the gifts have not ceased.

my definition only.. your mileage may vary..
mark

 

Originally posted by Soulman:
The term Bapticostal is a term you can use to discribe a person that is a cloud without water. Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. No real standards of theological roots. Can easily be convinced to compromise as long as it suits the flesh. Very little standard for the truth . A very unflattering term.

This is just my opinion as well. I am sure there are more.

 

interesting analogy... care to elaborate?

haven't been tossed around by much of anything for several years now..

really?? perhaps if you were to speak for yourself... my standard is the Bible.

Actually those that I know that would be bapticostal.. myself included.. refuse to compromise.. even when faced with rampant legalism.

a very high standard for truth...

A great compliment..

mark

 

I'm with Dr Bob on this one. Sounds like an exercise in doublethink.

I keep telling myself to email Baptist Union of Australia and ask them what they mean by the following section from "What do Baptists believe?"

If by "very radical" they mean some of the goings on of "alphabet soup Churches" (AOG/CLC/etc) then that is anything but "within Biblical lines"...

 

The original Baptists believed in healing and the gifts - those who deny the gifts are not true Baptists - in my opinion. Instead they represent the children of Protestantism which flocked into the Baptized Churches and changed their character.

 

There you go. Case closed.

 

Okay, Okay, Mark you say that Bapticostal is simply a Baptist who believes the gifts are still active as they were in the first century (my paraphrase, correct me if I state your opinion wrong.)

How do you believe about Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Is this something that occurs at a later time than salvation and is shown by speaking in tongues?

How many people do you know that have been raised from the dead? This was a gift of some of the apostles. Is this still around?

Obviously, you believe in prophecy too? Do you personally know some of these prophets, and have they ever been wrong, just once? What have they predicted?

Do you believe that God can give you a new revelation through the speaking in tongues and translation thereof?

 

Good point(s). A 'Baptist' cannot be charismatic. They are mutually exclusive. A Baptist is one who holds to the 'Baptist distinctive' of sola scriptura. Charismatics and Pentecostalists believe that tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge are still in use today, therefore negating the Baptist distinctive of 'only the Bible'.

In an earlier post, someone hinted at the ramifications of the interpretation from 1 Corinthians 13. Unfortunately for the charismatic, it's clear that the use of the revelatory gifts have ceased!
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 word is referring to an element of revelation that is not incorporated in the first three ‘imperfect' uses of revelation: tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge. Since these three revelatory gifts were given as 'imperfect', then this is clearly referring to Scripture, which is 'perfect'-- the very Word of God inscripturated!

The use of tongues by charismatics/pentecostalists today is not from God. The Word of God is the supreme and only rule of faith that the church is to rely upon. The insistence of charismatics/pentecostalists that God somehow continues to speak to mankind in the imperfect manifestations of revelation is baffling; if God is still speaking through faith healers and prophets today, then why do we keep holding Bibles in our arms while going to church? The only conclusion is that the use of tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge today by charismatic/pentecostal believers is that they are a sham-- manmade and false-- and even could be Satanic utterances made by those who are not blood bought believers. How terrible it is that believers-- those who hold to the charismatic/pentecostal traditions-- could be so naive and foolish!

 

close enough I reckon..

It is the empowerment of a believer to serve God.. in whatever capacity God wants them to.

At times.. it seems to vary person to person actually.. the constant is the PRESENCE of the Holy Spirit which does indeed happen at salvation.

Nice try mate.. tongues is not required..

Only know of one that I could vouch for..
*shrugs*

really?? obviously I do?? LOL do I believe that gift is still around..? actually yes.. I do believe it is possible.
And yes.. I am quite aware of the test for prophecy so get over it already.

Now as I have stated on this very board.. perhaps in this thread I will have to look later.. I do not, personally, speak in tongues.
Has God directed me? yes.. He has.. it had nothing to do with what you nice folk like to imply either.. LOL In answer to your real question...
the Canon is Closed.

mark

 

LRL71, teleion and its associates can have a number of meanings. Teleios, (together with its associated similar words, teleioo, teleiotes, and teleiosis) is used frequently by Paul. You will have noticed by now that I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and co have multiple meanings. Just as a Greek would have trouble translating our word ‘love’ (is it agape, eros, storge or phile?), so too do we have difficulties with teleios. Basically, it can be translated, inter alia, in all or some of the following ways: complete, finished, perfect, having-achieved-the-end-result, accomplished, fulfilled, full-grown, fully-developed, adult and mature. It derives from the Greek noun telos, meaning end/ goal, and, as a further aid to our understanding of the word, the teleological school of philosophical thought essentially asserts that ‘the end justifies the means’ (e.g.: that the bombing of Hiroshima was morally right because it saved lives in the long-run). To a degree, the meaning can vary according to the context but I would suggest that, by and large, teleios (and the associated words above) encompasses all of these meanings and that Paul’s use of it in his soteriology demonstrates conceptually the same kind of dialectic tension as between now and not yet which we have with the Kingdom of God being 'at hand'. Judge for yourselves by these examples of the use of teleios-rooted words, both in Pauline texts and other New Testament writings: 1 Cor 14:20; 2 Cor 12:9; Eph 4:13; Phil 1:6; 3:12-16; Matt 5:48: Heb 2:10; 10:1; 12:23; James 1:4; and 1 Jn 2:5.

If, as you assert, the charismata ceased on the Canon of Scripture being completed, then why does Irenaeus refer to them some 50 years later?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

They took napkins from Paul to heal people in the outer areas in Acts, yet later in Paul's life he could not heal himself, Timothy or Tromphius (I think that was the one). Seems the gift of healing was gone in Paul's own lifetime.

If healing is still here as Paul once did it, why aren't you out empting hospitals, or better yet, standing at the ER so they don't have to go in and spend money on doctors?

Just my unspiritual, lacking in faith opinion