Charismatic Christian Theology

Mathetes the kerux · #11 18th May 2009, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

But for the "exceptions that prove the rule," such as Gordon Fee.

He still calls himself "Pentecostal," even though he has written articles disputing those official AG positions.

Yeah but Pentecostal by affiliation is quite different than Pentecostal by theology which is really what distinguishes us.

LiturgyInDMinor · #12 20th May 2009, 10:30 PM

Don't pentecostals insist that a Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced in tongues is a MUST for an overall salvation experience?

Charismatics I get completely...I'm no cessationist by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't get Pentecostals at all theologically.

thanks for answering.

Mathetes the kerux · #13 21st May 2009, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by NoRaptureBaptist

Don't pentecostals insist that a Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced in tongues is a MUST for an overall salvation experience?

Charismatics I get completely...I'm no cessationist by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't get Pentecostals at all theologically.

thanks for answering.

no not at all.

There are some who do, but they are mostly fringers and heretics, like the oneness pentecostals who deny Trinity and make tongues salvific.

No, most pentecostals see the issue of Spirit Baptism and salvation as distinct experiences. One can be genuinely saved and never experience Spirit Baptism.

NorrinRadd · #14 21st May 2009, 04:46 AM

It always puzzles me when people evince the idea that mainstream Pentecostals believe Spirit-baptism evidenced by tongues-speaking is necessary as proof of salvation.

Here are the AG Fundamental Truths, which show with reasonable clarity that they believe Spirit-baptism to be distinct from salvation.

Here is the Foursquare statement of faith. Perhaps a tad less explicit than the AG, but still clear enough.

Those are typical of the large majority of Pentecostal churches.

LiturgyInDMinor · #15 23rd May 2009, 10:56 AM

Why would it puzzle you?
Don't assume a baptist knows ANYTHING about your denom. And the fact that this is a forum where question and answers are the norm....why would we look up denom websites when we can get easier(more understandable answers in most cases) from a member here!?
I would suggest that you don't get so puzzled.

thanks.

Mathetes the kerux · #16 23rd May 2009, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by NoRaptureBaptist

Why would it puzzle you?
Don't assume a baptist knows ANYTHING about your denom. And the fact that this is a forum where question and answers are the norm....why would we look up denom websites when we can get easier(more understandable answers in most cases) from a member here!?
I would suggest that you don't get so puzzled.

thanks.

I don't think he meant it personally brother.

LiturgyInDMinor · #17 24th May 2009, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mathetes the kerux

I don't think he meant it personally brother.

Oh I know...I just don't want him to get puzzled.

NorrinRadd · #18 25th May 2009, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by NoRaptureBaptist

Why would it puzzle you?
Don't assume a baptist knows ANYTHING about your denom. And the fact that this is a forum where question and answers are the norm....why would we look up denom websites when we can get easier(more understandable answers in most cases) from a member here!?
I would suggest that you don't get so puzzled.

thanks.

I'm puzzled by the tone of your response.

I think there would be general agreement that the notion that tongues-speaking is a necessary evidence of salvation is heterodox if not heretical. So it "puzzles" me when people assume that a basic tenet of Pentecostalism is heterodox or heretical, particularly when it is fairly easy to look up the beliefs of the major Pentecostal denominations.

ObedEdom · #19 9th June 2009, 12:51 PM

Gordon Fee is a master of hermeneutic exegesis and expository application...I wouldn't discount his take on matters quickly. Most Pentecostal associated colleges use his book on the dialectic and processes of text, as a primary liturgy for conclusion. Even after he questioned doctrine thoroughly, they will not reduce their dependence on his opinion of how to read scripture correctly.
How to read scripture correctly and surmise practical conclusions from it is the basis of theology, right?

His questions of initial evidence, being a physical (vocal) manifestation of the infilling, are justified, if not from a singular (personal) platform, but as a doctrine mostly.

I was filled when I spoke out loud, so personally, tongues as initial evidence is true...but I see the possibilities for anarchy and exclusion for teaching (and creating by-laws and ordination edicts) a hardliner position on this as distinctive. All in all, we're on the same team...I just suggest giving a bit of credence to Fee's dissertation

Mathetes the kerux · #20 10th June 2009, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by ObedEdom

Gordon Fee is a master of hermeneutic exegesis and expository application...I wouldn't discount his take on matters quickly. Most Pentecostal associated colleges use his book on the dialectic and processes of text, as a primary liturgy for conclusion. Even after he questioned doctrine thoroughly, they will not reduce their dependence on his opinion of how to read scripture correctly.
How to read scripture correctly and surmise practical conclusions from it is the basis of theology, right?

His questions of initial evidence, being a physical (vocal) manifestation of the infilling, are justified, if not from a singular (personal) platform, but as a doctrine mostly.

I was filled when I spoke out loud, so personally, tongues as initial evidence is true...but I see the possibilities for anarchy and exclusion for teaching (and creating by-laws and ordination edicts) a hardliner position on this as distinctive. All in all, we're on the same team...I just suggest giving a bit of credence to Fee's dissertation

Fee is good . . . he is just not consistent.

I have a few of his books . . . and, while the initial evidence doctrine is surely NOT as solid as, say, the deity of Christ, it certainly is a sound doctrine when approached the same way as the Menzies' do.