Charismatic Christian Theology

[ajqrszwn]

I'm interested in a discussion on Charismatic theology.

AJ

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are two primary branches which, in reality define ends of a spectrum of beliefs. These two are Pentecostalism and Charismatic theology. At the far end of the Pentecostal spectrum are groups such as the Apostolic Church of God. These tend to wander into other heresies such as Modalism, which is an entirely different discussion.

Bridging the gap between Pentecostalism and Charismatic theology are churches such as the Assemblies of God which can be characterized belong to either one or the other branch or both, depending on a variety of factors. At the end of the charismatic spectrum are evangelical churches which believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts to the present, but believe that some ceased, usually with the completion of the writing of the New Testament. At the very far end of the Evangelical spectrum are churches which flatly deny that spiritual gifts ever existed.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

There are two primary branches which, in reality define ends of a spectrum of beliefs. These two are Pentecostalism and Charismatic theology. At the far end of the Pentecostal spectrum are groups such as the Apostolic Church of God. These tend to wander into other heresies such as Modalism, which is an entirely different discussion.

Bridging the gap between Pentecostalism and Charismatic theology are churches such as the Assemblies of God which can be characterized belong to either one or the other branch or both, depending on a variety of factors. At the end of the charismatic spectrum are evangelical churches which believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts to the present, but believe that some ceased, usually with the completion of the writing of the New Testament. At the very far end of the Evangelical spectrum are churches which flatly deny that spiritual gifts ever existed.

Actually the easiest way is to distinguish based upon Spirit Baptism.

Pentecostals strictly believe in a secondary experience with the Spirit termed "Baptism in the Spirit" of which tongues is the Initial Physical Evidence.

Charismatics widen the spectrum with a simple belief in the seeking, propogating and continuance of the Gifts of the Spirit. These may or may not ascribe to Spirit Baptism.

The distinction between the two theologies is primarily concerning Spirit Baptism while the two are united in the belief in the continuance of the Gifts of the Spirit.

 

[KTskater]

Charismatics are a diverse group. While I'm charismatic, I would also consider myself non-denominational. You will find charismatic movements in almost every denomination (even Catholics). Personally, I believe that the Gifts of the Spirit (Speaking in tongues, prophesy...etc) are still available to all believers.
I differ from some Pentecostal churches in my belief that speaking in tongues is not the only evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe that one may or may not experience a physical manifestation of this event. It depends on one's calling and whether or not one asks for the Gift.
However, I encourage all believers to seek the Gifts of the Spirit in order to deepen their fellowship with God.

 

[GregoryTurner]

I have found that speaking in tongues was not meant to be a "sign" or "evidence" of the Holy Spirit. I find that if Paul were among us today, he would be writing a "Corinthian" letter to the Charasmatic/Pentecostal church because tongues are not used today in the manner in which they were intended. They are a sign for unbelievers, such as which is seen in Acts 2. Also, one might note that Paul had to write to the Corinthians and remind them that not everyone will speak with tongues, not everyone will heal, etc. When Jesus was baptised, the Holy Spirit fell on Him in a dove... He did not speak in tongues. Paul after his conversion did not manifest "evidence" of Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. There are just too many instances in the Word itself to refute this theology of the evidence of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. It simply is not biblical.

Grace be with you all,
g

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I have found that speaking in tongues was not meant to be a "sign" or "evidence" of the Holy Spirit. I find that if Paul were among us today, he would be writing a "Corinthian" letter to the Charasmatic/Pentecostal church because tongues are not used today in the manner in which they were intended. They are a sign for unbelievers, such as which is seen in Acts 2. Also, one might note that Paul had to write to the Corinthians and remind them that not everyone will speak with tongues, not everyone will heal, etc. When Jesus was baptised, the Holy Spirit fell on Him in a dove... He did not speak in tongues. Paul after his conversion did not manifest "evidence" of Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. There are just too many instances in the Word itself to refute this theology of the evidence of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. It simply is not biblical.

Grace be with you all,
g

The sign function of tongues is only ONE function, and at that it is secondary.

What tongues are intended for now is the same thing that they have always been intended for and that is EDIFICATION of the Body and self.

 

[GregoryTurner]

Yes, but not everyone has or will have it. Again, Paul's letter to the Corinthians is very clear.

The real evidence is not an instantaneous occurance... Over time, one can tell if someone has the Holy Spirit by the fruit he/she produces. There are 9 parts that make up the "fruit" of the Spirit.

Grace be with you,
g

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Yes, but not everyone has or will have it. Again, Paul's letter to the Corinthians is very clear.

The real evidence is not an instantaneous occurance... Over time, one can tell if someone has the Holy Spirit by the fruit he/she produces. There are 9 parts that make up the "fruit" of the Spirit.

Grace be with you,
g

I would say that while it is true that not all WILL speak in tongues . . . all COULD (and Paul even stated his desire that all would).

Concerning evidence of the Spirit . . . surely evidence of the SPirit IS sonship . . . adoption into the body and the fruits of the Spirit. BUT this is soteriological. We are not talking about salvific issues . . . we are speaking of charisms. So, while concerning salvation/sonship/adoption, the fruit of the Spirit is certainly the standard . . . tongues is NOT an issue of salvation so fruits of the Spirit (while they are ideal) are not requisite to the gifts of the Spirit or their evidence.

Pax

MTK

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

Pentecostals strictly believe in a secondary experience with the Spirit termed "Baptism in the Spirit" of which tongues is the Initial Physical Evidence. ...

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.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I have found that speaking in tongues was not meant to be a "sign" or "evidence" of the Holy Spirit. I find that if Paul were among us today, he would be writing a "Corinthian" letter to the Charasmatic/Pentecostal church because tongues are not used today in the manner in which they were intended.

I agree. There is scant evidence they were ever intended for bringing "messages."

They are a sign for unbelievers, such as which is seen in Acts 2.

It's questionable whether you can really make that argument there, and you certainly cannot in regard to Cornelius et al in ch. 10-11, nor in regard to Ephesus, in ch. 19. No unbelievers present to see the "sign."

Also, one might note that Paul had to write to the Corinthians and remind them that not everyone will speak with tongues, not everyone will heal, etc.

First, that depends on how you render the grammar of 12:29-30.

Second, assuming the conventional renderings are correct, it depends on which verses you consider to be universal and absolute -- 12:29-30, or 14:5, 23-31.

When Jesus was baptised, the Holy Spirit fell on Him in a dove... He did not speak in tongues. Paul after his conversion did not manifest "evidence" of Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. There are just too many instances in the Word itself to refute this theology of the evidence of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. It simply is not biblical.

It is Biblical, as long as we understand that the Bible is not a Systematic Theology text, and that the individual human authors each had their own ways of saying things, and their own theological nuances. Luke's emphasis leaned heavily toward the Spirit as the Spirit of Prophecy. For him, "receiving" the Spirit consistently entailed inspired utterance -- tongues and/or prophecy.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I don't think he meant it personally brother.

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

 

[NorrinRadd]

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]

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]

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.