As for these 7 points supposedly representing the charismatic hermeneutic, I think that it would be better to say that they are 7 points that Stibbs adhere's too, though I have never heard of Stibb's until this thread so I really have no idea what he is about.
Trying to define the broad domain of charismatic theology, which I can only presume that he has seperated from Pentecostal theology or for that matter with Renewal theology, is an onerous task as the domain or domains of charismatic theology are indeed broad and I know full well that the points that he has presented would probably horrify the more respected charismatic theologians and commentators.
Pentecostal exegetical scholars such as Gordon Fee would probably not be all that impressed with Stibb's 7 points.
I have two basic texts on Pentecostal theology: One is "The Foundations of Pentecostal Theology" and the other comprises Gordon Fee's "1 Corinthians", 1 and 2 Thessalonians" and "The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul". I also have a strong grounding in Puritan theology with a library of books by the principal 17th Century authors, including John Flavell and William Gurnall.
I have read these books right through and find little difference in the theology of these authors, except that The Foundations, and Gordon Fee accept that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are available today (and this is based on the wording of scripture, whilst the contrary view is taken from half an obscure verse in 1 Corinthians 13).
I must say that some of my Charismatic friends have tended to look sideways at me when I have discussed Calvinist Puritan theology which is firmly based on scripture, rather than experience. The Puritans downplayed the experiential and strongly promoted scripture. It was the golden age of scripture teaching that arose out of the written Bible being translated into German and English. Once that happened, then there was an outbreak of Bible teaching that sought to make ordinary people aware of what the Bible actually said, rather than them getting a priest's interpretation of it. Also, it enabled ordinary people to read the Bible for themselves and to come to their own conclusions.
This must always be the case when we study the Bible today. There are always those who want to impose their interpretation of the Bible on us. Charismatics are prone I think more than others, because of the "big-name preacher worship" that is actually a form of "hero worship" which in turn is merely idolatry. When one of theses gets up and teaches their interpretation, the "hero worshipers" accept it without checking things out for themselves. Even when Paul came to a place teaching the Gospel, the Berean believers searched the (OT) scriptures to see whether "these things were so".
I don't take any "spiritual" interpretation from the OT history books of the Bible. They are just straight history. We can learn from the history, no doubt, just like we learn from secular history. We can see how God deals with the good, bad, and the ugly. When we read the OT prophets, we have to know the history of the time in Israel and why the prophets said what they said. The Word that came to the prophets was in response to how Israel was behaving - they were abandoning God and going after idols, and the prophecies were warnings about what the consequences were. But also within the prophetical books, there were numerous references to the coming Messiah. These were what Jesus pointed out to the disciples at Emmaus. So the lessons learned through the Prophets was that it is important that we maintain our faith in Christ and our worship directed toward God and not idols, so that our consequences can be positive and not negative.
I think that the first impression we should get from reading scripture is, "What is the Bible literally saying? Is it to us, or for us?" There is a difference. Is it for our education or instruction? Then we have to look at the cultural background. What are the differences between Jewish culture of the different centuries and ours? What are the differences between the culture that Paul was in when he wrote his letters that are the same or different from ours? This could determine whether we take Paul's instructions literally for us, or whether we conclude that what he might have said was right in his culture but not really appropriate in ours. Examples are women keeping silent in churches, and wearing head coverings, and women not teaching men. All these are different in our churches, and yet the Holy Spirit is using women as powerfully as men. Also, another area of contention is divorce and remarriage. We have to ask why Jesus gave teaching on it, and why Paul did as well to the Corinthians but never mentioned it anywhere else. Another one is homosexuality. Many churches are accepting is as normal. Are they right? Or do the principles that Paul taught in Romans apply as much today as they did when he wrote them.? I am not here to give answers to these questions. All I am doing is to show how we must apply good hermenautics to our study of scripture and then come to our own conclusions as led by the Holy Spirit.
In summary, I don't think that charismatic hermeneutics should be any different from standard hermeneutics that is taught in our main evangelical Bible colleges. It has developed over time and involves very sound principles in order to arrive at the best interpretation of scripture possible. So I don't change the nature of hermeneutics to support charismatic or Pentecostal theology, I just use the standard hermeneutics that I learned when I did my M.Div.
