Friday, June 10, 2005

The Charismatic/Evangelical discussion

***deleted post***

Here I went and callled out Michael Spencer to define what he meant by Pentecostal and Charismatic and there it was at the end of his post. I'll decide later if I identify with his definitions and whether or not it would be of interest to him to join me in a discussion.


I've decided I'm not Charismatic enough to meet Michael's P/C definition.

*By P/C, I mean groups or individuals that teach:

1) Baptism or Filling in, with or by the Holy Spirit taught as a single, subsequent and significant event "completing" the Christian experience, evidenced by tongues.
2) Using Acts and the Gospels over the epistles to justify normal Christian experience and to interpret the Bible in general.
3) Endorsing all gifts, miracles, signs in the Bible as part of the normal and ordinary Christian life.
4) "Anointed" leadership, reflected in church and ministry structures that are leader centered.
5) Endorsing the role of the "prophet" as a continuing NT office.
6) Believing there is a special significance to the P/C movement in God's plan.

I do NOT mean:

1) Anyone with a P/C worship style.
2) Anyone who is expressive and emotive.
3) Anyone who is not a cessationist. (I'm not a cessationist in the sense that God is sovereign and can do as He pleases.)

I believe Biblical interpretation must go through the Gospels and I do not accept the offices of apostle (I think what he meant by "annointed" leadership) or prophet (I don't put today's prophecy on the level with Scripture) for today. I do not believe tongues to be neccesary as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit, although I accept all of God's power being possible today as any day, and I believe there is special significance to any corporate move of the Holy Spirit (although I would never limit that to the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches).

I'll be very interested to see how Adrian identifies with Michael's definition.

No comments: