Charismatic or non-cessationist

[AnthonyB]

What does it mean to be charismatic? Is it somone who is pentecostal in theology but doesn't attend a pentcostal church or does it include all non-cessationists?

Having grown up in a church that was evenly split between non-cessationists and cessationists, I always used the term charismatic to describe myself.

Over the years I have moved between conservative evanglical, pentecostal and charismatic evanglelical churches. I just recently read D A Carson's "Showing the Spirit" and I'm largely in agreement with much of his thoughts.

I have always seen what Pente's call "baptism in the spirit" as just another infilling of the spirit. People get the Holy Spirit when they become Christians but God's Spirit can at times break through in various ways.

I have never seen tongues as necessary to the acquistions of "charismatic" gifts. For me, Spurgeon (for instance) clealry had the charisma of teaching/preaching.

No tongues in a public meeting without interpretation, never more then 3 etc as in Paul's advice in 1 Cor.

Yet I still believe God gifted me with a personal prayer language, although I don't use it today as much as once did?

So does charismatic cover all non-cessantionists or is there a threshold of beliefs needed for the term?

 

[Mixolydian]

Charismatic is the term coined, as I understand, for non-pentecostal mainline denomination (ornon-denominational) members recieving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and operating in the supernatural gifts.

Interesting question. I attend a pentecostal church but don't claim to have been baptised in the Holy Spirit and have never spoken in tongues or been gifted with any of the supernatual gifts. However, I assent to the doctrines so I claim the title of pentecostal. I have never found the cessasionist arguments to be persuasive. So, I'm non-cessassionist but don't claim any of the charisms.

Is the distinction between cessassionist and non-cessasionist one of experience or theology or both?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Charismatic is a broader term than pentecostal. Pentecostals could call themselves charismatic, but the two tend to be used to describe different groups I think.

Charismatic also means more than simply "non-cessationist". Charismatic generally means you actively pursue the baptism of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[AnthonyB]

Simon,

How would classify someone who doesn't believe in "baptism of spirit" (in the classic pentecostal sense) but did actively pursue the gifts of the spirit?

In the church I came to faith in, baptism in the spirit as pentecostals practice it simply did not occur because the belief was that when you became a Christian that was the baptism in the spirit (it was linked to becoming a Christian). Yet there were healings, tongues, interpreters of tongues etc. Just all done within what was percieved the Pauline restrictions of the practice of the gifts.

The chruch was also evenly balanced between cessantionist and non-cessantionists and both sides worked very hard to maintain the unity of the church. Oddly enough it was the eldership and pastor who were more inclined to non-cessantionism/charismatic practice and the youth who were generally among the most conversative. Given that balance when I prayed for and received the gift of tongues, I had actually never heard tongues. To be truthfully, I was sort of hoping God wouldn't grant me tongues because I had been taught to think that if you got tongues then you would be unlikely to receive prophecy, and Paul strongly preferenced phrophecy in 1 Cor. However I did believe in ernestly seeking the gifts, and one morning whilst praying I felt the prayed language start to form.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Simon,

How would classify someone who doesn't believe in "baptism of spirit" (in the classic pentecostal sense) but did actively pursue the gifts of the spirit?

In the church I came to faith in, baptism in the spirit as pentecostals practice it simply did not occur because the belief was that when you became a Christian that was the baptism in the spirit (it was linked to becoming a Christian). Yet there were healings, tongues, interpreters of tongues etc. Just all done within what was percieved the Pauline restrictions of the practice of the gifts.

The chruch was also evenly balanced between cessantionist and non-cessantionists and both sides worked very hard to maintain the unity of the church. Oddly enough it was the eldership and pastor who were more inclined to non-cessantionism/charismatic practice and the youth who were generally among the most conversative. Given that balance when I prayed for and received the gift of tongues, I had actually never heard tongues. To be truthfully, I was sort of hoping God wouldn't grant me tongues because I had been taught to think that if you got tongues then you would be unlikely to receive prophecy, and Paul strongly preferenced phrophecy in 1 Cor. However I did believe in ernestly seeking the gifts, and one morning whilst praying I felt the prayed language start to form.

If you manifest the gifts of the Spirit then I would consider you to be charismatic.

"baptism in the Spirit" is a label that has been put on an experience of receiving the Spirit's power in manifestation. What you call it really doesn't matter that much, if you believe that the Spirit is still poured out on people and that he still manifests his gifts through people for the building of the Church, then I would consider you charismatic".

I, personally, have become what most people would consider catholic in terms of doctrine and theology. In my view people receive the Holy Spirit in confirmation, by the laying on of hands. But at the same time, many people, though they have received the Spirit, are not really aware of what they have received, and they have not, as a result, experienced the full power that is available in it.

When people become aware of the fullness of what is available to them, and they experience that over flowing of the Spirit, that is what I would call "baptism in the Spirit".

 

[bay-girl]

charismatic comes from the greek word charismati which in scripture translates gifts, specifically gifts of the Spirit. Therefore, charismatic means someone who believes in or operates in the gifts of the Spirit which would have to mean that they do not believe the gifts have passed away.

 

[lismore]

No tongues in a public meeting without interpretation

Hello

Nice to meet you!

At the day of Pentecost there was no interpretation, lots of people heard the gospel in their own language.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Charismatic does not equat to non-cessationist
A chrarismatic person is a non-cessationist who actually acted on his beliefs and received what God intended for him. Evidence of this transition is as it is the Bible -speaking in tongues-
no if or buts!!!!

 

[heron]

A chrarismatic person is a non-cessationist who actually acted on his beliefs

Good definition.

 

[AnthonyB]

TasManofGod,

Your post presume that tongues is universally available to all disciples of Jesus. For me 1 Cor 12:30 rules that out and it would be like inisisting that we are a body, but the only body part is mouths. Furthermore I simply do not see tongues as the binding evidence of "baptism in the spirit" in Acts, I'm much closer to Simon Templar's view. However I'm sure there plenty of threads that work through those differences.

bay-girl,

There is a range of cessationist views (to describe a few)

Full cessationism, no charisma at all.

Charisma but cessation of tongues, interprepation of tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge and apostles. That is the relevationary and apostolic have ceased but the rest are still occurring.

All charisma but apostle

All chrisma but the apostolic charisma is not a formal church authority role but a gift to establish churches.

All charisma and apostleship is a fully functioning church role.

Then of course you have difference between what people beleive and what people actively put into practice.


For me, Spurgeon and Schaeffer had the charisma of teaching, Wesley and Wimber had the charisma of apostle, George Meuller had the gift of faith, Billy Graham has the charisma of evanglelism.

I simpy refuse (on the basis of 1 Cor 12-14) to divide the gifts given to the one body but rather look to bind the body of Christ through our varied giftedness. I believe that the full range of charisma is available today to enable the body today to function as a body with different parts having different gifts. However neither will I deny that God gives gifts to even those who may not be willing to receive all of them. I simply don't accept that any one gift or a group of gifts somehow makes any part of the body more of a Christian or more special. (Which to me is the clear intention of Paul in writing the body section in 1 Cor 12:12-31)

For me the God's call through scripture is to eagerly desire the gifts that God has given me to serve Christ's body but love all of the body equally not just the parts that agree with my ideas on charisma.

lismore,

The tongues spoken in Acts were comprehendable by people. Paul in 1 Cor 14 seems to indicate that the tongues that were being spoken needed interpreting to be understood, which in my understanding is the case with the vast majority of modern tongues. If you speak in tongues and it is an actual foreign language, that some in the congregation might undertand then there is no need for it to be interpretted. 1 Cor 14:26-32 gives Paul's instruction about how tongues should be operated in a church gathering. The passage seems quite straight forward and so I see no reason to not obey it.

Simon Templar,

"If you manifest the gifts of the Spirit then I would consider you to be charismatic."

Only problem is that I think the whole body has varying gifts of the spirit, just some of it just aren't willing to unwrap some of the gifts that God has there for them.

So maybe a definiton of a charismatic might be, "If you believe and actively practice/persue the full range of charismatic gifts as described in the NT."

 

[Tobias]

I think most everybody here believes in cessationism. How else do we justify the way the Bible is used for a foundation in the Church? We are taught to believe that God ordained for the writing of the Bible to take place over a certain period of time, but that He has ceased from doing so, and we don't expect to see any new works added ever again! We find this belief necessary, so that we can take the 66 books we have and use them the way we do. But is this really what God intended?

If we reject cessationism in all forms, then we need to take another look at how we use the Bible. The Bible is a foundation, that is for sure. But within the Bible we find a working Church system that does not resemble what we have. We see the wisdom and direction of God given to His people through the hands of men and women He ordains to carry His anointing. These people are subjected to Him, not to Man's interpretation of the scriptures, nor to the belief that "everything we ever need to know is written in the word!"

The Traditional, Fundamental, Evangelical, and Bible-Believing Churches are all built on a foundation of cessaionalism. It's an interesting thought, but I reject it as doctrine. I'm not going to let my doctrinal beliefs dictate to me what God can and cannot do! If God has indeed dictated that He will no longer be doing something He has done in the past, then that is fine. I will happily accept His judgment on the matter. But if it is Man's doctrine that is holding me back from the full experience of what God has intended for us, then that doctrine has to go!

 

[franky67]

I think most everybody here believes in cessationism. How else do we justify the way the Bible is used for a foundation in the Church? We are taught to believe that God ordained for the writing of the Bible to take place over a certain period of time, but that He has ceased from doing so, and we don't expect to see any new works added ever again! We find this belief necessary, so that we can take the 66 books we have and use them the way we do. But is this really what God intended?

If we reject cessationism in all forms, then we need to take another look at how we use the Bible. The Bible is a foundation, that is for sure. But within the Bible we find a working Church system that does not resemble what we have. We see the wisdom and direction of God given to His people through the hands of men and women He ordains to carry His anointing. These people are subjected to Him, not to Man's interpretation of the scriptures, nor to the belief that "everything we ever need to know is written in the word!"

The Traditional, Fundamental, Evangelical, and Bible-Believing Churches are all built on a foundation of cessaionalism. It's an interesting thought, but I reject it as doctrine. I'm not going to let my doctrinal beliefs dictate to me what God can and cannot do! If God has indeed dictated that He will no longer be doing something He has done in the past, then that is fine. I will happily accept His judgment on the matter. But if it is Man's doctrine that is holding me back from the full experience of what God has intended for us, then that doctrine has to go!

I believe, regarding your first sentence , that MOST people here do not believe in cessationism.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I think most everybody here believes in cessationism. How else do we justify the way the Bible is used for a foundation in the Church? We are taught to believe that God ordained for the writing of the Bible to take place over a certain period of time, but that He has ceased from doing so, and we don't expect to see any new works added ever again! We find this belief necessary, so that we can take the 66 books we have and use them the way we do. But is this really what God intended?

If we reject cessationism in all forms, then we need to take another look at how we use the Bible. The Bible is a foundation, that is for sure. But within the Bible we find a working Church system that does not resemble what we have. We see the wisdom and direction of God given to His people through the hands of men and women He ordains to carry His anointing. These people are subjected to Him, not to Man's interpretation of the scriptures, nor to the belief that "everything we ever need to know is written in the word!"

The Traditional, Fundamental, Evangelical, and Bible-Believing Churches are all built on a foundation of cessaionalism. It's an interesting thought, but I reject it as doctrine. I'm not going to let my doctrinal beliefs dictate to me what God can and cannot do! If God has indeed dictated that He will no longer be doing something He has done in the past, then that is fine. I will happily accept His judgment on the matter. But if it is Man's doctrine that is holding me back from the full experience of what God has intended for us, then that doctrine has to go!

Yes, most people do agree that the inspiration of scripture ended with the apostolic age. However, this is not really what people mean by the term the cessationism.

The historic/traditional Christian view does hold that inspiration continues because we believe that the Church itself is inspired and thus it continues to expound the truth. This is generally not seen as revealing new truths exactly, but more expanding and developing the truths which were already revealed. Also, the revealed truth of the past is always binding, meaning that no 'new' inspiration can change or contradict what went before. Rather it serves to expand our understanding of what went before.

 

[Tobias]

Yes, most people do agree that the inspiration of scripture ended with the apostolic age. However, this is not really what people mean by the term the cessationism.

The historic/traditional Christian view does hold that inspiration continues because we believe that the Church itself is inspired and thus it continues to expound the truth. This is generally not seen as revealing new truths exactly, but more expanding and developing the truths which were already revealed. Also, the revealed truth of the past is always binding, meaning that no 'new' inspiration can change or contradict what went before. Rather it serves to expand our understanding of what went before.

So are you saying that there is no belief in cessationism the Anglican church?

What do I have to do to join?

 

[Simon_Templar]

So are you saying that there is no belief in cessationism the Anglican church?

What do I have to do to join?

Not as much the Anglican church, more the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

They would basically agree that the 'canon' of scripture is closed. No more books will be added to the bible etc. However they would argue that the Magesterium of the Church (in the Catholic case) and the Holy Tradition (in the Orthodox case... and Catholics would probably use this term too) is essentially equal with scripture and that the Holy Spirit continues to inspire the Church to develop, expand upon, and teach those things... which amounts to a kind of continuing revelation.

Paul said to Timothy that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth. The Orthodox and Catholics would basically say that the Church thus continues to teach the truth with the inspired authority of the Holy Spirit.

Some Anglicans would agree with that but most probably would not. Most of those Anglicans who do agree would probably limit the concept of the inspired Church to the Church prior to the schizm of 1054, saying that the Church is only inspired in this way when it speaks with one unified voice. Thus they would hold the "7 ecumenical councils" or some subset of them, but not the distinctions of the Orthodox or Catholics after the Schizm.

 

[Hope Preacher]

Every believer is charismatic, it just depends upon how one looks at the question.

Paul tells refers to gifts of grace in Romans 12 and includes prophecy [preaching], serving, teaching, encouraging, giving, leadership, and mercy. Those are not choices they are charism - gifts of grace.

the gifts of 1 corinthians 12 are "cooperative" gifts, that is one must submit to Holy Spirit to function within one for that gift to operate. If one is of the cessationist persuasion one might not submit to the operation of Holy Spirit in those giftings, but if one is of the persuasion that Holy Spirit has the right to function within an individual according to his divine will and purpose, including those gifts mentioned in 1 Cor 12, then one might operate in any of those gifts.

Just and observation.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What does it mean to be charismatic?

Well it's a bit hard in 2011 to differentiate. It was very EASY in 1970.

But the bottom line is that the whole "Baptized in the Holy Spirit thing was kicked off by God around 1900 with the "Pentecostal revival" which rolled on from about 1900 till 1918 or so, and spawned many different denominational groups - the two LARGEST being the Assemblies of God (white), and the Church of God in Christ (Black). The members were typically "Lower class" economically, and socially. They tended to be highly legalistic, and very "Clothesline holiness" oriented and continued to be so into the 1970s.

The "Charismatic Outpouring" started INDEPENDENTLY of the Pentecostals in 1966 in the Roman Catholic (at Notre dame), and High/Liberal churches like the Episcopalian, and Lutheran and the UCC. It was among the better educated, and higher economic strata. and was word-wide in scope. Unlike the Pentecostals it DID NOT Spawn major denominations

The Pentecostals opposed it generally mostly because Charismatics tended NOT to toe the "Holiness" standards that the Pentecostals held to - at the time.

But like all revivals, the "outpouring" ended (long about '78-79) and the "Charismatic movement" began. Since there were no denominations formed (and little inclination to do so), there were two choices - start an independent charismatic Church, - which some did, OR re-integrate with an existing denominational church (which I did eventually - rejoining the AoG in '91 or so).

There was a HUGE influx of Charismatics that re-joined their old denominations - but brought in their "Charismatic concepts" which were generally NOT terribly Legalistic, or even fundamentalistic in the older sense. In the case of the Assemblies of God - who were already "Tongues folks", the denomination itself became MUCH LESS "Legalistic", and lost it's "Holiness" flavor. As one who's been in the AoG since 1963, the differences, and the degree of change, is simply staggering.

There STILL ISN'T a great number of SPECIFICALLY CHarismatic denominational groups (which is understandable to those of us who were part of the "Outpouring" - which was basically a NON-denominationalizing experience). There's the "Vineyard" bunch, and "Calvary Chapel" - but most "Charismatic" churches are still independent.

"Cessationist" only refers to those who generally teach that the "Gifts" in 1 Cor 12 ceased when the BIBLE was formalized. NAturally Pentecostals and Charismatics would NOT be "Cessationist".

But Cessationists are also split into those who will "allow" God to still perform miracles (healings, etc.) today, but don't believe that He "gifts" people any more, and those who teach that there ARE NO miraculous occurrances - AT ALL - except those that satan performs to deceive.

I have never seen tongues as necessary to the acquistions of "charismatic" gifts.

Well - "tongues" itself is a Charismatic "Gift". By empirical observation, it was something that the Lord "Led out" with both in 1900, and in 1966. The "Normative" experience of being "Baptised in the Holy Spirit" - included "tongues" as part of the package, and still does. SImple as that. and since ALL the "CHarisma" operate in the same fashion as "Tongues" do, it's a good introduction to the charisma.

Spurgeon (for instance) clealry had the charisma of teaching/preaching.

Teaching/preaching is NOT a "Gifting" - but more related to the "Fruit of the Spirit" in a person's life, and his intellectual preparation in the Word. Biblically the MINISTER is the "Gift" to the church.

There's no Question that Spurgeon was as "Spirit filled" as a preacher gets, but that has nothing to do with the "Giftings" of the genre found in 1 Cor 12.

"Yet I still believe God gifted me with a personal prayer language, although I don't use it today as much as once did?"

Why not??? I've been speaking in tongues since 1973 - why would you not want to continue doing it??

 

[AnthonyB]

Bob,

I'm from a restorationist background, albeit an ecumenical and evanglelical part of that movement. So "empirical evidence" or that is what people today do is not going to change my POV. When practice or belief doesn't much clear unamibigious biblical instruction then I'm always going to side with scripture not experience. I can personally see no way to interpret 1 Cor 12 -14 that fits Pentecostal practice in regards to tongues being universal to all Christians. (Or for that matter ignoring Paul's explicit instructions on the use of tongues and/or prophecy in a meeting.

Spurgeon began preaching at a major church at 19 after only having been a Christian for 4 years. There were no decades of study or learning oratory. Just a young man gifted to teach, the gift which was a direct gift of God not a honed skill. Teachers is listed as a Charismata in 1 Cor 12:29, and v 31 "But eagerly desire the greater gifts" indicates that the things in the previous listing are seen as among the charismata.

I have continued to speak in tongues, from time to time as I feel the spirit enable me to.

 

[GrowingInGrace]

What does it mean to be charismatic?

I have always seen what Pente's call "baptism in the spirit" as just another infilling of the spirit. People get the Holy Spirit when they become Christians but God's Spirit can at times break through in various ways.

I believe that you get what you believe for. Jesus specifically said to ask for the Holy Spirit. He didn't say, ask for salvation.
John the baptist said I baptise with water, Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit. Neither one is describing salvation.

I have never seen tongues as necessary to the acquistions of "charismatic" gifts. For me, Spurgeon (for instance) clealry had the charisma of teaching/preaching.

Is teaching a gift of the Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12? None of those there are at the will of the person but at the will of the Spirit of God.

No tongues in a public meeting without interpretation, never more then 3 etc as in Paul's advice in 1 Cor.

You are not using it like it's advice, you are using it like it's a strict rule. Which it is.

But you don't have it exactly right. The rule is only in regard to those who use the ministry gifts, at the will of the Spirit of God, of tongues and interpretation for all to be edified because the interpretation is supposed to be from God to the people.

That rule does not govern an entire assembly of believers who can speak in tongues at their own will. They would do so during worship in song, or assembly prayer. None of that need be interpreted. Because the direction of flow is from the people to God.

Yet I still believe God gifted me with a personal prayer language, although I don't use it today as much as once did?

The personal prayer language is not a gift, it is the basic equipment to any believer through baptism of the Holy Spirit. It comes by faith. A gift is given by God's choice in addition to the basic equipment.

So does charismatic cover all non-cessantionists or is there a threshold of beliefs needed for the term?

Assembly of God, charismatic, or non denominational sounds good to me.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I can personally see no way to interpret 1 Cor 12 -14 that fits Pentecostal practice in regards to tongues being universal to all Christians. (Or for that matter ignoring Paul's explicit instructions on the use of tongues and/or prophecy in a meeting."

And your personal doctrinal paradigms wouldn't allow you to, of course.

I have no problem defending the "Mainline Pentecostal" interpretations of the 1 Corinthians passage, and modern mainline Pentecostal practice doesn't "ignore" any Pauline "Instructions".

Naturally, I agree that within the context of 1 Cor 12, the "Charisma" of tongues in the "Ministry" manifestation is clearly NOT "Universal" to all Christians (since the Bible says it isn't). I have been burdened many times in both Interpretation, and Prophetic utterance, but never once to deliver a tongue in church.

However "tongues" (in the "Prayer language" sense) has been empirically normative for those Baptised in the Holy Spirit (to use AoG vernacular) for over 100 years now, and since we both received tongues, you know that it's "Just there" just like I do apparently.