"We have not done this perfectly, but we believe we are headed in a biblical direction that is focused on pursuing God’s pleasure."

[Pastork]

DMyers,

Given that SGM folks regularly refer to themselves as “Reformed Charismatics,” and given the background out of which their group originated, I think it is safe to say that they are Charismatics, even if many of them have been drawn back from some of the more extreme manifestations of Charismania.

However, I personally would not refer to all Continuationists (or Non-Cessationists) as Charismatics. For example, there are many who are not convinced by Cessationist interpretations and see themselves as “open, but cautious,” whose practices would not differ from most Fundamentalist churches, and who would definitely not want to be called Charismatics, and for good reason.

On another note, as a Reformed Baptist, I am glad to hear about your journey, especially since it sounds somewhat similar to my own.

Just my “two cents.”

Keith

Pastork: Helpful distinction; thank you. Your description of the “open, but cautious” view sounds very much like my own non-dogmatic position. I would be delighted to hear more about your journey sometime.

Man, excepting the miraculous portions of these, they both seem practically indistinguishable from what I was taught in some solidly fundamentalist schools/churches.

[Greg Linscott]

The ubiquitous Wikipedia:

Although specific teachings will vary from group to group, charismatics generally believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs at the new birth and prefer to call subsequent encounters with the Holy Spirit by other names, such as “being filled”. In contrast to Pentecostals, charismatics tend to accept a range of supernatural experiences (such as prophecy, miracles, healing, or “physical manifestations of an altered state of consciousness”) as evidence of having been baptized or filled with the Holy Spirit.

Link

SGM statement of faith:

Empowered by the Spirit

In addition to effecting regeneration and sanctification, the Holy Spirit also empowers believers for Christian witness and service. While all genuine believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion, the New Testament indicates the importance of an ongoing, empowering work of the Spirit subsequent to conversion as well. Being indwelt by the Spirit and being filled with the Spirit are theologically distinct experiences. The Holy Spirit desires to fill each believer continually with increased power for Christian life and witness, and imparts his supernatural gifts for the edification of the Body and for various works of ministry in the world. All the gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in the church of the first century are available today, are vital for the mission of the church, and are to be earnestly desired and practiced.

Link

Man, excepting the miraculous portions of these, they both seem practically indistinguishable from what I was taught in some solidly fundamentalist schools/churches

There is a particular strand of Keswick theology on sanctification flowing from Chafer to Walvoord and Ryrie which may have influenced the teaching you describe.

Man, excepting the miraculous portions of these…

I would observe that’s a pretty big exception, and not just for me, but for those who consciously reject the idea of Cessationism. It’s kind of like reading a Reformed Baptist statement, and saying, “Man, excepting the whole credobaptist thing, these guys could be Presbyterians… ” :)

Alex,

I think the problem with the use of the different terms for Cessationsim and Continuationism is that they have been changing.

I agree with you that for a long time the two primary camps were simply called Cessationsim and Continuationism (and many still use the terms this way), and I can see why Gadietrich’s use of different terminology might have thrown you a bit. However, as the discussion and debate over the issues has progressed, it has become necessary to establish more specific categories because, as it turns out, what most used to call Cessationism really does only involve the cessation of only some of the gifts and because, as it turns out, there are some who have actually argued that all of the gifts have ceased.

Gadietrich was thus correct to note the corresponding change in terminology. In fact, there needs to be updated language as developments like this have occured on the other side of the debate as well, and some have already attempted such. I would suggest distinguishing, for example, between Pentecostal Continuationists, Charismatic Continuationists, and, perhaps, Conservative Continuationists (such as the “open, but cautious” types I mentioned in an earlier post).

Keith

Greg,

When you wrote that, “It’s kind of like reading a Reformed Baptist statement, and saying, ‘Man, excepting the whole credobaptist thing, these guys could be Presbyterians…,’” you were right about it being a very big exception, but I hope you don’t think it is the only big exception. For example, at the heart of that exception is a very big exception about how we understand the New Covenant and who may be said to be included in it (not to mention differences in church polity as well). But I suppose these would require a different thread.

Yes, Keith- I was generalizing for the sake of a parallel. There would be other differences with SG, too, I suspect, beyond cessationism.

But there you go.

(How’re we doing, Dan McGhee? :) )

One of the more irritating differences to me, aside from the two really big ones mentioned already, is their strange insistence that pastors are not members of their local churches but rather of the regional presbytery. In fact, if a local church’s elders (which they call a session) and the congregation see the need to discipline one of their pastors/teaching elders, they don’t have the authority to do it. The man has to be brought before the presbytery. This is far from the way we Baptists think!

I better not get going on this stuff now, though. Maybe some other time in a more appropriate thread.

Keith

[Dan McGhee]

I said to my wife yesterday, “This thread will have 100 posts by the end of the day tomorrow.” So, c’mon guys. I’m doing my part… :-)

number 70 :)

#71!

Tyler’s post, according to the count at the top, was #72.

Which makes this…

# 74 …

Now that Matt has spoken will the detractors be satisfied? I wonder. However I’m glad Matt is attempting to clarify the direction of the school, abandon elements of cultural fundamentalism, and practice biblical separation.
From my perspective one of the most glaring errors of the critics is calling disobedience what is actually disagreement. Is Matt disobeying Scripture in the changes undertaken? Is God displeased by what has been done at NIU? I would answer with a resounding “NO.” If you answer “Yes” to those questions then perhaps you have gone beyond Scripture. Once you can admit that these are matters of disagreement (and yes, even lack of clarity) rather than disobedience, then you have more solid ground for the non-support for the direction of NIU. Say that you disagree with the direction, the music, the associations, and in good conscience cannot send students there. But it has been more than disconcerting and uncharitable to hear the claims of hypocrisy, lack of character, lack of integrity, ad nauseum.

Now each one has to ask how much disagreement can be tolerated, how much agreement is necessary, and how much of what I like or dislike is preference for which we have opinions but no scriptural authority. Aaron has provided some examples of what he would and would not separate over as a good place to start and a reminder that we are limited anyway in who we can fellowship with, partner with, etc. I have thought long and hard (okay some think not hard enough) about what would cause me to separate from a brother who disagrees with me in some areas, where I think the brother is wrong but I do not have the certainty to call our disagreement his error since I may in fact be the one in error.

As a short list, I would not separate from men like Dever, MacArthur, Olson, Bauder, Doran, or Piper, to name but a few, even though I would disagree with them in some areas if we sat down and compared notes. I don’t separate from a brother over polity or baptism. That does not mean that I would work to plant a church with a brother with whom I disagreed on baptism since I don’t baptize babies. We practice plurality of elders and baptize by immersion. But I would gladly speak in a church where a different mode/subject was practiced and have a brother speak in our church (of course I would draw the line on baptismal regeneration). We can disagree, debate, and argue, but without the need to separate. I don’t separate from a brother over millennial views and our church does not take a millennial position. We may have some dispensationalists among us but we do not fly that flag or make that an issue. I don’t separate over views on the age of the earth but would draw the line on the historicity of Adam and Eve. I consider myself a soft cessationist in that I believe that God may work in ways analogous to the 1st century in pioneer situations where the Word of God has not been present. I disagree with the SGM position on gifts. I would not join a SGM church. Yet I would not break fellowship or separate from a brother based on that disagreement alone. I would not separate from a brother who drinks wine with his meals. If I had I probably could never have been a missionary in France where wine at church fellowship meals was not uncommon, or in Romania where wine was used by the vast majority of churches in the Lord’s Supper. These are some things I am not going to fight over but I will gladly debate and present with vigor my views.

Again, are we criticizing and separating from brothers because of disobedience or disagreement? Or if someone disagrees with you do you consider them disobedient? If that is the case then it is not because you have a high view of Scripture but you may have too high a view of the conclusions you have arrived at.

Again, are we criticizing and separating from brothers because of disobedience or disagreement?

I think one could say that has been up to this point difficult to determine, because of the lack of clarity. Olson’s post helps, but the matter of how they will relate to Charismatics from this point forward remains at this point uncertain. In other words, it’s difficult to determine disagreement, even, if one isn’t certain what they disagreeing with.

[Joel Tetreau]

So Greg,

I get your point - that is fair. One more thought for you - most of us here believe that the majority of the gifts are for today. The gifted offices are given to the church and the gifts that were given for the purpose of building the church are here. The only gifts most of us don’t believe are still with us are the revelatory gifts (tongues, interp, word of knowledge, etc….). They (SGM) per the point of the doctrinal statement you quote - reveals they believe the rest of the gifts are for today. However if you listen to their explanation of that - they emphasize that even the “revelatory gifts” (when expressed) are not practiced with the same level of authority as Scripture. Other than tongues - I’m not sure how this is different than the examples I noted. jt

SGM has become more cautious about receiving revelations in recent years. One big difference about SGM, however, that goes beyond even many charismatic churches is their giving Apostolic authority to their leaders. They not only embrace all the gifts, but all the offices. This goes well beyond men like Grudem. I believe this stems from their shepherding background (per Hannah’s chart at 8:16 AM) and it explains a lot of the heavy-handed leadership practices that have come to light in the last two years. This claim of an Apostolic office seems to be one of the major areas being rejected by the churches breaking away from SGM lately.