Well said.

I would like to comment on the theological importance of the issue at hand. The Bible, which is the ultimate authority should be what speaks to the subject of speaking in tonges and the operation of the gifts. This is where the subject needs to be ironed out.

The Problem = Hermenutical ERRORR! You cannot read what Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth into what Luke was writing in the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Luke was showing the importance of this Spirit Baptism within the context of mission. This is the whole point. For the enduement of Power to be witnesses.

Now if you are are flaming dispensationalist that chops up the whole bible and most importantly destroy proper exegesis than there is not use in talking about it. You have destroyed your mind and and only God can help you. (Only Kidding)

But Classical Pentecostals believe that the disciples were already saved before the day of pentecost. For He has already sent them out in the ministry. And they returned saying that even the demons submit to us in your name. So on the day of Pentecost the disciples were filled with power from on High.

Now what is the difference between what Paul wrote and what Luke wrote? Simple! Paul is dealing with a church that is full of problems. The church needed guidance in the use of tongues and other gifts in the worship service.

He is not addressing the subject of Spirit Baptism or the empowerment of it. He is only addressing the excesses. Now in the context of the subject of gifts Paul makes a statement “not all speak with tongues”, now he is talking about a different mode of tongue than that which is recieved at Spirit Baptism.

He is now talking about the importance the gift of tongues in a worship service. That is it! Paul also talks about the use of tongues in prayer. He says “I pray in the Spirit and I pray with an understanding” That means that we are given a prayer language that we pray in and worship in.

That means that I don’t have to have an interpretation for that for it is in order and directed toward God. Now If I speak in tongues loud and at the congregation than it needs to be interpreted.

Thus, there are 3 different modes in which we Pentecostals believe in Tongues.

Charismatics and SBC or any other Christian sect that does not believe the Spirit Baptism with evidence of Speaking in tongues is incorrectly interpreting Lucan theology through Pauline color glasses.

Peace

As for the last 10 posts regarding the accuracy of “who was involved, the people, and the events”, I didn’t have an issue with it. By that I mean that the history seems general enough to me that the main point is not clouded; the use of well know names is a useful point of reference; and a detailed history isn’t what I was readinng for in the first place.

I can certainly understand why puritan and others close to the history might be more concerned about those details, but in my opinion the merit of the post and the majority of comments is found in explaining the evolution and variety of perspectives on the carismatic movement.

Thanks again for the information.

But if you had read my post carefully also, you would have noticed that I picked up on that already by clarifying my statement with this…

“If by what you mean, that they didn’t say outlandish things like more modern TV charisma tics, then I agree.”

I was trying to be fair with Michael in his posting, and wanted to make sure that that could be what he was saying.

My main beef is with mischaracterizing of people of people for one.

“Bailey Smith, Jerry Falwell and Jerry Vines represented a kind of revivalism that might be narrowly Baptist, but there is much in the emotional tone of the charismatic movement that these men would affirm.”

Personally knowing these men, I can assure you, that, NO! They would not be agreeing with the “emotional tone of the charismatic movement”

This point I didn’t bring up, even though I could have, but the problem with this posting by Michael, that in my opinion… Repeat…. in my opinion, it was a bad paper. and by that I mean it threw names around and misapplied them to events, causes, happening, and influence.

I am sorry, but it is.

I imagine that Michael wasn’t trying to write a Th.D thesis on the subject and I didn’t expect it to be. It was just a paper, that put 20 yrs of charismatic feelings in the SBC and tried to wrap it up in a small paper. My problem is, that it was poorly done. This might not feel good, to admit it, or be honest and look at the facts in their historical setting better.

I don’t know. Maybe he wrote this at 2AM and was tired. I don’t know

I don’t know him, his style or why he wrote it. All I am saying, is that living through those times, knowing many of the people he spoke of, knowing the leaders of the SBC for the past 35 years, what I am simple saying is …

It’s a bad paper!

But like I said… It’s nice to have friends to come to your rescue.

Thank you for letting me post this comment and thank you Jay.

The leaders of the movement were low-key people like Dennis Bennett or Jamie Buckingham. This would change. The advent of Christian television began to elevate leaders with a profile less acceptable to Southern Baptists and more controversial in the church as a whole.

You responded:

I’m sorry. The first leader in the Charismatic movement isn’t low profile being the first. He can’t help being high profile.

Read Michael’s words, the ones you quoted, again. Michael didn’t say he was low-profile (meaning little to no public exposure). He said he was low-key (meaning of low intensity). Not the same thing. He then said that the later leaders had a profile less acceptable, but that still doesn’t change the earlier “low-key” to mean “low-profile.”

I mean what you implied when you wrote…

“The leaders of the movement were low-key people like Dennis Bennett or Jamie Buckingham. This would change. The advent of Christian television began to elevate leaders with a profile less acceptable to Southern Baptists and more controversial in the church as a whole.”

I’m sorry. The first leader in the Charismatic movement isn’t low profile being the first. He can’t help being high profile. I remember those tiems and told to read his book.

If by what you mean, that they didn’t say outlandish things like more modern tv charismatics, then I agree.

But to be placed in the times that they came out, then yes even then, this caused a stirring and the feelings of pentecostal people and believers wanting to invade the SBC and now “give us the FUll Gospel that we needed and lacked, caused a great deal of conflict and strife.

He was never accepted by them. Read your history. Even Billy Graham was hesitant to include Him in one of His crusades and never again. The backbiting involved was atrocious

I mentioned Robinson as an example of a popular SBCer who became Charismatic.

I mention Roberts because he was far more accepted among non-Charismatic evangelicals before ORU began to experience financial problems.

I’m not sure what “Laughing stock” means, but in mainline churches, Dennis Bennett was very representative of the Charismatic movement and was well respected.

John Osteen was a former SBCer. That’s why I mentioned him.

I’m not quite sure what you are throwing around when you accuse me of misapplication and inaccuracy.