This article is written to clarify what I am not, in terms of my persuasion and thus explain what I am. The necessity for such an article can be explained in the following points.
1. In the past 2 years, I have been studying the Bible and its theology quite ardently by the grace of God. God has mercifully used it as a means to bring forth much reformation in my stance and sanctification. Hence I have moved on from what I used to be in many fronts.
2. Most people who read my writings, still somehow think that I am of the old persuasions. Some of them still think that I am an Arminian. Some still think I am a legalistic preacher, just interested in hitting out on people. Some further still think that since I am officially a member of a local Charismatic church, I must be a Charismatic. However I am sorry to say to such people, that I am neither of the above. I am not an Arminian in any respect concerning the doctrine of salvation. I am no longer a legalistic preacher, who preaches as if he is some prophet send to correct everyone in the world. Furthermore, my convictions on the continuation of sign gifts (direct revelation, prophesying the infallible word of God and speaking in a foreign language, one has not received any formal training) has changed considerably.
3. Some who have come to know some of the changes in my beliefs, put wrong labels on me. Some call me a Hyper Calvinist, not knowing the difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist. Since I make much of the gospel now, in any opportunity I get to speak to the believers, some think I have lost my passion for teaching and discipleship. However the truth is I am still and could say am more passionate about teaching the word of God to believers, with the gospel and its implications firmly held as the central message of the Bible. In other words the gospel - the person and cross work of Jesus Christ becomes the central grid through which all of scripture is read and interpreted. So I am not a legalistic preacher who divorces the teaching of the Bible from its central message - the gospel of grace, and neither am I a person uninterested in making disciples. Some others call me a Brethren, as I am not a pentecostal or a charismatic. Now I want to make it clear that I am not a Brethren for so many reasons, which shall be explained below.
Out of these three reasons, I feel I should write a clarifying article like this one. Here, I want to tackle one among the many misunderstandings I face, that I enlisted above. It is perhaps the most sought out question, when I meet believers. Most people are eager to know whether I have stopped being a Charismatic and have become a Brethren, even though I do not attend or have any plans to attend a Brethren church.
What I Am Not
1. I am NOT a Pentecostal
I am not a Pentecostal Christian, in fact I have never been one. I have never been part of a Pentecostal church. Theologically also I have never been a Pentecostal. The characteristic convictions of the Pentecostal movement are - (a) the experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit (b) this experience is separate and subsequent to salvation (c) all who receive this experience will speak in tongues. Of these, I do believe in the experience of being in filled with the Holy Spirit. It is a vital experience of being a Christian. There is no Christianity without the Holy Spirit. However it is not possible to prove biblically the doctrine of subsequence. In the Bible, all true believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit at the moment of their conversion. There is no teaching in any of the epistles to make weaker Christians get baptized in the Spirit. In the mind of the Apostles, there are only types of people - Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit and Sinners who are unsaved and do not have the Spirit. (Read Romans 8 verse by verse to see how Paul shows this categorization - all those who belong to Christ has His Spirit). It is still more difficult to prove from the Bible that all who were filled by the Spirit spoke in tongues. Paul even asks this question of all speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 12 to prove that not all have the same spiritual gift. Since there is thus considerable differences from what Pentecostals teach and what is seen in the Bible, I find it difficult to call myself a Pentecostal. Hence I am not a Pentecostal. Please note that I am not of the persuasion that all Pentecostals are bad people or so. In fact my best friend and dearest brother in the Lord is a Pentecostal worship leader, now working and ministering in the United States. I praise God for every true believer in the Pentecostal community.
2. I am NOT a Charismatic
I am not a Charismatic in the sense that I do not believe that the sign or revelatory gifts viz. direct revelation, prophecy and speaking in foreign languages are still normative in the church. I believe that the revelatory gifts were means by which God spoke in the days while the church was in its formative days and lacked the full New Testament. Now I want to clarify that I am a person who believes in employing spiritual gifts - the permanent edifying gifts like gifts related to knowledge, wisdom, preaching, teaching, exhortation, faith, discernment, showing mercy, giving, administration and helps. Hence in that sense I can be called a Charismatic. However this is not what people normally mean by the term Charismatic. Hence it would be confusing to use this term to describe this conviction. Thus my position can be explained as, to quote D.A Carson - "I am more Conservative than a Charismatic and more Charismatic than a Conservative". Many conservatives share this conviction and very few people even in the Conservative camp is a strict Cessationist, who believes every gift has ceased.
By saying that sign gifts have ceased, I am not saying that God cannot do supernatural things today. For we are only affirming the fact of a formative period of the church in the time line of redemptive history and not putting any limitation on God's supernatural abilities. I believe God can still do signs and wonders. However the very nature of signs and wonders in the Bible suggest that the our time in redemptive history does not demand or necessitate God to do such things. God is not writing revelation today, for His bible has been completed (Jude 3). There are no authorized men of God to whom God is giving new revelations of infallible Scripture, like the Apostles, whose message He should witness with signs and wonders (Hebrews 2:4, 2 Corinthians 12:12). God judged Israel for her crucifixion of Jesus Christ and hence the prophecy of Isaiah 28:11,12 has been fulfilled, which is one of the redemptive historical function of speaking in other languages ( See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 where Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11). Thus today there is no necessity for these things to be normative in the church.
We live in a day which is after the completion of the Apostolic-Prophetic foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). Hence we do not look for direct experiences but for truth and experiences that is in and of the Word. Thus I am a cautious Charismatic or a practical Cessationist. I am eager to use all the permanent gifts of the Spirit to see the church build up and be healthy, yet denies the continuation of sign gifts as their practical purposes have been fully met in the formative period of the church.
3. I am NOT a Brethren
Many people think I have become a Brethren, especially because of my denial of the continuation of the sign gifts. However they are wrongly labeling me so. For Brethren is not simply another name for Cessationists. Every Protestant denomination before the Charismatics came to the scene in 1960s were Cessationists. So the distinct feature of a Brethren is not Cessationism. I am not a Brethren for the following reasons.
First of all, historically most Brethren were either 3 point or 4 point Calvinists and most of them do not even call themselves either Arminian or Calvinistic in their understanding of salvation. I being a 5 point Calvinist thus cannot see 3 point or 4 points as an adequate picture of my convictions regarding soteriology.
Secondly, most Brethren are staunch dispensationalist - not only in their eschatology, but in their understanding of the entire narrative of the Bible. I am not a dispensationalist. I am a firm believer in covenant theology when it comes to reading redemptive history in the Bible. Eschatologically I am an Amillennialist . Thus there is nothing in my theology that has anything to do with dispensationalism. It needs to be said that I do believe in the future of ethnic Jews, as Romans 11 makes it very clear about the removal of the present partial hardening which has come over them. However I do not see the future of Jews as dispensationalists see it.
Thirdly, Brethren are characterized by less or no ecclesiastical structures. Plymouth Brethren started as a fellowship with no traditional church structures. There is no one who is officially designated as the pastor of the church. Few men take up the responsibility of being elders. There is no ordination, but only commendation. There are no salaried ministers. Their is no membership but fellowship. There is no fixed order of the service, but rather everything is extempore and considered to be the leading of the Spirit. No musical instruments are allowed in their worship. Though I understand and support the intentions of these practices I am open for structures prevalent in other Evangelical churches. Thus I have very little in common with the Brethren - just cessationism and congregational polity. Even in these two, the Cessationism of some Brethren is a sort of Anti-Supernaturalism, which I clarified earlier that I deny. And Congregational polity is not anything unique of Brethren. Thus it is not appropriate for me to call myself a Brethren.
What I Am
I am a Baptist
Finally let me clarify what I am. I am a Baptist. Baptists have never been Pentecostal, nor full blown Charismatics nor Brethren.
Baptists have never believed that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate and subsequent experience to salvation. We have always affirmed that all believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is the deposit guaranteeing our final salvation.(Ephesians 1:14) Baptists are eager to employ the permanent edifying gifts to build up the church, while holding to the view that the revelatory gifts have no ongoing ministry once the revelation of God (the Bible) has matured. (The greek word "to teleon" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 means maturity in contemporary English, which got rendered as 'perfection' by the translators of KJV. Also note in the previous verse Paul is speaking of the partial or incomplete nature of our knowledge and prophesying. Hence the maturity in vs 10 should be the completion or maturing of our knowledge and that which we prophesy. It cannot be the maturing of us as we enter glory, as some people define the word perfect to mean heaven or the second coming of Christ.)
Unlike the Brethren, historically most Baptists were 5 point Calvinistic in their soteriology. For eg : the great missionary to India and the father of modern missionary movement, William Carey was a Particular Baptist (the label for Calvinistic Baptists in UK). Baptists are not loose in their ecclesiastical structures like the Brethren. Baptists have an ordained pastor and a team of elders to feed and lead the church. These men are supported by the church. There is membership and this membership is distinctly made up of regenerate believers. There is a fixed order for the service and in worship some or many instruments can be used.
Conclusion
In the end, I want to affirm that I am not that interested in mere labels. Nor am I saying that the label of Baptist is a perfect one. I am not willing to die for a label. However this discussion on labels was done precisely because of the doctrinal convictions which these labels represent. In that sense, labels do matter to one's faith. In that respect, I dared to clarify what I am not and what I am.
