The reason that I keyed on the word ‘cessationist’ in the other post was that that is the kind of word used to identify those on the other side (and there-fore the wrong side) of an issue. It’s sort of like in Ireland identifying someone as a Papist rather than as a Roman Catholic. It focuses on the differences in a negative way and can indicate the speaker’s disapproval. Actually, I did not take it as wrong spirited, but wanted to voice my feelings about regarding those with different views as being spiritually inferior.
Most of the following represents my understanding of what was taught in several churches I attended (many avenues for misunderstanding). I am independent (bull-headed?) enough to have disagreed with some of the teachings even if I was much edified by other aspects of the church's message.
To answer your question, The Holy Spirit inhabits, empowers and guides the believer. The meaning of scripture is inaccessible, or at least uncertain without the guidance of the Spirit. The will of God is laid upon our hearts by the Spirit. There are words that are used in common that are taken to mean different things. These are words like ‘anointed’. Both views talk about being spirit-filled, but I suspect their mental picture differs markedly.
Related points of disagreement: At Pentecost, the miracle was, according to the way I was first taught, was in the ear of the hearer rather than in the speech of the disciples.
Tongues (meaning the speaking in a foreign language) were considered to be a minor gift while the greater gifts were the ones to be desired. They taught that speaking in angelic tongues had no basis in scripture (of course, that was only their view).
Once the perfect comes the old things pass away is taken to mean that at the canonization of the Bible, the remaining ‘charismatic’ gifts will be finished.
The time of prophecy in the sense of telling something new about God or of fore-telling was closed with the other gifts. Prophecy in the sense of forth-telling more a case of applying previously understood principles and information.
An Apostle had to personally seen Christ. Paul’s vision on the road is taken to be a unique occurrence and no-one now living should be called an Apostle (at least in this sense).
These are my understanding of the way these points have been presented. I have not given the scriptural backing (there are many sections) because I really do not wish to get into a which-one is right argument.
I think it is truly ironic (and possibly demonic) that the very book intended to denounce and teach against factionalism (1st Corinthians) is one of the ones used in so much side-taking and finger pointing. If you do not think the enemy uses scriptures to manipulate believers, think again.
Over 40 years ago, my first church I attended as a committed believer was undergoing some turmoil over such questions as these. At that time, I could give a better summary of the differences (from the Baptist point of view). I was having a lunch-time Bible-study at the local college and several of my fellow student were from churches one the 'other side' of the issue and we discussed it in brotherhood at length. For the more recent years, I have been concentrating on how I can serve and be a blessing to whoever is standing in front of me. I know these issues are important, and I am do not want to trivialize it, but it is not too often that my present focus turns on the charismatic gifts.
I do not belong in a charismatic church. It is quite possibly a failing of mine, rather than a case of wrong doctrine. I am the son of a rocket engineer. I was brought up with a deep respect for the things of science and the scientific methods. If I was to try to mold that into a charismatic approach to God, and the scriptures, I would too often be trying to construct scientific tests and experiments to something that needs to be approached from the heart, rather than from the head. I understand that this does not mean that they are mistaken.
I can and have worshiped beside friends at a local Pentecostal Church Of God and at other similar places of worship, but I need to remain where God has led me.
I have come to the understanding that this does not mean that one side or another is wrong. I think that it is significant that three different Baptist pastors, each in a slightly different way acknowledged that the Spirit is working in Pentecostal churches. It is saddening for me that this is not true of every one that I have heard preach.
There are some things that I think are fundamental enough that I no qualms about taking sides:
When my son, in his early twenties was asked by his friend to start attending a Mormon church, I went with him to a ‘Bible Study’ by that church (so I could provide counter-point), and encouraged him to attend my church with me. In the end, he chose another very fine church where he could be there on his own rather than as my son. Later he said “It’s not that I like my new church better (than the Mormon church), it’s that I believe them more”.
If, on the other hand, he had started attending a Pentecostal church, I would probably have visited his church often, even if I kept my home congregation.