# EPC, Women's Ordination, & Confessionalism



## Austin (Aug 15, 2010)

*Hey y'all,

A few days ago I replied to a post at The Reformed Pastor about the recent developments in my denomination, the EPC. As it was an old post I replied to, I suppose not many folks took notice. Anyhow, I wanted to reprint my comments and see if anyone on the PB has any thoughts about what I said. My comments reflect my concern with the direction of my church, not some spur of the moment TR response. (I try to avoid making those .)

I would be glad to hear anyone's thoughts, but if there are any EPC members or ministers here, I would really be glad to get some interaction. Thanks a lot.

Here's what I wrote:*

Here are a few thoughts from one who is both a long-standing member/minister in the EPC and a complementarian.

1) The issue “Chaplaintraining” raised about paedo-communion is valid. In the Central South Presbytery this issue has arisen in practical ways, as multiple ministers have stated paedo-communion views. The response has been what I would suggest for egalitarians: their exceptions to the Westminster Standards have been denied, but they have been allowed to remain ministers in good standing so long as they refrain from teaching, preaching, or practicing their views. In my opinion, the best solution for egalitarianism in the EPC would be to allow them to be ‘grandfathered in,’ but to treat it as an aberration and state that our standards require a hermeneutic which affirms the clear stance of Scripture that the office of Teaching Elder be reserved for men.

2) In my experience I have noted several things RE: egalitarians.

a) they are unfamiliar with Reformed theology, particularly Reformed hermeneutics.

b) they are unfamiliar with complementarianism. The best treatments of this theological view are by a woman, Mrs. Susan Hunt of Georgia. I have yet to come across an egalitarian who has dealt seriously with the incredibly well-reasoned arguments raised by scholars such as Mrs. Hunt.

c) they have almost invariably attended what one might call a ‘theology-lite’ seminary. That is, one which emphasizes practical issues of ministry above (and to the exclusion of?) solid exegesis and linguistic studies.

d) (in line w/ point a above) they are usually of the “well, I’m personally Reformed, but I think theology is divisive and Reformed theology is inimical to church growth, mission, and evangelism.” (This quote came from a New Wineskins leader.)

3) This issue of women’s ordination isn’t a practical/pragmatic matter, but one which is revelatory of a deep-seated malady in the EPC. This malady is the fact that we have a weak Confessionalism. For instance, it is common to come across ministers (let alone elders) who are not aware of the fact that we have three confessional documents to which they are required to subscribe. These are the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. In my Presbytery (Midwest), it is common for ordination candidates to state no exceptions, and then to go on to state that they are not on board with “Limited Atonement,” Covenant theology, the baptism of infants, or Reformed sacramentology. At a Presbytery meeting in 2009, I personally was gavelled down by the Moderator for pressing an ordinand to come clean and state that it is necessary to state an exception to the WCF, WLC, & WSC because he stated that he had not, nor would he, baptize his children, nor would he encourage Christian parents to have their children baptized. My Presbytery commonly ordains or transfers in ministers who are functional Arminians or Amyralidians, Baptists, Dispensationalists, etc. I have had more than one candidate for ordination in the last two years tell me that he had not read or studied the Westminster Standards.

*THIS* is the real issue at hand: what does it mean to be Reformed and Presbyterian in the EPC? We have adopted (in 2001) “The Essentials of Our Faith” as a confessional document. But it is also expressly stated in the adopting act of 2001 that this is not meant to be a bare-bones minimum theological statement for ordination. According to that act, Elders, Minsters, and Deacons are required to subscribe to the *THREE *Westminster Standards. But I personally know of dozens of churches that have untrained elders & deacons, and which have never asked for exceptions to the Westminster Standards.

Furthermore, in my personal experience the Presbyteries of the West & Midwest have such low standards of subscription that it is possible to be out of accord with almost every point of Reformed theology and still be approved as a minister. Through friends I also know that this is the case for the Presbytery of the East & the New Wineskins Presbytery, if not others.

As I say, *THIS *is the real issue. Women’s ordination is but the tip of the iceberg revealing a serious theological drift and unmooring from the Confessionalism that our Book of Order and the Acts of the Assembly require. It is an hermeneutical problem, a theological problem, and a polity crisis.

4) Already, a number of the more Reformed ministers and churches in the EPC are being forced to decide if the drift of the denomination requires that they move to the PCA. Several churches have already left, or in process. And it seems that no one really cares that those in our midst who are Confessionally Reformed are being pushed out in this fashion.

5) Several presbyteries have already adopted ‘gag rules’ for the discussion of the ordination of women. That is, female candidates are required to submit a paper explaining their egalitarianism, but then no discussion, follow-up questions, or debate is allowed regarding their views. So, (and this is not an hypothetical example) a woman who states that Paul would have never considered ordaining women, or that he was a misogynist, or that the clear meaning of Scripture must be disregarded because “that was then and this is now, and we have better understanding than did Paul about the implications of the Gospel” must be moved through the process without the ability of other presbyters to ask hermeneutical questions.

6) The clear lesson of history in the last 100 years points to the fact that every denomination that has allowed women’s ordination has gone liberal. It is not a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Rather this is observable, documented fact. And why is that? It is an issue of hermeneutics. As Dr. Ligon Duncan of RTS has noted, ‘if you can make Paul’s statement that ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man’ mean ‘I do permit it,’ then you can make Scripture say a anything.”

7) The standard hermeneutic that allows for women’s ordination is the self-same as that used by liberals in the PCUSA, the ECUSA, the ELCA, and the UMC to affirm homosexuality. I am always open to hearing a hermeneutically sound argument (which is why I desire open debate, not gag rules), but thus far I have not encountered such a hermeneutic.

8) As you peruse the history of American Presbyterianism, it is clear that weak subscription always leads to liberalism, division, the undermining of the Great Commission, and other ills.

9) We in the EPC have a Book of Order and Acts of the Assembly that *REQUIRE *subscription. The ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ practice of so many of our churches and presbyteries is nothing more than a violation of our ordination vows, refusing to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay, and bearing false witness. If presbyters in the EPC don’t like our policies and confessionalism, let them change it. Let them make the EPC the Evangelical Free Church of the Presbyterian world. But until those policies are changed, to continue in our present course is to dance on the edge if a precipice. It will not end well, nor is it faithful to God, to our vows, or to our sacred trust.

I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m “flaming” people, but this is how I and a number of other ministers I know around the country feel. Moreover, this is where I/we are after observation, deliberation, reflection, and prayer.

If anyone has any thoughts, I would be more than happy to have an irenic discussion and hear alternate assessments.

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father & the Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 15, 2010)

I don't have much to say But i am a Seminary student and a Member of an EPC church. I will more than likely seek ordination in the PCA over this and a few other issues.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 15, 2010)

You might find helpful a widely viewed thread that touched on these topics:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/epc-pca-dont-know-what-thread-ask-57299/


----------



## Austin (Aug 15, 2010)

What other issues, if I may ask?

---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

Hey Scott,

Yeah, I've read that, but I am really hoping to get some input from EP folks. Most of the commentary there (if I remember rightly) was from PCA & other non-EPC people (i.e. mostly from people to the 'right' of the majority of EPC members). It's odd, but I don't see a lot of comments from EP sources on this topic. (Thus I ask for input from them, assuming they're here.) If you know any EPs, please ask them to comment. 

Shalom,


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 15, 2010)

Austin,

I gave some input on that other thread, and on some others like it. Like you, I commented on the subscription that is officially required. In the examination of ordinands I witnessed recently, there was significant inquiry into the candidates' doctrinal positions (though the issue of women did not come up at all). In my experience in the EPC (all in the Mid-Atlantic), all had pastors who personally told me that they did, in fact, subscribe to the Standards. I understand that you are saying that there are apparently plenty with a different view in that regard. That is troubling indeed. I agree that the women's issue is not the "real" issue but only a tangential one to the deeper issue of subscription generally (and, by extension, biblical faithfulness). If I were to see a broader shift as a result of this recent decision or because of a disregard for the Standards, I would be compelled to seek fellowship elsewhere.

As to your proposal for irenic debate, there are only a handful of EPC'ers on the PB and, because of the nature of the forum, I doubt that there would be any that would hold a view radically different from yours or mine. However, if there are such, I too would be interested in that debate.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 16, 2010)

I spent almost 17 years in the EPC and was grateful for the fellowship and support I received through a difficult ministry, and the long illness and death of my late wife. The EPC was a good place for me to learn and grow as I transitioned from neo-evangelicalism to Westminster, Puritan, Regulative Principle views. I was never asked to compromise my conscience on these matters, was received and respected by other congregations, and had hopes in the beginning years (starting in 1988) of a shift away from women ruling elders, and firm decisions by presbyteries not to ordain or receive women as teaching elders or candidates.

During that time in the EPC (1988-2005) I was in one of the more “Reformed” presbyteries. Enough of old Southern Presbyterian culture persisted to make me feel at home. I hope I was a good churchman, attending more than 50 consecutive stated meetings of presbytery and serving on several committees, including a term on the ministerial (i.e. credentials and candidates) committee. But, I did experience several disappointments:

1) When I was nominated to the ministerial committee, there was some attempt to prevent my election because I was considered “too Reformed,” and there were already two men on that committee who were considered such.

2) I never saw a candidate for ordination or transfer turned down by my presbytery, even when they displayed some ignorance of theology or stated non-confessional views.

3) There was a reluctance on the part of some to take adequate time to do the work of the church in presbytery and GA meetings.

4) General Assemblies were too short, and filled with too much “celebration,” with little opportunity to debate significant issues on the floor. I usually left meetings of the GA with a degree of frustration.

5) Over the years, I saw the number of congregations with women elders grow.

6) Worship services in many of our congregations and at meetings of church courts contained elements radically contradicted by any consideration of the Regulative Principle or historic Presbyterian practice.

7) I heard questionable and disturbing doctrine preached at one of my last times attending a meeting of presbytery.

When courting the woman who became my current wife, she had some concerns about my EPC connection, she being from a PCA and Free Church of Scotland Continuing background. I assured her I was on the more conservative and reformed fringes of the EPC. After getting to know me and the EPC, she said, “Glenn, you are the fringe of the EPC.”

As I began to consider that my work might be complete in the location where I served and looked for a call elsewhere, I realized there were few places in the EPC where I could serve, or would consider me. That led to a subsequent call to Boise to serve a congregation of the OPC, where I’ve been very comfortable with how the church courts and examination process works.

I still have good friends within the EPC. I’m glad the EPC is there for congregations leaving the PCUSA. Better they join an existing denomination than form a slightly different one. However, I am also concerned this will radically change my former denomination, already significantly different from the one I joined 22 years ago. If I were in the EPC today, I most likely would be looking elsewhere. I predict a number of congregations and men will do so. 

That said, I continue to pray for the EPC and wish them well, believing they serve an important function as a transitional denomination for ministers and congregations.

I also note: I believe the continuing Anglican Mission in America (AmiA) initially received ordained women and after a study of the issue, decided to grandfather them in but not ordain any more. Such a move would be hindered by the EPC because of the unalterable clauses in their constitution. But, some presbyteries may take such a step in regard to teaching elders, and they may encourage member congregations to do something similar in regard to ruling elders. I have often said, the EPC is actually several different church cultures depending on region and presbytery. The question is how long they can continue together.


----------



## Austin (Aug 16, 2010)

Glenn, could you give some more information on your comment, "7) I heard questionable and disturbing doctrine preached at one of my last times attending a meeting of presbytery"? I too have experienced this, and am wondering what you heard. 

One of the more striking comments I heard in the last couple of years in a Presbytery sermon was that ordination is a human contrivance with little or no Scriptural warrant or norms, and thus women's ordination is adiaphoristic (my paraphrase). 

Thanks,


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 16, 2010)

I have been in the EPC for only a couple of years so my experience is limited.

I am personally mixed at this point. I personally love my church. I believe my pastor handles the Word extremely well. I have learned a great deal from the leaders of my church.

That being said I am concerned at the direction the EPC could end up going. I was disappointed at the recent GA and the utter caving of conservative men on the issue of women ordination. I did not like the proposals given at GA and when I found out they were put together by men who supposedly represented the conservative side, I could only shake my head. 

I was also alarmed at how many bought into the teaching presented that equated to nothing more than a "social gospel." The church was reduced to a mere charity.

I really see where the EPC is at a fork in the road. I just pray that the right direction is chosen.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 16, 2010)

The sermon contained suggestions of Patripassionism. I think it was preached without due consideration of what was said. It was disturbing enough my wife left the service. I found there was a lot of theological sloppiness in the EPC. 

Write me privately if you want to discuss details regarding the EPC.


----------



## Austin (Aug 16, 2010)

Boliver, could you please expand upon this comment: "I was also alarmed at how many bought into the teaching presented that equated to nothing more than a "social gospel." The church was reduced to a mere charity." As I wasn't able to be present at the GA this year (1st time in 10 years), I am unfamiliar with the teaching done there. 

Thanks,


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 16, 2010)

Reggie McNeal gave a workshop on being missional. Throughout the shop he would give examples of what a good missional church looked like. His examples included churches that volunteered for the local Air show instead of having a Sunday Service, providing weekend meals for poor children in the city, and some other things (my memory is fuzzy right now). The big problem came in when he would point out and praise these churches for providing a ministry to the city without cramming Jesus down their throat. 

He believed that if building big churches, having great choirs, dynamic presentations, and deep sermons was the answer to spirituality, then the USA would be the most spiritual nation in the world. Seeing how we are not the most spiritual, then we must change how we do church.

I just went to the EPC website and found out that we cannot buy his CDs due to his publisher agreement. That is unfortunate. 

I also think that having a non-Reformed guy attempting to teach a reformed denomination how to have church is plagued with problems.


----------



## Austin (Aug 16, 2010)

Did he really encourage *canceling* worship on Sunday? If so, that is, to say the least, extremely non-Confessional. Oy vey...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 16, 2010)

Yes he did. He congratulated a church for putting a sign on their door saying church was canceled for the day because the members had volunteered at the local Air show. Somehow doing this proclaimed the love of Christ or something.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 16, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Yes he did. He congratulated a church for putting a sign on their door saying church was canceled for the day because the members had volunteered at the local Air show. Somehow doing this proclaimed the love of Christ or something.


 

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

1 Samuel 15:22


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 16, 2010)

I do say though that it is encouraging to see more EPC guys here on PB. We are up to 3 members, one member looking to switch to PCA, and a former EPC guy. Still not much, but maybe more are coming.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------




Zenas said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he did. He congratulated a church for putting a sign on their door saying church was canceled for the day because the members had volunteered at the local Air show. Somehow doing this proclaimed the love of Christ or something.
> ...



No argument on my end.


----------



## Austin (Aug 17, 2010)

Andrew: as they say in New Orleans, "Yeh, you rite, dawlin'."

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

And Boliver: it would be nice to see more EPs here. Am I & Bill Crawford the only EP ministers on PB?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 20, 2010)

Yep, as far as I know you two are the only ones. I am still in seminary, but will join the ranks in a few years.


----------



## Austin (Aug 20, 2010)

Boliver: what church do you attend? Is it EP?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 20, 2010)

Christ Evangelical Prebybyterian Church www.cepc.org

It is not EP, but it is EPC.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 20, 2010)

The only things about the EPC that bother me are Women's Ordination, Charismatic issues and there is no oversight on style of worship or preaching style. The women's ordination is not as pressing as it has been noted that there is only a handful and, my presbytery prohibits it, along with women deacons. The charismatic issue can be a problem but its not that big of a deal where my current pastor, that i know of, believes in personal prayer language. The charismatic issue can translate into a serious emotion based worship. My church has a "contemporary service" that tries to be emotional (piano during prayer, shallow worships songs you hear on Christian Radio, speaking softly in between the songs to illicit some sort of emotional response, old guys trying to hip rocking the drums, guitars, and all that jazz. To allowing overtly topical preaching, using one verse out of of Kings to preach a 4 part series on Elijah, a Pastors complete reliance on PowerPoint during his sermon. Almost word for word powerpoint slides complete with pictures, animations and all the lights and sparkles that go with it. I don't go to the contemporary service, but i know for a fact that this was addressed at Last years GA as an ineffective teaching tool, yet it is still allowed to continue, why say its ineffective and still allow it to continue?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 20, 2010)

The reason is because PowerPoint may be ineffective, but in and of itself is not unconfessional or unBiblical. In terms of preaching we have to realize that every denomination has preachers that are horrific. It isn't an EPC thing. 

I agree that the charismatic thing could cause problems if it is allowed to go in the direction of a non-denom charismatic style of worship. As long as we can agree that special revelation has ceased and that the Word of God is sufficient and closed, then I can get along with those of a charismatic leaning.


----------



## Austin (Aug 20, 2010)

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a 'closet charismatic.' By this I mean that I think Acts is intended to be normative for the Church, & that I know solidly Reformed ministers in whom I have complete confidence who are open to (or have experienced) speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, words of knowledge, etc. While I haven't experienced these things, I see no reason why they can't be continuing today. No Reformed person (or bona fide Evangelical) can believe in continuation of authoritative revelation. 

As for describing us as "EPs," that's an older, more grammatically accurate way of describing denominations. The "C" is unnecessary. for example, someone who is a member of the ARPC is an ARP ("Associate Ref'd Presbyterian"). I am an "EP" because I am an "Evangelical Presbyterian." I'm not an "Evangelical Presbyterian Church." I used to be the pastor of "Stonebridge EP Church," not "Stonebridge EPC Church." It's kind of like how I have a "PIN" for my debit card, not a "PIN number." That would mean that I have a "'Personal Identification Number' number." See?  

(Yes, I know I'm a grammatical pedant.)


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 20, 2010)

Good point. I just assumed it was a typo and attempted to make a funny that I am not an exclusive psalmist. Do we have a crash and burn emoticon?

Recognizing that I am in the minority and openly teaching this is against board rules, I find myself in the same boat that you are in terms of spiritual gifts.


----------



## Austin (Aug 20, 2010)

*OH NO! YOU'RE NOT AN EXCUSIVE PSALMIST?!?!?* Call the Church Police! 

"Ohhhh, YES!"



---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------

RE: CEPC, John Crimmins & Ed Wedin are good friends of mine. Great church. I used to serve as Clerk on the CSP Ministerial Committee when John chaired it, and I always love to chew the fat w/ Ed over a pipe after Presbytery or GA meetings.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 20, 2010)

I am surprised you didn't say you liked Buck. For whatever reason everytime I talked about CEPC someone always says, "Oh Buck goes there. I really like him." Somehow the associate pastor seems to be more popular than the head pastor.  Granted it helps when you are approaching 70 and have kids out the wazoo (including one who won American Gladiators).


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 20, 2010)

> *Austin*
> In the interests of full disclosure, I am a 'closet charismatic.' By this I mean that I think Acts is intended to be normative for the Church, & that I know solidly Reformed ministers in whom I have complete confidence who are open to (or have experienced) speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, words of knowledge, etc. While I haven't experienced these things, I see no reason why they can't be continuing today. No Reformed person (or bona fide Evangelical) can believe in continuation of authoritative revelation.



I don't want to distract from this thread, but only to comment on the last part.

The difficulty is that standard charismatic/pentecostal doctrine and/or practice, explicitly or implicitly, assumes that authoritative revelation does now, ordinarily come, outside of Scripture by means of speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue.

This illustrates the point here of how allowing that to go unaccountable (under "liberty of nonessentials" or whatever notion). When corporate worship is centered on that practice, when that is taught as an ordinary means of grace, it undermines the sufficiency of Scripture, sola scriptura, and opens to all sorts of disorder.

It's hard to come to terms with this, and it took a long time for me to understand what this is- but whether by saying the revelation is equal, or not above, Scripture, or must be in line with Scripture, it is taken as that kind of authority which Scripture alone claims for itself.

Think of it, what basis is there for saying God will reveal something in line with Scripture in an _unknown_ tongue, then translate it to a known one- when the authority by which it is to be judged is already sitting right there in His Word.

In Corinth, apparently, this was more of a sign to unbelievers, perhaps an evangelistic tool-
not as an ordinary means of grace for God's people, a center of corporate worship. (I Cor 12, 13 and 14 all make this clear).

Believing that God can still do miracles, or even operate extraordinarily is not the same thing as being "charismatic" (which incidentally means one must have tongues or another I Cor. 12 sprititual gift given at the time of a separate experience called a "baptism of the Holy Spirit."

This is all wrong.

The Holy Spirit is fully sufficient at regeneration, and God does not have to give a I Cor. 12 spiritual gift to anyone.
To teach that it does is not biblical, and certainly not reformed.

A point like that has to be settled in a reformed church because it involves so much major doctrine.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 20, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Believing that God can still do miracles, or even operate extraordinarily is not the same thing as being "charismatic" (which incidentally means one must have tongues or another I Cor. 12 sprititual gift given at the time of a separate experience called a "baptism of the Holy Spirit."



Just to clarify: this is typically the teaching in charismatic circles, but not always. I know charismatic EPC pastors who are adamently against teaching a second experience/baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nor do they hold that "I Cor. 12" gifts are for everyone necessarily. They simply claim that God may have gifted some in this way.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 20, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Believing that God can still do miracles, or even operate extraordinarily is not the same thing as being "charismatic" (which incidentally means one must have tongues or another I Cor. 12 sprititual gift given at the time of a separate experience called a "baptism of the Holy Spirit."
> ...



If that's the case, reminds me of the title of an old Bob Wills tune, "Much ado about nothing."

To merely think God may "gift" someone in "this" way does not make one a charismatic or pentecostal. And, we must ask, "gifted" for what?

If it's not a second work of grace, if not authoritative revelation of any kind, for corporate worship- not really anything left that would identify as a charismatic/pentecostal communion.

But it's their identity, and they want to be known for that.


This illustrates why this is so difficult and dis-unifying because there is no accountable systematic doctrinal confession or practice. Why there is so much disorder in their communions.

But the difference between charismatic and pentecostal has been that while both believed in a second work of grace after salvation, a "baptism of the Holy Spirit," separate from salvation, Pentecostals believed it is necessarily accompanied by speaking in an unknown tongue- whereas charismatics, not necessarily, could be any one of the I Cor. 12 gifts. That has been the differentiating point.

It's never really been whether God can "still" do miracles, or "continue" gifts- that's where the discussion often goes off into confusion.


----------



## Austin (Aug 20, 2010)

Boliver: I forgot that Buck was there. When I started in CSP he was at a different church. But yeah, everyone loves Buckoli.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 20, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> To merely think God may "gift" someone in "this" way does not make one a charismatic or pentecostal.



So, to be clear, you believe that someone could be "gifted" with tongues, yet neither be charismatic nor Pentecostal? If so, that's a novel idea - one that I would be interested in exploring further. If not, then it is not "much ado about nothing."


----------



## Austin (Aug 20, 2010)

Steve: absolutely. Those I know who believe this say that it is a private prayer language by which the Spirit encourages the hearts of the person so endowed. For many it seems to be occasional, not something that they can 'learn' (which is, in my mind, heterodox at best) or do all the time. Others who claim to have experienced it (particularly on the mission field) do it "decently and in good order" by having an interpretation. I have also heard people of a Reformed bent apply the rubric of Moses to words of knowledge (i.e., if it comes to pass, well & good, if not, then it was not of God). As far as a word of knowledge, or prophecy, I know a CRC minister who has an inexplicable insight into the lives of people with whom he ministers. Most of them come from a very troubled background (ritual, sexual abuse, drug problems, etc) and he has been able in prayer with them to note things which they've never told anyone, and which he would have no way of knowing. Now, as these things have been used by God, under the oversight of solid sessions/consistories, and to the edification of the flock, I a extremely reticent to judge it as being anything but of the Spirit. 

As I say, I have not personally experienced these things, but those whom I know who have are Christians whose theology I deem orthodox. Another note is that most of the people i know who've experience these things (in my circles) were cessationists (more or less) prior to having these experiences. Almost universally, they are people who wouldn't have believed it unless they'd experienced it.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 20, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > To merely think God may "gift" someone in "this" way does not make one a charismatic or pentecostal.
> ...


 
To be as clear as possible:

1) Charismatic/pentecostal communions are centered on seeking extra biblical revelation as an ordinary means of grace, and particularly as a focus of corporate worship

2) They are identified by teaching and practicing of a second means of grace, "a baptism of the Holy Spirit" separate from the Holy Spirit's work at salvation, evidenced by some I Cor. 12 spiritual gift

Neither of these propositions are biblical, not in light of the completion of Scripture. They are not compatible with reformed theology.

One does not have to believe these things above,

but might instead say something like

1) God might extraordinarily provide revelation (only saying it is possible, because God is not limited by anything)

2) or a manifestation of this kind of gift might have a personal, exhortation (faith building) purpose still (only saying possible, again because God is not limited by anything) 

(If I'm understanding, this is more what Austin is getting at by his comments)

But neither of those beliefs would make the person, or the communion "charismatic" or "pentecostal"- not at all.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Austin (Aug 20, 2010)

Oh, I thought of another example over dinner. The minister who was my college pastor is a very 'weak kneed charismatic' (if you will). He was, as far as I know, more or less a cessationist until one evening he was at worship when he was a Ruling Elder (before he went to seminary). There was someone at a prayer meeting who started speaking in tongues. While this was going on (and while he was, I imagine, rolling his eyes), he suddenly had this sense that he had an interpretation. He was quite uncomfortable with this, but Paul's injunction about having an interpretation came to mind, and so he shared what was 'laid on his heart.' (He did it simply out of obedience to the Word of God as he understood it, not as something he wanted to do.) Anyhow, it turned out to be an accurate word of knowledge (or prophecy). No one was more surprised than he! Anyhow, this was not something he spoke widely of, but it was something that he experienced. And this man is a Reformed minister whose theology I consider above reproach. Until he shared this with me, I was a cessationist (more by reaction against 'chaismatic/pentecostals' than real consideration). However, since that time I have met a number of such individuals who've had odd experiences such as these. Some may say that these things are flukes, or psychological oddities, but as I find no explicit warrant in Scripture for the 'gifts of the Spirit' (or whatever you want to call them) ceasing, I find myself a reluctant, 'closet charismatic.' 

Thoughts?

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

Scott: that makes perfect sense. And that's what I am indeed referring to. I use the term 'charismatic' b/c I don;t know of another term to use. Perhaps the right word would be 'non-cessationist.' I dunno. Anyone have a good term?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 20, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



I guess I am taking issue with your blanket characterizations of “charismatic/Pentecostal.” For one thing, you seem to think that the only distinguishing attribute between charismaticism and Pentecostalism is the _necessity _of speaking in tongues. 

I would argue that Pentecostalism is indeed a theological system that does, as you suggest, expect a second experience after and, essentially, superior to the work of salvation, which is evidenced by speaking in tongues. However, charismaticism does not necessarily hold the same view. As I tried to explain, and as Austin’s examples explain, there are many with solid orthodox theology who experience the “sign” gifts without attributing it to a baptism of the Holy Spirit distinct from that which occurs at the moment of salvation (1 Cor. 12:13).

In #28, you said “But the difference between charismatic and pentecostal has been that while both believed in a second work of grace after salvation, a "baptism of the Holy Spirit," separate from salvation, Pentecostals believed it is necessarily accompanied by speaking in an unknown tongue- whereas charismatics, not necessarily, could be any one of the I Cor. 12 gifts. That has been the differentiating.” I am not sure where that quote came from, but it would certainly not be accepted by many of the charismatic churches and Christians with which I am familiar.

I also would disagree with your generalization that:

“Charismatic/pentecostal communions are centered on seeking extra biblical revelation as an ordinary means of grace. . . They are identified by teaching and practicing of a second means of grace, "a baptism of the Holy Spirit" separate from the Holy Spirit's work at salvation, evidenced by some I Cor. 12 spiritual gift.”

That may be how some people identify them, but that is not how all charismatic churches would identify themselves. Setting aside the spurious union of the two groups, I don’t think that such a statement fairly represents _all _charismatic communions. Many, many churches that allow or practice the gifts are by no means “centered on seeking extra biblical revelation.” In fact, many would repudiate the very notion. The position taken by many who are Reformed in their theology and yet also accepting of charismaticism goes something like this:

If one person were to stand up in a church in America and declare something that is wholly consistent with God’s Word but said it in Swahili and another person stood up and translated that statement into English, how is that extra-biblical revelation? Granted, there may be issues of who should be preaching/exhorting, etc. and other legitimate issues, but it hardly rises to the level of extra-biblical revelation – it is, in fact, biblical revelation, though perhaps reworded in the same way the pastor “rewords” the message of Scripture in his sermon as he expounds upon it. So what if God gave a person the “gift” of being able to speak in a tongue he didn’t know previously, or gave to another the gift to interpret a language he didn’t now previously?

We may wonder why this exercise would take place, why God would use such means. We may certainly even question whether He, in fact, does. But before you can refute the position of sincere believers – many of whom are committedly Reformed – you have to correctly relate that position. Building straw men about all charismatic communions being “centered on seeking extra biblical revelation” is, quite frankly, counterproductive.

Having said all of that, I must confess that I have never “sought” nor experienced anything like the so-called sign gifts. I have never been involved with a church that even practiced them. I am only concerned with at least acknowledging the convictions that are held by many that I know and respect. I would wholeheartedly agree that Pentecostalism is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. However, though as I said I am not a charismatic, I agree with Austin: “I find no explicit warrant in Scripture for the 'gifts of the Spirit' (or whatever you want to call them) ceasing.” That being said, unlike Austin, I am not a “closet charismatic; I am simply frustrated with generalizations and straw men.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 21, 2010)

When I came into the OPC from the EPC, I knew I’d be asked about charismatic gifts, experiences and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. I prepared a statement to share with the credentials committee and presbytery, which in part said:

There are no miraculous or extraordinary spiritual gifts validating God’s Revelation today, nor is any new Revelation given. The Canon is closed, God’s Special Revelation complete. Thus defined, God’s extraordinary activity has ceased.

.....

“God in his ordinary providence makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above and against them, at His pleasure.” (WCF V:3) Although there are no extraordinary works of God to confirm additions to His Word, a Sovereign God may use special providential means to guide, deliver or protect His people, especially in times of persecution, hardship, or advancement of the Kingdom, never as a contradiction, an addition to, or with the infallible certainty of canonical Revelation, but “as gracious intimations of the will of God, granted to them in answer to prayer, for their own encouragement or direction” (McCrie, _Story of the Scottish Church_). Scripture does not forbid one to pray for God’s special providential intervention to deliver beyond His ordinary workings through man and nature. ...



Regarding EP and the EPC: The first EPC GA I attended was in 1989 in St. Louis (their 9th). An invitation came to participate in an international Psalmody Conference at Bonclarken (ARP) Conference Center in the late summer of 1990. The Committee reported back to the floor a recommendation to decline the offer as the EPC was not Exclusive Psalmody.

I said to my wife, “The invitation said nothing about Exclusive Psalmody; but it is a conference on the singing of Psalms. That’s part of our heritage; Let’s go.”

Which we did. As far as I know, we were the only members of the EPC at that conference; one of the best conferences I’ve ever attended, at which there were people from at least 17 denominations and possibly five countries. 

Thus, began my understanding and appreciation of metrical Psalmody. I introduced the singing of Psalms in my home missions work in Eastern Kentucky, noting it was part of our Appalachian Ulster-Scot heritage. Twenty years later, I now hold Exclusive Psalmody convictions, which would be difficult to maintain if I were still within the EPC, and are somewhat "inconvenient" even in the OPC.

I pray EPC officers and congregations might come to a fuller understanding of Regulative Principle Worship and sing more Psalms, even if they are not EP.


----------



## Austin (Aug 21, 2010)

I was just recently singing a metrical version of PS 121 to my son as were looking at the mountains north of Tucson during his bedtime. It was a great time of fruitful discussion for my son (almost 6 years old) and myself. 

"I lift my eyes to the hills, from whence cometh my help? My help is from the Lord our God, maker of heaven & earth."

It's nice that the version I have memorized is in both English & Hebrew. 

Esai enai
El he-harim
Me-ayim yavo ezri
Ezri meyim Adonai
Ose shamayim va-aretz

El yaten lamot ranlecha
El yanum shomrecha
Hine lo yanum
Va-lo ishan
Shomer yisrael

I lift up my eyes 
Unto the hills; 
From whence shall come my help? 
My help is from the LORD our God, 
Maker of heaven & earth. 

He will not give to the moving of your foot, 
Nor shall slumber He who keeps thee. 
Behold He’ll not slumber 
Nor will He sleep; 
He who keeps Israel.”


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 21, 2010)

> *kainos01*
> I would wholeheartedly agree that Pentecostalism is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.



Yes, in some important ways- e.g. necessary "second work" of Holy Spirit, extra-biblical revelation through unknown tongues/intepretation as ordinary means of grace and as center of corporate worship, plus...

Arminian influence, dispensationalism, no confession.

That's why there is such disorder in communions that denominate themselves that way.

In line with the original post,

That's why it's so important for a reformed denomination to settle these parameters, and not leave them open for individual interpretations under notions of "liberty."

That's necessary for the peace and purity of the church, and that's reformed.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 21, 2010)

Austin said:


> Boliver: I forgot that Buck was there. When I started in CSP he was at a different church. But yeah, everyone loves Buckoli.



It is funny but my first service at CEPC, Buck preached. It was an amazing sermon on grace. My wife and I looke at each other and said this where we are going to church. We came back next weekand to our surprise, Buck did not preach!  I grew to love my pastor's preaching though.


----------

