Weston Stoler
Puritan Board Sophomore
Is their such a thing as a "Reformed Charismatic"? How would you deal with such people. Where in scripture would you go to decry such a erroneous belief.
Reformed Charasmatic?
- Thread starter Weston Stoler
- Start date
- Status
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
We live in an age where the meaning of words can be easily lost.
On one level, everyone from a former President living an open lifestyle of adultery to pop culture celebrities would imagine themselves "Calvinist" or "reformed."
At heart, reformed theology is at minimum:
Doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession.
I'm not aware of any communion designating itself "pentecostal" or "charismatic" (as we used those terms in this generation) meeting that criteria.
They might lean or be Calvinist, but not have a binding confession for example.
This is aside from the serious error of what is denominated "charismatic" or "pentecostal" in this generation. That error does not define the very basic tenets for reformed theology, but really does get to sola scriptura.
The serious error of those terms, as communions intentionally use those terms to describe themselves:
1) special revelation is ordinarily to be sought outside of Scripture
2) a "second work of grace," of the Holy Spirit occurs separate from regeneration and somehow brings the eternal, infinite nature of the Holy Spirit more 'fully'.
On one level, everyone from a former President living an open lifestyle of adultery to pop culture celebrities would imagine themselves "Calvinist" or "reformed."
At heart, reformed theology is at minimum:
Doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession.
I'm not aware of any communion designating itself "pentecostal" or "charismatic" (as we used those terms in this generation) meeting that criteria.
They might lean or be Calvinist, but not have a binding confession for example.
This is aside from the serious error of what is denominated "charismatic" or "pentecostal" in this generation. That error does not define the very basic tenets for reformed theology, but really does get to sola scriptura.
The serious error of those terms, as communions intentionally use those terms to describe themselves:
1) special revelation is ordinarily to be sought outside of Scripture
2) a "second work of grace," of the Holy Spirit occurs separate from regeneration and somehow brings the eternal, infinite nature of the Holy Spirit more 'fully'.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
It is theoretically possible that one holds an informed biblical view of the doctrines of grace, covenant theology and subscribes to one of the historic confessions, and
1) takes exception to a few points of doctrine in the confession
2) holds the serious error of seeking extra biblical special revelation
3) does not understand the implications for sola scriptura
But they would be a "unique (and conflicted) bird."
1) takes exception to a few points of doctrine in the confession
2) holds the serious error of seeking extra biblical special revelation
3) does not understand the implications for sola scriptura
But they would be a "unique (and conflicted) bird."
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
It's an oxymoron.
But like Scott said, "reformed" is really only now used for those who hold calvinist soteriology, not a confession or a 'truly Reformed' systematic theology. For instance John MacArthur and the Master's seminary, they are not reformed in the real sense of the word only calvinist, as they are dispensational, but ironically they are also cessationists.
It likely stems from the term young, restless, and reformed; though catchy isn't quite true with the term reformed.
But like Scott said, "reformed" is really only now used for those who hold calvinist soteriology, not a confession or a 'truly Reformed' systematic theology. For instance John MacArthur and the Master's seminary, they are not reformed in the real sense of the word only calvinist, as they are dispensational, but ironically they are also cessationists.
It likely stems from the term young, restless, and reformed; though catchy isn't quite true with the term reformed.
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
This one comes up about twice a year...
Quatchu
Puritan Board Sophomore
No I don't think so, I think in most cases were people call themselves "Reformed Charismatic" what they mean is Reformed Calvinist. We have a family that was coming to our church awhile back they considered themselves Reformed Charismatics Baptists. Bemoaned the fact that they could not find a reformed church that practiced tongues, hated the confessions were big supporters of MacArthur's dispensationalism, but were convinced they were reformed. They ended up leaving the church a few months in when a sermon on the cessation of gifts were preached. They made a small spectacle about how the sermon was offensive.
I may be wrong but this was probably more common in the early days of the PCA and I doubt ever a problem in the OPC. The two ministers I know of who if I recall rightly defend and practice "private prayer language" are both older and in the EPC; both articulate, strong Calvinists, but reject the regulative principle quite strongly.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Nearly 9 years ago (3-25-2004), our own Administrator Josh, put it this way: "Do you find people that are "Charismatic" Calvinists to be oxymoronic? Such things blow my mind."
If you are asking the question empirically, how about Sam Storms? John Piper? Wayne Grudem? James K.A. Smith? The Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches? C. J. Mahaney? Mark Driscoll? In response to those who object to the combination, Sam Storms opines that the same apostle who penned Romans 9 testified that "I speak in tongues more than you all," so "deal with it!"
Part of the problem relates to the fact that people can (and do) claim all sorts of incompatible connections. In our voluntaristic era, we simply assume that we have a "right" to mix and match just about anything and everything. In my former denomination, there was actually someone who called himself a "Baptist Buddhist"!?! A member of my family once did a Facebook bio claiming for herself an identity as an "Irish, Mexican, Agnostic, Roman Catholic."
If you are asking an official gatekeeper of a Reformed denomination if it is possible to be a Charismatic Calvinist, you might get a resounding "No!" However, last time I checked, such professional gatekeepers do not get consulted all that often when some rogue character decides to self-brand. I can remember when GBs of binary digits were sacrificed "in defense of" and "opposed to" our own Dr. Clark's contention that you could not be a Reformed Baptist.
Weston, an interesting (and brief) answer to the question in the negatory can be found at: "Five concerns about the merging of Charismatic and Calvinistic doctrine" http://www.tbcva.org/art02.pdf. It consists of five points, biblical texts, and several arguments against the hybrid. On first blush, it looks like a direct answer to your question of how would you use Scripture to "decry" the belief. It even quotes our own R. Scott Clark!
Also note Horton's take on the phenomenon: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/22/reformed-and-charismatic/
If you are asking the question empirically, how about Sam Storms? John Piper? Wayne Grudem? James K.A. Smith? The Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches? C. J. Mahaney? Mark Driscoll? In response to those who object to the combination, Sam Storms opines that the same apostle who penned Romans 9 testified that "I speak in tongues more than you all," so "deal with it!"
Part of the problem relates to the fact that people can (and do) claim all sorts of incompatible connections. In our voluntaristic era, we simply assume that we have a "right" to mix and match just about anything and everything. In my former denomination, there was actually someone who called himself a "Baptist Buddhist"!?! A member of my family once did a Facebook bio claiming for herself an identity as an "Irish, Mexican, Agnostic, Roman Catholic."
If you are asking an official gatekeeper of a Reformed denomination if it is possible to be a Charismatic Calvinist, you might get a resounding "No!" However, last time I checked, such professional gatekeepers do not get consulted all that often when some rogue character decides to self-brand. I can remember when GBs of binary digits were sacrificed "in defense of" and "opposed to" our own Dr. Clark's contention that you could not be a Reformed Baptist.
Weston, an interesting (and brief) answer to the question in the negatory can be found at: "Five concerns about the merging of Charismatic and Calvinistic doctrine" http://www.tbcva.org/art02.pdf. It consists of five points, biblical texts, and several arguments against the hybrid. On first blush, it looks like a direct answer to your question of how would you use Scripture to "decry" the belief. It even quotes our own R. Scott Clark!
Also note Horton's take on the phenomenon: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/22/reformed-and-charismatic/
Last edited:
charispistis
Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe "reformed charismatics" means they are "almost there" 
I remember when I struggled with freewill and predestination. After reading Norman Geisler's book Chosen but Free I thought I had solved the problem and happily embraced both doctrines......only until The Potter's Freedom knocked me out...
I remember when I struggled with freewill and predestination. After reading Norman Geisler's book Chosen but Free I thought I had solved the problem and happily embraced both doctrines......only until The Potter's Freedom knocked me out...
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Not to muddy the waters, but what about those who would argue for the continued validity of charismatic gifts (I'm thinking primarily of tongues, prophecy, and healing) but who see it only continuing in a non-revelatory way. I can be more specific if that's too vague.
The difficulty is that standard definitions of "pentecostal," and "charismatic" in our generation mean one who holds to a second work of grace of the Holy Spirit , separate from regeneration. That MUST be evidenced by speaking in unknown tongues (Pentecostal) v. by any one of the I Corinthians 12 spiritual gifts (Charismatic). That's the only difference between charismatic and pentecostal.
What you are asking is not that. You're not even supposing the (serious error) seeking of extrabiblical special revelation as an ordinary means of grace.
Believing that non-revelatory spiritual gifts, somehow continue extraordinarily or even ordinarily would not necessarily render someone as not "Calvinist," or "reformed."
They might be wrong on the point biblically, but in itself that wouldn't render someone not reformed, nor undue the consistency of the doctrines of grace, etc.
What would render them not reformed, not even by the broadest historic definition would be:
Arminian influenced soteriology, dispensationalism, or not having a substantial binding confession of faith.
There may be individuals who think themselves reformed without those basic attributes of reformation theology but I'm not aware of any communion (denomination) that holds them and also is pentecostal (or charismatic) by the definition of what that means.
E.g. Sovereign Grace Ministries may hold to all 5 points of Calvinism but has no substantive confession of faith to hold its officers and teachers to that in a binding and accountable way. Nor one that holds it clearly to covenant theology.
Same thing with Dr. McArthur. Definitely Calvinist, but "leaky" dispensationism (his term to what other attribute to his beliefs there) and no substantive confession of faith subscribed to.
For words to have meaning, I don't think a communion that does not hold its confession of faith as binding, or holds to a de facto minimalist statement of essentials can be reformed either.
Words mean things.
The Reformers, the Divines and the Puritans certainly meant the things they professed definitively.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
Anyone in here young? Feeling a little restless? Then you just might be young, restless, and reformed!
Just kidding, folks. Hey, when did charismatics get a confession and started baptizing babies?
BTW, I know of a Presbyterian Church over in WV that speaks in tongues. I was surprised; let me tell you.
Now. Where is that popcorn?
Just kidding, folks. Hey, when did charismatics get a confession and started baptizing babies?
BTW, I know of a Presbyterian Church over in WV that speaks in tongues. I was surprised; let me tell you.
Now. Where is that popcorn?
Hamalas
whippersnapper
In the situation I'm thinking of the man (who is a TE in the PCA) believes that tongues still exist today. He sees the gift of tongues as being a miraculous outpouring of praise to God which generally precedes the proclamation of the Word. So when he reads Acts 2, he sees the use of tongues there as a sort of preparation for the Word as a means of verifying the Word spoken. (I'm pretty sure that is how he would put it). Thoughts? Personally, I'm unfamiliar with this view of tongues.
Yeah, this does come up on a regular basis and I have to keep googling Poythress Poythress teaches at Westminster Seminary.
Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology | The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress
Read your history-Samuel Rutherford, Flavel, the Covenanters, Cotton Mather. Scroll down to section 12 on this paper.(Poythress does not detail Spurgeon on this but you can google it, he had a couple dozen pretty amazing word of knowledge sort of things.)
By the way, I consider myself a Reformed Charismatic but nowadays, those of us who hold to sufficiency of scripture tend to use the word "continuationist" or "non cessationist", instead of charismatic, to separate us from the classic Pentecostal doctrines and the word of faith movement. We don't believe you get the holy spirit when you get tongues, or that anything termed gifts are authoritative, or that it is all supposed to happen every Sunday if God is moving, and so forth.
Alos, you will find that Grudem and Piper are sort of a defacto confession in many of these circles. They don't subscribe to the 1689 or WCF or 3 forms, but they do have a standard, and that is Grudem's ST or pulling out a Piper preaching tape. You'll probably find less exceptions to this standard than you get in the average PCA, seriously. Maybe they reject Piper on divorce and remarriage, but otherwise he is the confession along with Spurgeon and Grudem.
Many of us refuse to identify ourselves with SGM/Mahaney. It has nothing to do with the recent charges that are all over with sex abuse cover ups, as terrible as that appears to be, but with the fact that they hold to many of the teachings and practices of the shepherding movement from the 60s and 70s. I went to an SGM church for a while and there was plenty of good stuff there, but the shepherding errors were so bad as to not qualify it as Reformed in my opinion, although they were into Piper and Grudem. Nor can we identify with Virgo's New Frontiers despite their belief in TULIP, because churches practicing the "Toronto Blessing" excesses are acceptable in their association.
I've met many non cessationists in the PCA. You'd be amazed how many there are.
Its a wierd sort of amalgum and it'll be interesting to see what lies ahead. I'd like to see a non cessationist confessional association start up. My church has all Calvinist elders and excellent preaching, and we use Reformed materials for teaching, and hub and I are the librarians and I am encouraged to see a growing interest in doctrine with some people. But we have no confession, so you get in discussions with folks who are arminian or Dispensational or just plain whacky and it is frustrating to not have any appeal but "the sermon last year where in one part the pastor said xxxxxx"...nope, it just doesn't work for me.
Several years back we went to a Calvinist Charismatic church with an excellent statement and they used the 1689, but elders got elected who didn't care and it became a mess. So you need elders who care, not just a good confession.
We used to be in the Metro NY Presbyterian of the PCA, listening to the fights about women deacons and watching one church have Pete Enns in, and a nice guy we knew defending the federal vision. So even in cessationist confessional churches people go off.
Well, there is always the Puritan board, ha. People may not agree about doctrine, but at least they think it really matters!
Poythress teaches at Westminster Seminary.Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology | The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress
Read your history-Samuel Rutherford, Flavel, the Covenanters, Cotton Mather. Scroll down to section 12 on this paper.(Poythress does not detail Spurgeon on this but you can google it, he had a couple dozen pretty amazing word of knowledge sort of things.)
By the way, I consider myself a Reformed Charismatic but nowadays, those of us who hold to sufficiency of scripture tend to use the word "continuationist" or "non cessationist", instead of charismatic, to separate us from the classic Pentecostal doctrines and the word of faith movement. We don't believe you get the holy spirit when you get tongues, or that anything termed gifts are authoritative, or that it is all supposed to happen every Sunday if God is moving, and so forth.
Alos, you will find that Grudem and Piper are sort of a defacto confession in many of these circles. They don't subscribe to the 1689 or WCF or 3 forms, but they do have a standard, and that is Grudem's ST or pulling out a Piper preaching tape. You'll probably find less exceptions to this standard than you get in the average PCA, seriously. Maybe they reject Piper on divorce and remarriage, but otherwise he is the confession along with Spurgeon and Grudem.
Many of us refuse to identify ourselves with SGM/Mahaney. It has nothing to do with the recent charges that are all over with sex abuse cover ups, as terrible as that appears to be, but with the fact that they hold to many of the teachings and practices of the shepherding movement from the 60s and 70s. I went to an SGM church for a while and there was plenty of good stuff there, but the shepherding errors were so bad as to not qualify it as Reformed in my opinion, although they were into Piper and Grudem. Nor can we identify with Virgo's New Frontiers despite their belief in TULIP, because churches practicing the "Toronto Blessing" excesses are acceptable in their association.
I've met many non cessationists in the PCA. You'd be amazed how many there are.
Its a wierd sort of amalgum and it'll be interesting to see what lies ahead. I'd like to see a non cessationist confessional association start up. My church has all Calvinist elders and excellent preaching, and we use Reformed materials for teaching, and hub and I are the librarians and I am encouraged to see a growing interest in doctrine with some people. But we have no confession, so you get in discussions with folks who are arminian or Dispensational or just plain whacky and it is frustrating to not have any appeal but "the sermon last year where in one part the pastor said xxxxxx"...nope, it just doesn't work for me.
Several years back we went to a Calvinist Charismatic church with an excellent statement and they used the 1689, but elders got elected who didn't care and it became a mess. So you need elders who care, not just a good confession.
We used to be in the Metro NY Presbyterian of the PCA, listening to the fights about women deacons and watching one church have Pete Enns in, and a nice guy we knew defending the federal vision. So even in cessationist confessional churches people go off.
Well, there is always the Puritan board, ha. People may not agree about doctrine, but at least they think it really matters!
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
No. Not even fully Calvinist soteriology.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
That's one man's opinion, second hand, at this point in time.
But it's not the view of his confession (he may not understand that), nor a common view outside of confession, either. because it doesn't address the context of Acts 2, let alone its greater context of Scripture v. Scripture. Again, it's one man's opinion.
While we could discuss Acts 2 in-depth Biblicaly, suffice it to say that in context, Acts 2 reinforces the role of the Holy Spirit SPEAKING THROUGH SCRIPTURE, apostolic and prophetic authority to establish the Word until the end of the world, and sola scriptura (which is not the "pentecostal" or "charismatic" view, even though they usually do not know the implications due to poor teaching).
Don't forget also, and this also apparently is lost on this person's analysis-
the languages in Acts 2 were KNOWN tongues of various gentile nations who were becoming believers as the promise of the Old Testament (to bring forth through Israel a redeemer for all nations- every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue) was being fulfilled.
It was not about speaking unknown tongues with interpretation of unknown tongues as in I Cor. 13, standard practice sought by "pentecostal" and "charismatic" in today's generation.
Weston Stoler
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bump
PanamaPuritan
Puritan Board Freshman
I am a cessationist. I prefer if Reformed people would stay away from the charismatic movement but I don't like to make a big deal out of it
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
It's interesting how the Westminster Confession begins with Scripture, and its role of special revelation. It shows the importance and centrality of God's Word and the logical order of understanding our God rightly.
It doesn't begin with the creature's imaginations, opinions or experiences or what might appeal to him.
It's clear that the summary of the doctrine of Scripture there is that special revelation, in any ordinary sense, has been fulfilled in the completed canon of Scripture, given as it is until the end of the world. So, in no ordinary sense, is new special revelation obtained outside of Scripture because of the very role and completed purpose of Scripture (sola scriptura). That's a "big deal."
Charismatic/pentecostal (as that term is used in this generation) generally do not have a systematic theology because of poor and incomplete teaching of the whole counsel of God. They do not have a binding, accountable systematic theology (confession) which is one reason why there is such disorder in their communions.
So, when confronted with Scripture interpreting Scripture about the unique role of prophets and apostles establishing the Word (Ephesians 2:20) as foundation until the end of this world (Titus 1:3) they often are perplexed and fall back to subjective opinion or experiences or debate about whether miracles can continue.
That's why it's important to contend for the Word about these important points- many of us who were in these kinds of communions come around, by God's grace, to a much better understanding of the whole counsel of God's Word on important topics like this, doing so in the fear of a Holy God. So, it is important to do so, for His Honor and His Glory.
But the central issue, as the Westminster Confession states, is the centrality of Scripture in establishing the special revelation of God until our Lord returns.
The Holy Spirit is alive and well, and vital to the Christian church today thanks in part to Mr. Calvin's excellent systematic theology on the topic, returning the church toward His important and central role as given in Scripture. Ordinarily, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture and helping illuminate the understanding of the believer as he seeks God through it.
Wonderful indeed.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
