-

[bigheavyq]

I don't think it is an oxymoron to be charismatic (non-cessationist) and reformed. Don't you want those who are in the grips of pelagianism an dispensationalism in those churches to believe in covenantal calvinism.

I was raised in a latter rain charismatic church (not word of faith) that was realizing the problem with dispensationalism. I became interested in the covenants in 1988 and then spent the rest of my till now studying them.
a few years later I met Ern Baxter who took a partial preterist postmill view of revelation. I then became interested in calvinism which I found I already sort of believed in just didn't know what to call it. I moved to florida from california and found many reformed friends an a several charismatic churches that believed the way I did. I still believe the gifts are for today and have been evident throughout the last two centuries but have been supressed by papal authorities and in protestant churches by enlightenment thinking. I have many examples of how the holy spirit has been quenched throughout history. I do not see anwhere in the bible where it should cease now.
I do hold many things in common with my reformed brethren, my love of the puritans, calvinism, paedo baptism, covenant theology, etc.
my problem with most of the cessationist on this board is their exclusivism toward those of us who strongly hold to a non cessational viewpoint.
more love, less vitriol

 

[Me Died Blue]

Jonathan, can you be a charismatic and hold to the doctrines of grace, God's providence, paedobaptism, Covenant Theology, etc.? Of course. But you cannot be a charismatic and be fully and truly Reformed per se, because even if the definition of the word is inclusive of all the major historical Calvinistic confessions (WCF, 1689, TFU, Savoy) none of them contain a charismatic view on the revelatory gifts.

The Scriptures always speak of the church being built on the foundation of the "apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:19-20; 3:3-5), and there are no apostles left since there is no one who has visibly seen Christ, so it is illogical to assume that there are prophets remaining.

Furthermore, 1 Cor. 13:8-12 is interpreted by Heb. 2:1-2, showing that Christ was the final word in this redemptive period.

And if you presume to prophecy, speak in tongues, or give any revelation on behalf of God, you had better be absolutely certain that God is commanding you to speak it, or else you should lawfully die by Deut. 18:20.

You also cannot escape the fact that if God still reveals today, His Word in the Bible is insufficient for our instruction and living today, by the very definition of the word "insufficient."

In charity of course,

 

[Scot]

to what Chris has said.

I would also urge you in love to continue to seriously study this topic in view of the warning in Rev. 22:18.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
You also cannot escape the fact that if God still reveals today, His Word in the Bible is insufficient for our instruction and living today, by the very definition of the word "insufficient."

Yes. It is precisely because a non-cessationist view impinges on the doctrine of Scripture that it is so vital. There is a reason that Calvin, Owen and so many others had little patience for the "enthusiasts."

I hope I would have patience with people who hold those views, even while giving no credence to the view itself

 

[Me Died Blue]

Good point, Josh...(edited from this point on) well, actually, while I firmly agree with you that charismatism is unbiblical and destructive of our view of Scripture, the more I think about what you said above, I don't think it applies. For even if one is a charismatic, they still believe that God does not contradict Himself, and thus they can have a basis on which to believe doctrines from Scripture and view Scripture as correct in all matters, even though they are still faced with the inevitability of viewing it as insufficient, which is where the problems come in, in addition to its contradiction of New Testament passages and patterns on the gifts.

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
...while I firmly agree with you that charismatism is unbiblical and destructive of our view of Scripture, the more I think about what you said above, I don't think it applies. For even if one is a charismatic, they still believe that God does not contradict Himself, and thus they can have a basis on which to believe doctrines from Scripture and view Scripture as correct in all matters, even though they are still faced with the inevitability of viewing it as insufficient, which is where the problems come in, in addition to its contradiction of New Testament passages ans patterns on the gifts.

But that goes along with my point. Once the line is smeared, well...you've a slippery slope....and eww, what a mess.

Granted, which is just one more reason to avoid it. But I could still see how someone could consistently hold to, say, Sola Fide or the doctrines of grace, while being a charismatic. They could say, "Well, I don't know what God is going to reveal later, but since He is perfect and does not contradict Himself, I do know from Scripture that such-and-such is true." But as you said, the very smearing it does to Scripture's sufficiency creates a slippery mess of the issue of authority and many other issues as well.

 

[RamistThomist]

I had an Eastern Orthodox pose this question to me (after he called me a Protestant Scholastic): "Why go to God in a book when you can find him in real life?" Don't worry, I attacked his position on the subjective claim and a method I learned frrom Packer via Owen: If the experience/extra revleation claim (EERC) agrees with Scriputre, then it is unnecessary. If it disagrees, it is false.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Finn McCool
If the experience/extra revleation claim (EERC) agrees with Scriputre, then it is unnecessary. If it disagrees, it is false.

 

[bigheavyq]

guys,
there is no one like me who will deny sola scriptura. I really didn't want to get into a debate of any kind. I just wanted to answer josh's comment that is was oxymoronic to hold both and I vehemently disagree.
I have heard all the arguments before that you are proposing and frankly I don't think they hold water. Mainly because none of the revelatory gifts are on par with scripture. Scripture is supreme in all cases. no prophecy, or word of knowledge is going to go against scripture.
I believe that I cannot tear scriptures like Rom 12 or I Cor 12-14 out of the Bible by saying it doesn't apply for all scripture is for us now. I have heard many charimatics who don't think Rom 9-11 exist. In fact at one of the large churches who has biblical training skips those chapters in their class on Romans. Both things are in error.
the sign gifts will cease only after we see Christ face to face.

My main hope is that this forum will be gracious and understanding to those like me, and will allow us to be involved with such a great tool as puritanboard.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by bigheavyq
guys,
there is no one like me who will deny sola scriptura. I really didn't want to get into a debate of any kind. I just wanted to answer josh's comment that is was oxymoronic to hold both and I vehemently disagree.

What is your definition of "sufficient"?

Originally posted by bigheavyq
I have heard all the arguments before that you are proposing and frankly I don't think they hold water.

Then answer them. How do you explain the repeated association of "apostles and prophets" in Ephesians as being foundational, given that the office of apostle has ceased? How do you deal with Deut. 18:20? What about Heb. 1:1-2? What is your exegesis of such passages?

Originally posted by bigheavyq
Mainly because none of the revelatory gifts are on par with scripture. Scripture is supreme in all cases. no prophecy, or word of knowledge is going to go against scripture.

Now you have asserted a two-tiered view of prophecy, since in biblical times, revelation absolutely was on par with Scripture (otherwise we wouldn't even have Scripture). So where from Scripture do you justify that "change" in the tier, authority or nature of the revelatory gifts?

Originally posted by bigheavyq
I believe that I cannot tear scriptures like Rom 12 or I Cor 12-14 out of the Bible by saying it doesn't apply for all scripture is for us now. I have heard many charimatics who don't think Rom 9-11 exist. In fact at one of the large churches who has biblical training skips those chapters in their class on Romans. Both things are in error.

Stating that something only applied for a time is not "tearing it out of the Bible," but simply putting it in its proper place. We believe all Scripture has a lesson for us now and a place in redemptive history, it just may not function the same way it did in other redemptive periods. Under the way you seem to be using the statement that "all Scripture is for us now," however, do you believe we should practice the ceremonial laws? Likewise, you must acknowledge that Deut. 18:20 is for us now as well.

Originally posted by bigheavyq
the sign gifts will cease only after we see Christ face to face.

And what do you make of Heb. 1:1-2 and partial preterism?

Originally posted by bigheavyq
My main hope is that this forum will be gracious and understanding to those like me, and will allow us to be involved with such a great tool as puritanboard.

I hope I'm always charitable in discussions like this, but I will still take to task assertions that I see as highly unbiblical or dangerous, and I see your claims about revelation as being so.

 

[Me Died Blue]

I have already read Robertson's The Final Word, which was a great little work. What are some of the other good resources on the doctrine of cessation? Does Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles deal with it much in particular?

 

[Irishcat922]

Al Martin's Sign's of the Apostles is good, Warfield is Good, Victor Budgeon, the Charismatics and the word of God, is excellent on this subject. MacArthur's book is very good. David Farnell debated Grudem on the issue of revelatory gifts and I thought dealt with the issue very well. I'm sure you can find it on a google search.
I think you have to be honest with this whole issue, if the revelatory gifts are still happening we cannot hold on to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Which is a very dangerous view. I have discussed this issue with alot of people and have yet to find anyone willing to be honest about the implications of their beliefs.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Thanks, Sean.

Originally posted by Irishcat922
I have discussed this issue with alot of people and have yet to find anyone willing to be honest about the implications of their beliefs.

I suspect that is largely because 1) Most evangelicals don't really even know what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura states, and 2) Most evangelicals don't really know what the nature of the revelatory gifts were in the biblical days (based on Scripture). If they understood those two things more clearly, I think it would probably be easier to relate them to each other under a charismatic viewpoint, and see the dilemma created.

[Edited on 29-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Scot]

Al Martin's Sign's of the Apostles is good

I have one by Walter Chantry called Signs of the Apostles. Does Al Martin have one too or did you mean Chantry?

Anyway, the one I have by Chantry is very good.

 

[ReformedWretch]

My old church told me that prophecy had indeed stopped, but the gift of prophecy was still available. They told me that those today with this gift (which I was one according to them) were actually "precievers" meaning they looked at scripture and knew how it applied almost all of the time in every situation.

Their gift was to be used to edify the body, and hold leaders accountable. They told me they were thrilled to have me in their church with this gift because few people have it.

They weren't Calvinist though, they claimed to walk the middle ground "like Calvery Chapel".

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am fully persuaded that it is dangerous doctrine to assert that the Holy Spirit continues to give new revelation since the close of the canon of Holy Scripture.

However, I am confused about one matter relating to the Westminster Confession which states "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (Chap. I.VI). If there are no new revelations of the Spirit, a point with which I readily agree, does the wording of this text make any concession that such revelation is possible? I trust not, but would be glad for anyone's clarification on the matter.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I would assume they meant anyone making such "claims",

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by houseparent
I would assume they meant anyone making such "claims",

Could be. But the Divines are usually quite precise in what they mean. Any other thoughts?

 

[ReformedWretch]

I know you're looking for deeper thoughts on this, but think about it...

If they had not stated it this way, many would have come with "revelations" knowing all they had to do was back it up with some scripture and insist that the Holy Spirit has revealed this to them. I am sure many in that day tried to do so.

If Mormans and J.W.'s had paid attention to this decree it would have been worthless to them.

 

[Irishcat922]

Originally posted by Scot

Al Martin's Sign's of the Apostles is good

I have one by Walter Chantry called Signs of the Apostles. Does Al Martin have one too or did you mean Chantry?

Anyway, the one I have by Chantry is very good.

You're right I meant Chantry, but i did read something one time by Martin along time ago it may have been a tract or sermon not sure.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by houseparent
I know you're looking for deeper thoughts on this, but think about it...

If they had not stated it this way, many would have come with "revelations" knowing all they had to do was back it up with some scripture and insist that the Holy Spirit has revealed this to them. I am sure many in that day tried to do so.

If Mormans and J.W.'s had paid attention to this decree it would have been worthless to them.

Again, you may very well be right. There were certainly enthusiasts in their day, among them, I think, the Quakers. I suppose if that is the point being made perhaps the door could have been shut more firmly by the phrase "pretended new revelations of the Spirit." If there is more to this issue that I am missing somebody please fill me in.

 

[bigheavyq]

to chris and everyone, sorry its been so long in replying but here it is

suffenciency: the word is sufficient for everything including what a church service is. (psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, gifts of the spirit)

Are all prophecies equal with scripture? of course not, there were many prophecies given at these churches (corinth, ephesus, etc.)that were never recorded.
Also read your reformed history, luther,wishart, knox, gillespie, preden were all endowed with prophetic utterances and adhered to sola scriptura.
The fact is that during the enlightenment their was a backlash against the supernatural. Yes, even tounges were happening during the great awakening, George Whitfield was preaching in england when during prayer, the congregation broke out in a skell (incoherent language).

As far as partial preterism goes in Heb1:1,2 it is the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Christ the Word. Yes it may be a preterist fulfillment, but it does not have anything to do with the ceasing of gifts in the first century.

foundation of apostles and prophets. the old testment prophets and the new testament apostles are the foundation that make up the canon.
however, prophets and apostles are ministries that church still needs today as evangelists, pastors, teachers.


My main reason for answering josh's topic was to say it is not oxymoronic to believe in both. I want to know if there is room on this board for someone like me. I am greived by brethren on both sides who make me out to be a heretic. I am looking for a home where I can myself without being sanctioned. I have brothers in charismatic churches who think dwelling on theology does not help the church or think calvinism, covenantalism, ot postmillinialism is outright heresy and would not even let me teach a children's class.
On the other hand, I have reformed brothers who won't even have fellowship with me because I'm a non-cessationist.

So the question is, where do I go? Is there any tolerance for this point of view on this board? Am I welcome here?

 

[turmeric]

Do the confessions insist on cessationism, or is this our best guess on authorial intent? I am pretty much a cessationist but think there are lots more important issues to discuss and wouldn't want to see anyone (from the Sovereign Grace churches, for instance) have to leave over it. This is a work of God, I believe, in bringing charismatics to believe in the doctrines of grace. I'd hate us to make the same mistakes we've made in the past which have allowed falsehoods to go unchecked. Can we firmly and lovingly disagree?

 

[Irishcat922]

The Confessions insist on the absolute authority of Scripture, and in my opinion that settles the issue, any gift that would be considered revelatory, would undermine the final authority of Scripture.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter One

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.(9)




6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(12) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word13) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(14)

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by bigheavyq
to chris and everyone, sorry its been so long in replying but here it is

No problem.

Originally posted by bigheavyq
suffenciency: the word is sufficient for everything including what a church service is. (psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, gifts of the spirit)

Do you acknowledge that prophecy and tongues were and are solely revelational in nature and purpose, with the intent of God revealing His will to people for specific situations and general principles? If so, and if more prophecies and interpreted prophecies are necessary to still properly reveal God's will and instruction to His people, then the Scriptures simply cannot be wholly sufficient to do that very thing. If something is wholly "sufficient" for a task, that means by definition that nothing else is needed to complete that task. I grant that, since God does not contradict Himself, a charismatic belief in the revelatory gifts can still consistently affirm Scripture's perfect inerrancy, but it simply cannot consistently affirm Scripture's whole sufficiency for the specific task of the revelation of God's specific and general will.

Originally posted by bigheavyq
Are all prophecies equal with scripture? of course not, there
were many prophecies given at these churches (corinth, ephesus, etc.)that were never recorded.

Of course not all prophecies were included in Scripture. But do you at least agree that all prophecies in the biblical era were on the same level of authority as Scripture in that they were regarded as the definite and infallible word of God for the time? In other words, do you believe that some prophecies were not included in Scripture because 1) They were not considered to be as definite and authoritative a word of God as were the ones included in Scripture, or because 2) They were specific words applying exclusively to the time-period in which they were spoken, even though they were the definite and authoritative word of God?

Originally posted by bigheavyq
Also read your reformed history, luther,wishart, knox, gillespie, preden were all endowed with prophetic utterances and adhered to sola scriptura.
The fact is that during the enlightenment their was a backlash against the supernatural. Yes, even tounges were happening during the great awakening, George Whitfield was preaching in england when during prayer, the congregation broke out in a skell (incoherent language).

First of all, ecclesiastical history and reported experience, while properly given weight, must of course always be below Scripture in authority, and thus all the testimony in the world does cannot save the charismatic belief in the revelatory gifts unless that view can also be shown from Scripture. Second, I don't know enough about ecclesiastical history myself to speak on most of the men you mentioned above, but I think it is highly unlikely that Gillespie had any charismatic leanings whatsoever. I say that because he is widely regarded as being the most influential of all the Westminster Divines, and the Westminster Confession of Faith undoubtedly insists on cessationism in its very first chapter, as I quote at the very end of this post. In light of the extreme precision with which the Divines worded every part of the Confession, it seems extremely unlikely that their widely-regarded most influential member was a charismatic.

Originally posted by bigheavyq
As far as partial preterism goes in Heb1:1,2 it is the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Christ the Word. Yes it may be a preterist fulfillment, but it does not have anything to do with the ceasing of gifts in the first century.

If a partial preterist interpretation is taken for that passage, I ask how can it not have everything to do with it? Hebrews 1:1-2 (ESV) states "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." If "these last days" is taken to mean the days of the church up through 70 A.D., then the finality of divine speaking through the Son being contrasted with the former divine speaking through prophets would point toward the ceasing of the prophets at that time.

Originally posted by bigheavyq
foundation of apostles and prophets. the old testment prophets and the new testament apostles are the foundation that make up the canon.
however, prophets and apostles are ministries that church still needs today as evangelists, pastors, teachers.

1 Cor. 9:1 strongly suggests that one condition for being called to the office of Apostle was to have visibly seen Christ, as all of the men referred to as "Apostles" in the New Testament indeed did. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:7, we are told that Jesus Himself appeared to "all the apostles." 2 Cor. 12 also speaks of "the signs of a true apostle" being performed among people of the time, with "signs and wonders and mighty works" (v. 12). And what of Revelation 21:14, which speaks of a limited number of apostles?

All of those passages certainly seem to amount to a very specific set of qualifications for the office of Apostleship, many of which were only present during the biblical era, thus implying those who call themselves Apostles after that era to be among those referred to in Rev. 2:2. And if the office of Apostle can indeed be shown to have ceased, what does that say of the office of prophet in light of the various linkings of the two office as the foundation of the church?

Another thing that still makes me wonder how we could possibly affirm or try to practice prophecy today is Deuteronomy 18:20 (ESV): "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die." Especially if prophecy is on a sub-level with Scripture today as you said above, can you ever be certain enough that your word is commanded from God so as to meet the criteria of that passage?

Originally posted by bigheavyq
My main reason for answering josh's topic was to say it is not oxymoronic to believe in both. I want to know if there is room on this board for someone like me. I am greived by brethren on both sides who make me out to be a heretic. I am looking for a home where I can myself without being sanctioned. I have brothers in charismatic churches who think dwelling on theology does not help the church or think calvinism, covenantalism, ot postmillinialism is outright heresy and would not even let me teach a children's class.
On the other hand, I have reformed brothers who won't even have fellowship with me because I'm a non-cessationist.

So the question is, where do I go? Is there any tolerance for this point of view on this board? Am I welcome here?

to what Josh said above. Jonathan, I truly hope I have not given you the impression that you are in any way less welcome for true fellowship here because of your charismatic beliefs, and if I have, please accept my humble and honest apology. We have many heated and passionate disagreements over various issues on this board, and yet we all respect and love each other, and delight in praying for and fellowshipping with one another nonetheless. And indeed, there are even disagreements over what constitutes the full definition of "Reformed" - many of us here, for instance, have expressed in past discussions the view that credobaptism is an historically un-Reformed doctrine. Yet Baptists and Presbyterians alike fellowship and build each other up here in their great agreement on much of the historic Reformed faith.

The same thing goes with charismatic beliefs - many of us, myself included, strongly disagree with such beliefs and see them as unbiblical, and indeed as un-Reformed as well, and will thus challenge them in discussion and debate, all the while striving to do all in charity and for the building up of each other, rejoicing in the great body of doctrine on which we all do agree.

Originally posted by turmeric
Do the confessions insist on cessationism, or is this our best guess on authorial intent? I am pretty much a cessationist but think there are lots more important issues to discuss and wouldn't want to see anyone (from the Sovereign Grace churches, for instance) have to leave over it. This is a work of God, I believe, in bringing charismatics to believe in the doctrines of grace. I'd hate us to make the same mistakes we've made in the past which have allowed falsehoods to go unchecked. Can we firmly and lovingly disagree?

The Westminster Confession of Faith definitely insists on cessationism: In I.I, after speaking of God revealing His will to humanity "at sundry times, and in divers manners," it asserts that it pleased God "to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased" (emphasis mine).

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by bigheavyq
Also read your reformed history, luther,wishart, knox, gillespie, preden were all endowed with prophetic utterances and adhered to sola scriptura.

I'd like to consider your sources on this subject. I am one who believes that the gift of prophecy has ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture, but I am aware that some notables among the Reformers and their spiritual descendants have made statements that seem to condone continuing prophetic gifts, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. Gillespie is one. Are you also referring to Alexander Peden, the Scottish Covenanter? I know he is another. I am unaware of any statements by Luther, Wishart or Knox to that effect. Of all those named, only Peden made any claim to such utterances themselves, as far as I know. There are also visionary statements by some Reformers and Covenanters that made predictions about the future, but I don't see those as necessarily having to do with prophetic utterances by the Spirit (e.g., John Hus before his execution on July 6, 1415: "In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed"; or William Tyndale's prayer before his execution on October 6, 1536: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes").

Here is an article which discusses certain Reformers' views on this issue: http://www.pastornet.net.au/rtc/prophecy.htm

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I am aware that some notables among the Reformers and their spiritual descendants have made statements that seem to condone continuing prophetic gifts, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. Gillespie is one.

That's very interesting...and surprising to me. What do you make of that fact in light of WCF's clear cessationist stance in the first chapter? Also, are there any articles you would recommend that comment on the relationship between those two positions (Gillespie's and the Confession's)?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I am aware that some notables among the Reformers and their spiritual descendants have made statements that seem to condone continuing prophetic gifts, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. Gillespie is one.

That's very interesting...and surprising to me. What do you make of that fact in light of WCF's clear cessationist stance in the first chapter? Also, are there any articles you would recommend that comment on the relationship between those two positions (Gillespie's and the Confession's)?

I'm not prepared to render an opinion since I am still sorting this out myself. I agree the statement in section 1 of the first chapter of the Confession is emphatically cessationist. However, it could be argued (not that I am doing so) that the statements in section 6 of that chapter and section 3 of chapter 5 give some wiggle room for a partial cessationist view.

For some articles that may shed additional light, see:

http://www.pastornet.net.au/rtc/cessatn.htm

http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/prophecy/prophecy.htm

 

[bigheavyq]

scott and chris

My problem is that I don't think you can call someone unreformed just because he holds to a non cessationist viewpoint.
I consider myself reformed because I am so different than mainstream christianity whether baptist or charismatic.
I am a calvinist, paedobaptist, convenantal, postmillenial.

By the way I am not defending most of what goes on in most charismatic churches and the word of faith movement is definitely heritical if not apostate. I understand why many non charismatics are turned off.
However, abuse and misuse does not mean disuse.

It's not that you have maligned me here. It's reformed brethren I have been in contact with over the years.

 

[ConfederateTheocrat]

Originally posted by JKLeoPCA
The most "Charismatic" I've seen fellow Calvinists are when they are newly learning reformed doctrine and literally explode :flaming: into debate with any Evangelical that crosses their path.

That's when peace of the Spirit, speaking in love, anger management,.. and a good bat comes in handy in calming them down.:roll: