Reformed Charismatic

[Tyrese]

This is a really interesting blog post by Tom Chantry. what are your thoughts? This is why charismatics are simply not Reformed « Reformed Baptist Fellowship

 

[housta]

I thought he was spot on about the lack of confessionalism among reformed charismatics. I used to be part of a "denomination" that was charismatic and reformed and had no confessional adherence and seemed to shrug off the importance of being confessional. They seemed to have a theological identity crisis. The trouble that attitude has brought upon them is immense. My two cents.

 

[lynnie]

I thought it was stupid. I am Reformed and a Continuationist and anybody who knows their church history knows that such things happened among many Calvinists we respect ( Spurgeon, Rutherford, etc).

His remark that we don't value the preaching of the Word and minimize scripture, and the really big deal Sunday morning is a prophetic word, was just plain ignorant.

Reformed Charismatics have a confession. It is Grudem's ST. Now don't go jumping all over me, I wish my church had a public vow to the 1689 and promoted reading the rest of them. I am not one of these "I just believe the bible" types and I believe in extensive statements of sound doctrine.

Having said that, the sooner the Reformed community faces the fact that the confession needs some upgrades, the better off we will all be:

1.) Using Grudem as a Confession means you deal with dispensationalism. He is historic premil and I am amil, but the point is, he soundly and kindly explains and smacks down Dispensationalists. In today's world that is very important.

2. He discusses the subject of women as pastors and gender stuff. This was just not even a subject of debate back when the confession was written. In today's world it needs to be addressed.

3. His teaching on gifts deals with many Pentecostal errors and soundly holds to the non canonical, non authoritative status of any subjective impressions or things you think God is saying. He has done more to help charismatics become Calvinists than anybody I know of besides Piper.

4. Grudem has a section dealing very fairly and intelligently with the evolution debate ( he is a creationist). Darwin is also post the time period of the framing of the confessions. It is an important matter.

If a church uses Grudem's ST to train the staff and young adults, that is perfectly acceptable as a confession. My church is doing that right now, for which I thank the Lord. If the small groups go through Sinclair Ferguson's little book on the Christian Life, that is more or less a confession of the faith essentials.

The PCUSA claimed to hold to and support the confession in Machen's day. They just redefined things in liberal ways. The federal vision people do the same thing. Just having a confession is no sure cure for error or liberalism. I heard Robert Schuller on an audio tape tell Horton he was confessional. Ha.

I don't want to say too much more on the subject of continuation of gifts because I know the P board position and I don't want to get myself banned here. The mods have been gracious to me about it hopefully because it is hard to argue with Vern Poythres at WTS. And of course most charismatics are off the wall into errors of the worst sort. But this article is stupid and certainly does not speak for those of us who love Reformed doctrine and theology. And there is nothing wrong with making Grudem your confession.

 

[DMcFadden]

A confession in and of itself will never be a panacea. Turning it into swiss cheese with endless permitted exceptions only makes the process of declension move faster.

However, for those of us who hail from non-confessional backgrounds, the absence of one is an incredible deficiency to the Christian community.

The evangelical movement began, Post WWII, with a minimalist set of convictions. Bebbington reduced them to conversionism, cruicentrism, biblicism, and activism. Where is the ecclesiology? The discipline? The accountability? The result is an "anything goes" "no bondary" type of Christianity that will drift all over the place.

Grudem cannot be a "confession." He could be a teacher faithful to a yet-to-be-articulated confession. Systematic theologies are not confessions.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed Charismatics have a confession. It is Grudem's ST.

Grudems musings and re-defining of revelation [page 1055-1057]are mis-guided and open the door to the contra confessional teaching he and others offer.It is an attack on the sufficiency of scripture.The Apostles were promised to be guided into ALL Truth.
To suggest that"God may impress on someones consciousness in such a way that the person has a SENSE that it is of God" and if it persists,or IN SOME OTHER way gives the person a rather clear SENSE that it is from the Lord.....is subjective imagination at work.....see page 1056..on page 1057 the diagram describing the Prophets merely human words does not help at all.

 

[Andres]

Grudem cannot be a "confession." He could be a teacher faithful to a yet-to-be-articulated confession. Systematic theologies are not confessions.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Sinclair Ferguson in his book "The Holy Spirit" (part of the Countours of Christian Theology series) does a great job of refuting Wayne Grudem's points from pages 214-221.

 

[Andres]

Having said that, the sooner the Reformed community faces the fact that the confession needs some upgrades, the better off we will all be:

Actually, I think the Westminster Standards already do well to cover much of which you list below. For example...

1.) Using Grudem as a Confession means you deal with dispensationalism. He is historic premil and I am amil, but the point is, he soundly and kindly explains and smacks down Dispensationalists. In today's world that is very important.

Ch 7 of the WCF "smacks down" the errors of dispensationalism quite well.

2. He discusses the subject of women as pastors and gender stuff. This was just not even a subject of debate back when the confession was written. In today's world it needs to be addressed.

I will admit that the Westminster Standard don't explicitly address this, however, I think that the problem with women pastors is primarily an issue with the authority of God's Word. WCF ch 1 addresses this problem. Also there's this from the WLC: Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached? A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office. Women are simply not called to that office.

3. His teaching on gifts deals with many Pentecostal errors and soundly holds to the non canonical, non authoritative status of any subjective impressions or things you think God is saying. He has done more to help charismatics become Calvinists than anybody I know of besides Piper.

You will obviously disagree with me, but I don't think we need to take Charismatics and simply trade their Arminianism for Calvinism. Instead, they WCF ch 1 reiterates that "the Holy Scripture [is] most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people [Charismatic gifts] being now ceased."

4. Grudem has a section dealing very fairly and intelligently with the evolution debate ( he is a creationist). Darwin is also post the time period of the framing of the confessions. It is an important matter.

WCF ch 4 deals with this.

 

[lynnie]

Andres- thanks for the clarification, but come on here. Chapter 4 is two short statements that does not satisfy the teenager in public school being bombarded with evolution and not knowing how to respond. And yeah, Ch 7 is a great succinct statement of Covenantal theology, but here again, it does not begin to take on what is out there in the pre trib rapture camp. Re women and scriptural authority, well, every cult and heretic uses the bible and they have their verses as well. Better to have it examined in-depth. There is nothing wrong with deciding to use an ST to ground people in the faith and deal with these subjects.

So Ferguson and people here don't like certain parts of Grudem. I fail to see the difference between that and the two PCA churches I was in and all their exceptions. What exactly is even the point of a confession if you say you are confessional and go out to eat and to the movies every Sunday? The PCA I knew takes more exceptions to their confession than the average Reformed Charismatic takes to Grudem.

Obviously an ST is not a confession. But the opening linked article just trashed us as not caring about the Word, or theology or good preaching, and not being confessional as if there is no extensive statement of the faith at all. Well that is just wrong and ignorant. Reformed Charismatics admittedly are not like traditional Reformed denominations, but neither are they as indifferent to Reformed theology as the opening link makes them out to be.

And I should have added that Grudem is not the only R/C "confession". John Piper also is. If Piper said it, it can carry the weight of a confessional statement. Throw in Spurgeon quotes and its almost canon. Ha. I know that probably sounds awful but it is true to a great extent. Grudem-Piper-Sprugeon...the GPS statement of faith and confession.

You really need to pray for us. I am in a R/C church now (my third...one previously in NJ, and in the 90s in SGM in Pa) and it is slow going, like fighting an ocean current. People change but very slowly. Those from charismatic backgrounds struggle with Calvinism yet will listen and accept a lot of it when they hear it preached. Most will not read much at all except the bible. Some listen to CDs. Most folks are not strict cessationists and I'd like to see them stay in Reformed circles and not leave for charismatic Arminianism.

 

[Tyrese]

Here is a really good quote that was posted on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog today that shows Spurgeon was not a charismatic as some insist. Here he speaks for himself.

"Now there are some persons who make a great mistake about the influence of the Holy Spirit. A foolish man, who had fancy to preach in a certain pulpit, though in truth he was quite incapable of the duty, called upon the minister, and assured him solemnly that it had been revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that he was to preach in his pulpit.

“Very well,” said the minister, “I suppose I must not doubt your assertion, but as it has not been revealed to me that I am to let you preach, you must go your way until it is.”

I have heard many fanatical persons say the Holy Spirit revealed this and that to them. Now that is very generally revealed nonsense. The Holy Ghost does not reveal anything fresh now. He brings old things to our remembrance. “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you.” The canon of revelation is closed; there is no more to be added. God does not give a fresh revelation, but he rivets the old one. When it has been forgotten, and laid in the dusty chamber of our memory, he fetches it out and cleans the picture, but does not paint a new one.

There are no new doctrines, but the old ones are often revived. It is not, I say, by any new revelation that the Spirit comforts. He does so by telling us old things over again; he brings a fresh lamp to manifest the treasures hidden in Scripture; he unlocks the strong chests in which the truth had long lain, and he points to secret chambers filled with untold riches; but he comes no more, for enough is done.

Believer! there is enough in the Bible for thee to live upon for ever. If thou shouldst outnumber the years of Methusaleh, there would be no need for a fresh revelation; if thou shouldst live till Christ should come upon the earth, there would be no necessity for the addition of a single word; if thou shouldst go down as deep as Jonah, or even descend as David said he did, into the belly of hell, still there would be enough in the Bible to comfort thee without a supplementary sentence.

But Christ says, “He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.” [1]

[1] Charles H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons: Volume 1, “The Comforter,” a sermon delivered on Sunday evening, January 21, 1855.

 

[Andres]

Andres- thanks for the clarification, but come on here. Chapter 4 is two short statements that does not satisfy the teenager in public school being bombarded with evolution and not knowing how to respond. And yeah, Ch 7 is a great succinct statement of Covenantal theology, but here again, it does not begin to take on what is out there in the pre trib rapture camp. Re women and scriptural authority, well, every cult and heretic uses the bible and they have their verses as well. Better to have it examined in-depth. There is nothing wrong with deciding to use an ST to ground people in the faith and deal with these subjects.

So Ferguson and people here don't like certain parts of Grudem. I fail to see the difference between that and the two PCA churches I was in and all their exceptions. What exactly is even the point of a confession if you say you are confessional and go out to eat and to the movies every Sunday? The PCA I knew takes more exceptions to their confession than the average Reformed Charismatic takes to Grudem.

Obviously an ST is not a confession. But the opening linked article just trashed us as not caring about the Word, or theology or good preaching, and not being confessional as if there is no extensive statement of the faith at all. Well that is just wrong and ignorant. Reformed Charismatics admittedly are not like traditional Reformed denominations, but neither are they as indifferent to Reformed theology as the opening link makes them out to be.

Lynnie, thank you for your responses. I just wanted to note that my post was interacting with you and not an attempt at defending the article linked. I think you answered your own question when you state that "obviously an ST is not a confession". The reverse is just as true - a confession isn't necessarily a ST, so we can't expect the WCF to cover all the details of the issues you bring up.

As for your comment, "What exactly is even the point of a confession if you say you are confessional and go out to eat and to the movies every Sunday? The PCA I knew takes more exceptions to their confession than the average Reformed Charismatic takes to Grudem.", this seesm to be a topic for another thread, but I would like to note that your sentiment is a similar one that many on this board are troubled by.

 

[lynnie]

Andres, thanks for the reply. Believe me, you have no idea how hard it has been for me sometimes to attend a non confessional ( or non extensive statement of faith) church. No matter how excellent the doctrine/teaching of my pastor and elders and the resources they use (and they are excellent), it just does not always cut it in small group and with teens and personal interactions when things get said, and there is no gentle appeal to be made to what the church elders believe because of a lack of a confession. people forget the sermons from two years or two months ago or whatever. I've had some Dispensational,anti TULIP, and egalitarian discussions that really were hard. They have their verses to pull out of the bible and it is like trying to reinvent the wheel every time.

Right now with the pastor's blessing we are working on a new church library section of Reformed theological basics inc. Sproul and other CD/DVD materials. I guess we will sort of end up with an audio confession in a vague kind of way. I withdrew my membership last year over this subject and things that happened, but I think I may reengage as a member once we have a clearly labeled section of CD materials that represent sound doctrine. It wont be the WCF or 1689, but Sproul on the solas and TULIP will be a great start and then we have Grudems ST on CD now and other stuff as well. My husband has been burning Cds for weeks.

The fact is most people won't read but they will listen to CDs. We get way more mileage out of CDs than books. ( suburban Philly but not highly college educated or into theology). So maybe we can start a new trend for the Reformed charismatics. Something has to be done.

Thanks for listening. It is a tough subject for me. I long for a confession, but try to remember what it was like in the NY Metro PCA. Great pastor in my ex church, but Higgens having Enns in and Keller leading the way with evolution, and all the women deacon debates ( I don't believe in ordained women deacons). Bible studies with Beth Moore. So being confessional wasn't necessarily all that great an impact in some ways.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I agree with most of what he said, but I do find it a bit ironic that a Reformed Baptist is saying that a Charismatic cannot be reformed when we Baptists are constantly being told by Presbyterians that we cannot be truly reformed.

 

[Tyrese]

I agree with most of what he said, but I do find it a bit ironic that a Reformed Baptist is saying that a Charismatic cannot be reformed when we Baptists are constantly being told by Presbyterians that we cannot be truly reformed.

I agree with you. Here was my question to him.

Pastor Chantry,

First I want to say that I agree with your analysis of the charismatic Calvinist movement. Well said. I have one question for you though. Because Presbyterians and other paedobaptist churches can say the same about us Baptist not being Reformed, were do we draw the line in what it is that’s most important to us? In other words is our aim to be Biblical or Reformed? I know some people will say “well to be Reformed is to be Biblical.” But some have the understanding (and rightly so) that to be Reformed is to also be paedobaptist. I call myself a Reformed Baptist, and I believe the 1689 is the most faithful summary of what the Bible teaches, but at the end of the day I just want to be Biblical. Your thoughts?

No response yet. In my opinion it doesn't matter who's Reformed and who's not at this point because the same can be said about Baptist. If people want to make a big fuss about me not actually being Reformed than I will be content with just being a Baptist.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I agree with most of what he said, but I do find it a bit ironic that a Reformed Baptist is saying that a Charismatic cannot be reformed when we Baptists are constantly being told by Presbyterians that we cannot be truly reformed.

I agree with you. Here was my question to him.

Pastor Chantry,

First I want to say that I agree with your analysis of the charismatic Calvinist movement. Well said. I have one question for you though. Because Presbyterians and other paedobaptist churches can say the same about us Baptist not being Reformed, were do we draw the line in what it is that’s most important to us? In other words is our aim to be Biblical or Reformed? I know some people will say “well to be Reformed is to be Biblical.” But some have the understanding (and rightly so) that to be Reformed is to also be paedobaptist. I call myself a Reformed Baptist, and I believe the 1689 is the most faithful summary of what the Bible teaches, but at the end of the day I just want to be Biblical. Your thoughts?

No response yet. In my opinion it doesn't matter who's Reformed and who's not at this point because the same can be said about Baptist. If people want to make a big fuss about me not actually being Reformed than I will be content with just being a Baptist.

Well said