The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Reformed Charismatics and Revelation

The ISSUE is: Can one consider someone to be consistently "Reformed" AND "Charismatic" without compromising the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura"? If one holds that the revelatory gifts are continuitous, i.e., God speaks directly to and/or through an individual then of necessity the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura is compromised at best and denied at worst.

That some will claim to hold to both doctrines doesn't "prove" that they can be rightly called, "Reformed Charismatics", but rather it shows a gross inconsistency in their thinking; perhaps a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What we are dealing here with is NOT the experience of individuals, whether it be your own or that of someone like Wayne Grudem. But contrariwise, it is a matter of objective logic and recognizing the definition of the affected doctrine(s).

In His grace,

I attend the SBC Church that Wayne Grudem once attended. He is not Charismatic but is sympathetic towards the movement not believing in cessation because God in His Sovereignty can do any thing He wants. I am a former Charismatic. You cannot ,in my opinion,be Reformed and Charismatic.

This is an interesting discussion, but I'm wondering just how many Reformed charismatics there are out there. Aside from Sovereign Grace Ministries (C.J. Mahaney's group) I am not aware of any other denomination or movement that is self-described as Reformed and charismatic. I'm sure there are many individual cases and scattered pockets, but is it really more than a small percentage of the larger Reformed community?

Grudem holds Charismatic beliefs and is a member of the Vineyard Movement and one of its main apologists and spokespeople. Read Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views and The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, by Grudem.

I have no idea what the answer to your question is. But I am beginning to think that Reformed Charismatic is the wrong term. Perhaps Calvinist Charismatic is the better term.

Tom

Oh yes that is so much better. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

oxymoron: Noun
Conjoining contradictory terms (as in 'deafening silence')

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Ok, can you PLEASE explain why "you think" Calvinist Charismatic is better than Reformed Charismatic?

Hi Boanerges,


Oh my, yes, you are so right!!!!!!!
That is much better!

I was in the movement for about 6 yrs. I saw it from the inside not the outside. My definition of Charismatic is probably diferent from yours.Charismatics believe their gifts are exactly like and operate exactly like they did in acts. We have today "gray area" charismatics. "open but cautious"(my church), third wave etc. These people are afraid to say the gifts cease(as I do). If they don't operate as they did in the bible then they are contrived by man. They didn't pull on peoples tongues in the bible.They didn't tell them to "practice" their prayer language till it developes. The prophets were judged to tell if they were false not weather there might be 20% truth. I could go on and on but I won't. They have ceased till God says (maby) in the future that we shall have them, then they will be as they were in the infallible word of GOD.

I said that because they believe in TULIP, but not necessarily (though some claim to) the 5 solas etc.

Tom

Tom,

As it has been said here several times before, a Calvinist is one who believes far more than just TULIP (i.e. sola scriptura, etc.). Your assertion that Calvinist only means TULIP is rather limited and does not do justice to the term. Calvin himself was known as the theologian of the Holy Spirit (and I don't mean the Pentecostal kind) .... et. al.

BibleRon writes:


I too have seen the movement from the inside, and in every case Charismatics justify what they do by comparing their "gifts" with those in the book of Acts and 1st Corinthians 12-14. But in order to make today's "manifestations" look like the genuine ones from the Bible, one must engage in profoundly insidious Scripture-twisting. Many of them realize how ridiculous that is, so they simply redefine the genuine article in order to make the manifestations in Acts look like what they're doing!

I have known several people who called themselves "Reformed" or "Calvinist" and Charismatic. Almost all of them have ended up running off the deep in in one or the other camp: Charismatic "dominion theology" is sometimes wed to "Reformed" theonomy and the resulting offspring is a bastardized Postmillennialism that takes the form of a Christian jihad rather than true Reformed Postmillennialism which simply holds that the power of the gospel itself will result in cultural transformation.

Look next for "Reformed" Charismatics to start turning up among followers of the "Federal Vision" theology, because they both tend to define justification as being "formed" by the church through it's work; as a process rather than an event. Just as so many "Reformed" Charismatics found a home among theonomists, so too will many be drawn to the heretical "New Perspective" for the same reason.

Been there, done that, got the teeshirt,
Robin

The mighty J_Edwards is correct.... Calvinism is MUCH more than the infamous "5 Points", which the Arminians contrived on their own and to which the Church simply answered point-by-point.

Perhaps you would benefit by reading either/both of these:

1. The Fundamental Principle of Calvinism by Henry Meeter

2. The Practical Implications of Calvinism by Albert Martin

In case you are muttering to yourself, "I've read those already!!", if that is the case, then I would STRONGLY suggest that you read them again and let the contents sink in this time. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Robin------AMEN--I agree totaly.