Tags
5 Reasons to Reject the Reformed-Charismatic Movement as Biblical
There has been an attempt in recent days by some to merge Calvinism and the charismatic movement. Several factors have influenced this trend. Here are three:
First, movements and ministries like “Together for the Gospel” and “the Gospel Coalition” have commended charismatic ministers, churches, and their practices to young Calvinistic ministers and their churches.
Second, the merging of charismatic and Calvinistic theology has been promoted among young ministers by the widespread use and influence of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology in various evangelical schools and seminaries. Although there is much to commend in the devotional quality of Grudem’s work and in his generally Calvinistic Baptist perspective, reformed readers will not be able to affirm his advocacy of charismatic practices in the church.
Third, and perhaps most significantly, charismatic influenced “third wave” contemporary Christian music has largely replaced “traditional” worship liturgies in most evangelical and conservative Protestant churches, and now many of the lyrics for the newest songs are being influenced by the doctrinal resurgence of Calvinism.
Why should one be wary of this merging of charismatic and Calvinistic theology? Here are five specific concerns:
1. One cannot hold to the validity of charismatic “sign-gifts” in the church today and be consistently Biblical and reformed in his theological outlook.
At the outset we must understand that holding to Calvinistic soteriology is not enough to make a minister or church reformed. Reformation theology—including especially the Regulative Principle of worship—must also be applied to every other aspect of doctrine and practice in the church.
Based on sound Biblical exposition and demonstrated proofs, the classical Reformed creeds and confessions routinely rejected the continuation of charismatic gifts and experiences. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), for example, deals with this issue in its statement on Scripture:
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary,those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased(emphasis added).
One cannot claim consistently to hold to reformation doctrine while also affirming non-cessationism.
2. The emphasis on modern day occurrences of the extraordinary and the miraculous undermines the Biblical emphasis on the “ordinary means” of grace.
When Naaman was told by Elisha to dip seven times in the Jordan, the leprous commander was offended that he was given such an ordinary task (2 Kings 5). He wanted an extraordinary experience!
In the New Testament, the clear emphasis for spiritual edification and growth is on the “ordinary means.” Believers are to pray (1 Thess 5:17); sing songs of praise (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16); preach (1 Tim 4:2); assemble together (Heb 10:24-25); read aloud the Bible (1 Tim 4:13), give offerings and alms (1 Cor 16:1-2). On the other hand, believers are not actively encouraged to practice or seek miraculous experiences or gifts.
3. Those who deny the cessation of extra-ordinary charismatic gifts and experiences in the church today ignore the Biblical parallel to the cessation of some Biblical offices.
After the resurrection and ascension of Christ, some gifts existed for a limited time to validate the ministry and authority of the apostles (cf. Mark 16:17-18; Acts 2:43; 5:12, 15; 14:3; 15:12; 19:11; 2 Cor 12:12). With the completion of the canon of Scripture these miraculous gifts ceased. A clear parallel exists in the New Testament relating to offices that existed in the post-apostolic era. The offices of apostle, prophet, and evangelist were “extraordinary” ones that did not extend beyond the age of the apostles, while, the “ordinary” offices of ministers, elders, and deacons have continued throughout this gospel age (cf. 1 Cor 12:28-31; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Timothy 3:1-12; Titus 1;5-9). For a convincing discussion of this point, see Walter J. Chantry, Signs of the Apostles: Observations on Pentecostalism Old and New (Banner of Truth, 1973) and Samuel Waldron, To Be Continued: Are The Miraculous Gifts For Today? (Calvary Press, 2005).
4. The promotion of non-cessationist doctrine fuels an overriding desire for extraordinary spiritual experiences that can lead to confusing theological beliefs and practices.
Theologian R. Scott Clark calls the evangelical desire for extraordinary experiences QIRE or “The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience” (see his book Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice [P&R, 2008]). He also notes how the claim of many evangelicals to be “open” to charismatic gifts and other phenomena leads some falsely to understand “ordinary” events as “extraordinary.” Here is an example. A child is sick and the church prays for her recovery. The child is treated by a doctor for the ailment and gradually recovers. The church then claims authoritatively that God healed the child because of their prayers. Certainly God is sovereign over the child’s health, and he may have been pleased to use the prayers of the church to bring about the child’s recovery. Scriptures gives clear instruction on the exercise of the ordinary means of prayer for the sick (cf. James 5:13-15). God can work miracles, including healing, according to his good pleasure. By definition of his own sovereign Godhood, God may choose to do as he pleases (cf. Dan 4:34-35). There is, however, absolutely no objective way to measure or evaluate if the church’s claim that its prayers resulted in the child’s miraculous recovery is true. Of necessity this conclusion would be a matter of faith. At any rate, if the child recovered after the church’s prayer, then this would have been the result of ordinary rather than extraordinary means. Again, the instrument of prayer is simply an ordinary means. God would have been no less sovereign, however, had the child not recovered (cf. Job’s response to suffering in Job 1:21). We might also ask how we would look at the circumstances if the child had been part of a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness church. If she recovered after they prayed for her in those false churches would we say that God miraculously answered their prayers as a means of affirming their doctrine and practice? What if the child had been part of an atheistic family, and they offered no prayer for her and yet she still recovered. Would we say God did a miracle in response to their unbelief? Seeking extraordinary experiences typically leads to subjective declarations and doctrinal confusion. Again, R. Scott Clark notes that those who embrace charismatic doctrine tend merely to interpret ordinary events as extraordinary ones. Clark pointedly asks why we do not see those who promote non-cessationism doing things that are truly miraculous as the early apostles and their associates did? Why do they not claim to be able to raise the dead as Peter and Paul did (cf. Peter’s raising of Tabitha in Acts 9:36-41 and Paul’s raising of Eutychus in Acts 20:9-12)? Why do they not claim to be able to be miraculously transported by the Spirit from one place to another as happened to Philip (cf. Acts 8:39)? The “miracles” that are claimed today are hardly comparable to the authenticating signs that accompanied the apostles. In truth, they are most often ordinary events give extraordinary spin.
5. The emphasis on extraordinary experience undermines the sufficiency and authority of Scripture.
This is most clearly stated in Christ’s account of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. The narrative concludes with the Rich Man begging Father Abraham to send Lazarus to his father’s house to warn his five brothers lest they too come to the place of torment (vv. 27-28). Abraham responds, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (v. 29). In other words, Abraham tells him that they have the Scriptures, and this should be enough to warn them of the reality of hell. The Rich Man protests, “No, Father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent” (v. 30). The Rich Man is essentially a non-cessationist. He believes that God should use an extra-ordinary event to change the hearts of his brothers. Surely, a spirit who comes back from the dead will make a difference! Abraham replies, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” (v. 31). Indeed, from our present perspective we see how the greatest miracle in the world has already taken place. Christ has been raised from the dead! Yet, many remain unmoved, cold, and indifferent to the gospel. Jesus reminds us here that his preferred means of speaking to men is not through fantastic experiences but through the ordinary means of Scripture. Zeal for experience undermines, in truth, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
5 Pt. Salt 
The Salt Man is BAAAAACK!!!! Woot!
Reformed and charismatic go together like peanut butter and mayonaise. There may be a few that dig it, but I think most would spew that awful combo out of their mouths. I know it makes me scratch my head in puzzlement.
Joel
Glad to see you have decided to push on with this blog.
Sadly the sermon you have chosen to celebrate the event is unworthy of you.
This article/teaching by Jeffrey T Riddle is full of stawmen arguments circular reasoning, scripture ignoring and twisting and an emphasis on experiential rather than biblical reasoning.
The very first point he makes is a dogmatic assertion tha one can not be consistently biblical if believing in the biblical gifts of the Spirit. Apart from the logical inconsistency with this statement, Mr Riddle uses not one scripture to back his point but a creed devised by man!
His second point that believers are not actively encouraged in scripture to practice or seek miraculous experiences or gifts leaves me breathless at the audacity of making such an unbiblical claim by a supposed Bible believer. What Bible is he reading?
How about
Do not forbid to speak with tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:39)
These signs shall follow those who believe. tongues healings supernatural protection, casting out demons etc.(Mark 16)
Earnestly desire spiritual gifts. (1 Corinthians 14:1)
Elders anoint with oil and the prayer in faith results in healing. (James 5:14-15)
I could go on but you get the idea.
Then he makes the extraordinary claim that not only are apostles and prophets no longer amongst us but evangelists are also relegated to the past??!!
This is followed up a piece of sophistry about a sick child and how she was healed; through prayer of a visit to the doctor. This is not undermining belief in miraculous healing but in prayer itself.. Are we to gather that God no longer answers prayer??!!
Every believers challenge is bring their experience up to biblical truth not reject huge portions of scripture to validate our low level experience.
Of couse the greatest miracle is Christ’s resurrection and the subsequent regeneration to those who believe, but this is not a valid argument to reject the rest of biblical truth.
Normally I don’t enter into discussion regarding cessationism vs continuationism but this article was so disrespectful to biblical truth that I felt compelled to respond
I am reminded of Christ’s words, “You are in error for you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God”
Oh boy. Let’s sit back with the popcorn and watch Joel lash back on this one!
I pray for the Lord to return often as I look at the emergent church landscape. I will detest rapping along the newest hip-hop praises that will be the norm in 10-15 years:(
Great article, though I couldn’t help but think what do two diametrically opposed views have in common ? Just how long would the doctrines of grace survive at the hands of crazy , doctrine deficient charismaniacs, not long would be my guess.
Joel – There is nothing “unworthy” in regards to posting the interesting Riddle article, but I am curious why you did not respond to glennchristopherson? If you do not intend to, I probably ought to. Some of his charismatic like assertions ought not stand unchallenged. I do not know about your relationship with Riddle, or even if you have one, but I hope between the two of you, Mr. G. is confronted.
Because when you replied less than an hour had gone by? lol.
Now David, is three against one fair? Well I’m up for it, as long as you use scripture and not bold but scripturally unbacked assertions.
Incidentally my “charismatic like assertions” are all backed by chapter and verse. Hardly a good argument
Well said Mr G….
I would rather have my tongue talking grandmother pray for me any day than some dry half passionate un-unction man or woman. Just say’n, Paul was both, therefor, so am I! I am completely filled and continue to be filled with the Holy Spirit and hold un-waveringly to the doctrines of grace. You can cease, I will continue! I could not ever image going to my Bible and reading the gospels and acts and saying to my self, or my congregation that is not for today. Really? No sensible person reading the scriptures can ever come to such a conclusion. Below is my stand.
Rob, Do you not at least acknowledge that the book of Acts was a transitional period? If indeed it is a doctrinally foundational book as you assert, then by your own thinking, we must also bring all our possessions and lay them at some apostles’ feet (hard to do, since they do not exist now, and if they did, I bet you won’t) and distribute as each has need. Also, we must choose our leaders by casting lots (Acts 1:26) Do you, Rob, select your leaders by casting lots? Also, do new believers all gather in an upper room and wait for the Holy Spirit to descend, with the sound as of a mighty rushing wind and cloven tongues of fire? If you see that happening anywhere, please let me know. If none of the above applies, then maybe you are a cessationist and don’t even know it. Maybe you are picking and choosing which parts you wish to continue or not continue. Or maybe, Acts was a transitional time, and not everything that took place then is supposed to be repeated today. We must apply proper hermeneutics to the scriptures. What are your thoughts on all the above?
Many in the “thoroughly Reformed Camp” would reject Reformed Baptists as well. Thus, we should be careful with what we disagree and what we totally reject.
The example of Scripture however is not merely to ‘disagree’ with false teaching, but to denounce it.
Mr. G, I suspect it will work out to be one against one. You seem more than capable – even if it proves to be 3 to 1. I do not have time now to form a lengthy reply, but let me just say quicky “using Scripture” is what the “church of Christ” does. The hyper-dispensationalists. The Arminians. The Landmarkers. A claim to “using Scripture” is only a sound as the way it is actually used. A 9 year old child can string verses together between bold assertions, but I think we both know that only Scripture rightly understood and fairly applied merits serious consideration, to say nothing of doctrinal capitulation. I’d rather Joel engage you, it is his blog and my experience with him leads me to believe he is not going to be in agreement with your many assertions. By the way, I hope I do not need to say this, but I suppose I ought – this is not personal. I do not question your faith or integrity or purpose. I just believe you have decided it is a good thing to forcefully wed two distinctly different doctrines (one wonder what variation of dispensational hermeneutic you are appealing to?) to come up with this uncomfortable and uneasy hybrid. Christian Regards.
David, I’m working on a reply bro, but I I have a life, besides….the cat just threw up…gimme a break man 🙂
Hi Brother David’I am not appealing to any “variation of dispensational hermeneutic” just to the scriptures.
I think half the probs in Christendom today are caused by people identifying with a camp and then trawling for verses to back their position. As far as possible I won’t do this.
Another cause of problems is Christians unable to say, “I was wrong” when scripture reveals their error. I have had to do this many times since God graciously saved me and will no doubt do so again. But only when scripture proves me wrong
Glenn, thanks for the note. I know, having ready you, that you are more than theologically sophisticated enough to know you have SOME hermeneutic, even if for some reason you might be reluctant to reveal it. Even thoes who have no idea what “hermeneutic” means employ one (even if inconsistently). I am reluctant to say more, less you surmise I am being condescending…which I most certainty am not. If you say you are not dispensational, I certainly believe you, but I assume you are not totally covenental, not catholic, not anabaptist. You may well be some variation of New Covenant. Anyway, unless Joel steals my thunder..which would be just fine, I am busy with other things…I will try to soon respond to your notion of the ongoing utility and practice of NTsupernatural gifts.
Hey Joel, take your time! No hurry on my account, I just did not want Goliath to think David (or Joel) timid! I need to organize my stones, but I confess I am itching to start swinging my sling shot. Anyway, after your reply, I’ll throw my 2 cents in. My problem is going to be making brevity my friend. I do profoundly disagree with Mr. Glenn. as you will soon enough see. (Partner, you need a NEW cat, or better yet, get a DOG!)
Dogs are evil. Hush.
Hi Joel!
I noticed the strawman of the term “sign gifts” being rolled out again.
Like, there would be no need to cast demons out of a person today, bcos “signs” are no longer needed? ….As if the demon possessed person is looking for some “sign”, and if we cast the demons out we would be doing him a disservice, bcos now he may trust in the “sign” of the power of Jesus name, and not on Jesus?
So, better to not cast out any demons, or pray for any sick people, bcos they may get deceived by the “sign” if they get free, or if God heals them??
What word can we use to describe this sort of false dichotomy, without offending anyone?
And imagine if someone like our brother John MacArthur “accidently” healed someone in his church : he just innocently put his hand on a sick child and prayed in Jesus name and God instantly healed the child.
John would be finished.
His career would be over, cos in no time at all it would be tweeted all around the world that he is now “seeking after signs” or “sign gifts”, and has become an “evil charismaniac”.
What a dilemma! How would he get out of that one?
I spose he would have to say that it was the devil who healed the child? If he says that God healed in his church he would be in big trouble.
(I have no vendetta against JM, who has a lot of truth concerning the gospel)
Ian,
You.re begining to sound like a ranting madman, why not finish this debate at the place where you started it instead of going viral with this spleen venting.
Reformed Theology was the redemption of my redemption. I love the doctrines of grace beyond my ability to articulate and I look at the disaster that the charismatic heritics brought to our nation and others as well and just want to cry. But, every true revival has been a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the church’s darkest hour. Lloyd Jones is a wise teacher in his book or rather the transcrips of his sermons now titled Joy Unspeakable and the Sovereign Spirit. The fact is that, a man with an experience isn’t at the mercy of a man with an argument.The besetting sin of reformed theology is false pride as to past glory. The Jesus Movement with all it’s problems swept hundreds of thousands into the kingdom. Lonnie Frisbee was a theological and moral disaster but it pleased God to use him. Treasure in clay pots. Can the best reformed pastor or teacher claim he’s righteous of himself or understands the entire content of scripture perfectly? May the Sovereign Spirit crush to dust all our theological pride that the glory of Jesus and Him alone would be proclaimed in love passion and purity to the sex soaked, sin enslaved, drug blinded generation we’ve delivered to our children. May He grant us repentance and return us to our first love. The Gospel isn’t solas or confessions. It’s Matthew Mark Luke and John’s Gospels. Jesus isn’t a creed and His worship isn’t a regulative principle. It’s the joy filled cry of a saved sinner.
You may be interested in seein this post as well as this one and this one.
the author is problematic on every point: 1. to be Reformed is to hold to “sola scriptura” which means one does not ultimately appeal to tradition but to scripture but that’s exactly what the author does here: appeals to a creed and not scripture; 2. in 1 Cor. 12-14 Paul encouraged the gifts of the Spirit and so obviously he didn’t feel that doing so undermined the use of the ordinary means of grace, which he encouraged when writing to Timothy; 3. the author assumes “some gifts existed for a limited time to validate the ministry and authority of the apostles” but the scriptures he cites say no such thing and in fact scripture does not define the use of the miraculous strictly that way; 4. one could just as easily (if not better) reply that cessationism fuels scholasticism, an arid spirituality devoid of any affections for God that can lead to dead churches; his statement simply isn’t true; 5. see #2 above; obviously Paul didn’t think so.
What I sense here is a lack of irenic spirit. Too quick to pull out the Heretic card. Pelagius was a heretic, Marcion was a heretic. Reformed Charismatics of which I am one are not heretics. Stop being seduced by fundamentalist-like confessionalism that clouds your hermeneutics.
The author of the post is Jeffrey Riddle, perhaps you should take it up with him. Secondly, I don’t believe the term ‘heretic’ was even once used in his article was it? 🙂
***One cannot hold to the validity of charismatic “sign-gifts” in the church today and be consistently Biblical and reformed in his theological outlook.***
This point really is two different points, both of which may be true, but each in need of separate treatment: one, based on exegesis, and two, based on historical and systematic theology. The bottom line, though, is not whether this charismatic movement can also be Reformed (because, so far as their soteriology goes, they more-or-less are — which may be all they’re claiming anyway), but whether their non-cessationist beliefs and practices are warranted exegetically. They are not interested in whether there is historical precedent for combining Reformed and charismatic doctrine; what is needed is more clear and convincing Bible teaching.
We should be able to show, from context, that Paul is not talking about some kind of personal prayer language of ecstatic speech in 1 Cor 14 (or anywhere else); that the primary purpose of these gifts was to be a sign to validate the message and the messenger as the gospel went forth from Judea into the world; and that Paul expected the practice of these gifts to cease once the church was established, and their purpose was past. If we cannot argue exegetically, then we will not win hearts and minds in this debate — especially with the influence of Grudem, T4G, Gospel Coalition, etc.
Charismatics state that one can be saved without being baptized in the Holy Spirit in contradiction to Romans 8: 9 and other scriptures, have a faulty Christology (kenosis), embrace the heresies of semi-Pellagianism and Montanism, and indulge in occult practices such as ecstatic pagan speech and falling over. They are generally universalistic, denying the PENAL substitutionary atonement of Christ. So how can they ever be reformed or even Christian for that matter?
What do the scriptures say? That is where we find our answer to whether or not certain gifts of God have ceased…1cor13-and when that which is perfect has come….the perfect is Christ and the fullness of God’s kingdom surely no one would argue the perfect has arrived. Jesus has not yet condemned all the wicked and perfected His saints. Surely he has more work to do on the earth to perfect it. And He has not yet set up His kingdom on earth…not fully. When He does then will remain faith hope and love. But we still see in part all of His gifts still glorify Him and benefit us…amen
Easily disproved.
Joel, I find it odd that you cite the LBC 1689 instead of one of the Reformed Confessions – notably the WCF which contains the same or similar language about the “sign gifts,” in saying that you cannot blend charismania with Reformed belief.
I find it odd that you did not actually read the post. If you had, you would know I did not write it.
Godly concerns about the charis-reformed are here raised in this hour-long debate/ discussion between Ian Hamilton (Cambridge [England] Presbyterian Church) and Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary, AZ) on the role and continuation of prophecy in the church today. Adrian Reynolds moderated the discussion, which took place at Proclamation Trust‘s 2010 Evangelical Ministry Assembly (EMA). The video is posted at the Gospel Coalition’s website, Feb. 23, 2012.
AFAIK, Justin is no relation to Joel, correct? 😉
Absolutely, no relation.