What is a Reformed Charismatic?

Hi Sam,  I greatly appreciate your posting.  For more than 36 years I've been a "Reformed Charismatic" as you describe.  Just finished a year-long preaching series on I Corinthians and, yes, Gordon D. Fee is one of my "go to" theologians.  I especially appreciate his strong and balanced affirmation of all the gifts of the Sprit coupled with his biblically supported clear rejection of "subsequentalism" (i.e., Fee's term for the classic Pentecostal doctrine of a two-phased initiation into the life and ministry of the Holy Spirit.  This is something often lacking in certain renewal groups that go under the Banner of Reformed.  I whole-heartedly affirm God's sovereignty and His freedom to reveal his will/leading in ways often incomprehensible but not thereby irrational or unreliable.  I have written a brief guildeline on" How to Hear God without Getting Goofy" on my journal website:  http://www.christianstraininglog.com.  Ignore the merchandise and click on articles.  Friends have affirmed the article has been very helpful to them.  http://www.christianstraininglog.com/resources/guidance.html  Sincerely in the Savior,  Neil Culbertson, Pastor

I don't know if you are familiar with Sovereign Grace Ministries, but their 'claim to fame' is being 5-point Charismatic Calvinists.  They are a loose federation of 70 -80 churches, mostly along the east coast, who claim C.J. Mahanay as their organizing founder.  I only know about this because my daughter became involved in one of their churches in North Carolina a few years ago.  We've worshipped there on occasion and had a meaningful, inspirational time with these thoroughly Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ.  They do about 50 minutes of energetic worship and praise, with some words of prophesy and knowledge springled in.  Then they move into a 50 minute expository sermon.  In addition, they are missional -- focusing on reaching the lost by planting churches.  What a wonderful combination!

If for no other reason than that I came out of the charismatic renewal movement of the 70s, I do wonder what Sam means by "charismatic." Is this only a matter of worship style, say? Are there other distinctive behaviors? In the 70s the charismatic emphasis, for instance, became one of the levers used on the women in office struggles, viz. that gifts are freely given and so must be honored. So what is meant by "Charismatic?"

Thanks for this piece, Sam!  On your last point about the Spirit and Scripture, I'll never forget how Henry Stob put it years ago when he was sitting in the seminary coffee shop with a group of us students.  Between puffs on his Salem menthol, he declared, "The Spirit always rides the back of Scripture."

I was directed here by my colleague, Kathy Smith.  I'm glad to learn of another member of the "Reformed charismatic" tribe!  I would describe myself the same way.  Indeed, I sometimes tell friends that, in some sense, the CRC has been at least "officially" charismatic since the 1970s when Synod resisted cessationism and affirmed that all the gifts remain operative.  

I think one can imagine something like a "charismatic worldview" or a "pentecostal worldview" (small-p) which is not only entirely consistent with Reformed theology, but in fact an expression of fundamentally Reformed convictions.  This was something I tried to argue in a Christianity Today article a few years back, "Teaching a Calvinist to Dance."

I have also tried to articulate the resonance between Reformed and charismatic worldviews in my book, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Eerdmans, 2010)--sort of Alvin Plantinga meets Gordon Fee.  There I try to unpack what I think are some of the basic, ecumenical elements of a charismatic worldview, along the lines that Sam has suggested here.  It's not just about tongues or healing or miracles--there's much more to it than that.

I think it is especially important for us to be having this conversation precisely because the explosion of Christianity in the majority world is charismatic Christianity.  Indeed, many of our global brothers and sisters in the Reformed churches would look quite "pentecostal" to those of us in staid, buttoned-down North America!.

May the tribe increase!

Amen!!!  I did my independent research project while at Dordt College (1978/9) in an effort to develop a Biblically Reformed view of tongues speaking:  "Glossalalia: Between Laughter & Language,"   in which I apllied biblical exegetical work and used the analysis of Herman Dooyeweerd's modalities structures analysis.  It was not really taken too seriously at the time because skepticism of this phenomenon was still very high but it was tolerated.  I hope for this tribe to increase and am glad to hear ongoing evidence of it in the CRC.  I personally rejoiced when the CRCNA dropped the theology of cessationism.   

Sam, I really enjoyed your blog on being a Reformed Charismatic and I identify with your description. Since my conversion many years ago the Holy Spirit became such a reality for me. When Jesus promised to sent the "Paracleet" in Matt 16 he knew that with his assention the time for the Holy Spirit would commence. We live in the time of the Holy Spirit till Jesus return to fetch His bride. The Church as body of Christ should live within the grace of the "Charismata" of the Holy Spirit till that time.

Coming from South Africa I was somewhat shocked to see how little the people in CRC know about the work and the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Christology and the doctrine of God are well develop but the Pneumatology is almost non existend. In teaching the material of the Dunamis Project someone said the Holy Spirit is a bit "Spooky".

I am glad to hear that Synod in the 70's affirmed the existence of the
Charismata today.

Hi Sam and all,

I, too, am thankful for your initiative in starting off this discussion.  I also appreciate the thoughtful responses, from others who are interacting in this conversation.  The give-and-take respectful tone of this discussion and the ringing affirmation of the controls of Scripture and the firm commitment to the central doctrines of biblical and Reformed teaching is testament to how far our denomination has grown in this area.  I, too, would indentify with your affirmations of the reality of the Holy Spirit's working in the church, the spiritual birthright of all Christians to, in keeping with their particular gifting , to "hear" God, i.e., in a range of Scripturally illustrated means to recognize God's leading and be led by the Spirit.  I fully expect to read some of the books referenced above.

Cordially in Christ,

Neil Culbertson, Pastor

Tacoma Christian Reformed Community Church

Sam,  Thanks for the great post!  I have to admit, I cringed just a wee bit when I read #5, and the last sentence about trusting a wide variety of sources "except the voice within me".  I understand the need for caution and absolutely agree that we should look for/expect affirmation and confirmation that comes from the Spirit in many ways.  However, I also know that we can learn to recognize God's voice in our lives, and grow in our discernment of his voice, among the others in our lives.  Even prophets, elders, mentors and sermons can be sinful, or off the mark.  Life in the Spirit is deep and mysterious, and I wouldn't want to put any box around how the Spirit moves, including saying "never through the voice in myself".  The evidence of a Spirit-filled life is always in the fruit.

Following on the last few points, I am thinking I could add a #6 to my original blog!  As a Reformed Charismatic, I believe that both the invidual Christian (I Cor 6:19) and the local body of believers (I Cor 3:16) are temples of the Holy Spirit.  And since it is the same Spirit who works in both, there will be harmony between the work of the Spirit in the individual and the work of the Spirit in community. The Spirit-filled church, then, may play an essential role in the life of the Spirit-filled individual. Or, as James just noted, there is a "check-and balance in a charismatic, Spirit-filled community."

As I write I am reminded that, on several occasions during my pastoral ministy individual members of my congregations have come to me seeking an explanation to their initial experience of speaking in tongues, an experience that came upon each one while praying privately to the Lord.  On each occasion, the person called nervous and confused, seeking a meeting with me sooner than later. On each occasion, I had the opportunity to discuss this particular spiritual gift with the one who had received it.

Looking back over those conversations within the context of this one, I find that they illustrate one way in which the Spirit-filled individual may test the Spirit within the context of community.

And, I have to say, that those conversations (or "divine appointments" as my Pentecostal friends would say) are some of my most treasured memories as a pastor to God's people.   

Wow, a lively discussion!  As Jamie Smith pointed out many of those in officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations overseas look quite charismatic to North American Reformed folk.  In addition, many of those who are in officially Pentecostal denominations are very open to the Reformed culture-shaping emphasis.  I got back on Thursday from a trip to Nicaragua where 30% of the population is Protestant and 80-90% of them are Pentecostal or Charismatic.  The Nicaraguan staff of the Nehemiah Center are actively engaging churches across this spectrum with the goal of discovering, encouraging, connecting and resourcing local leaders for community transformation.  It's an exciting ministry, sort of Gordon Fee meets Abraham Kuyper. 

I agree!  These last few posts have been superb and very illuminating.  I find that the "in" compared with "upon" distinction rings true not only with my experience individually, but also have seen the same happen corporately when the church has been gathered on occasion.  No amount of effort can manipulate this, but there have been times when pronouncing the benediction such a tangible sense of God's presence descended upon the congregation that we just sat in reverent silence and sort of "soaked" in the moment.  I even had at one point to just acknowledge and give words to what we were all sensing.  And then we concluded and fellowshipped around coffee and cookies in the lobby.   

Thanks to a steady stream of comments, here's what I have learned in the past few days:

First, I have discovered some new friends as well as great resources for continued study.

Second, I have been reminded that I am a Euro-American Reformed Charismatic which means I am a white guy who has a lot to learn about the Holy Spirit from Reformed Charismatics throughout the world and from Charismatics and Pentecostals in America.

Third, in my initial blog I neglectedg the communal aspect of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives (so typically American!). Hence, I needed to add a point, one which affirms the role of the Spirit-filled church in the life of the Spirit-filled individual. 

Fourth, I still don't trust my spiritual ears for I fear I will hear what I want to hear. So, I still think it good to exercise a "holy self-suspicion" when "hearing" the word of the Lord. This exercise prompts me to test the voice within against the voice of the Scriptures for, as noted above, the Spirit who inspires the Scriptures is the same Spirit who speaks today. It also encourages me to test the voice within against the context of the Christian community (The same Spirit who speaks to me speaks to you; the same Spirit who speaks to me speaks to us).  

Fifth, since the Holy Spirit works in ways beyond my comprehension, I am sure I am not done learning about the Holy Spirit or experiencing the Spirit's blessing in my life, in the church, and in the world.   

Sam,

I don't understand why Reformed Christians can't embrace their emotions as they express their faith. There are times I come to tears when partaking in the Lord's Supper or when singing His praises in worship. What I sense you doing is apologizing for what has been preceived as a lack of the "burning heart" in reformed Christians that Jesus' desciples experienced after they walked with Him on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24: "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road...?” We 24        ddddhy were their hearts burning? Because, "...He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

 Jesus explained the problem quite clearly, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! " Perhaps we need to do just that, "believe in all that the prophets have spoken"  and stop picking and choosing what we wish to believe or what suits us. Perhaps the loss of belief in the innerrancy of the Scriptures is the problem! Perhaps the CRC should return to belonging to NAPARC (the National Association of Protestant and Reformed Congregations) and stop drifting towards Pentecostalism.

(Quick intro: I'm from an Anglican background, with early conservative evangelical roots (almost Calvinistic in some respects), later broadening both towards the charismatic side of things (although never having spoken in tongues) and the "high" Anglo-Catholic respect for corporate liturgy.  Quite a mongrel mixture.)

A couple of points which might assist thinking:

1) Evangelical traditions can lead us to an implicit individualism.  (Emphasis on "me and my individual salvation".  "You (singular) must use your (singular) gifts".  Both OK, but both only show part of the whole.)  We often lose sight that it is the church, corporate, which is the bride of Christ.  While the gospels are full of individual encounters, there is also a strong strand of the community of faith being built up, leading to the Upper Room (corporate), Gethsemane (still corporate), the crucifixion ("woman, behold your son"), and various resurrection appearances.  And Paul's letters to the churches are packed full of the corporate.  (As, of course is the brilliant book of James (I disagree with Luther's "book of straw" slur!) and the letters to the seven churches of Revelation.)

2) Denominations such as Anglicanism have a touchstone of "scripture, tradition and reason".  Scripture: already discussed above.  Tradition: the received wisdom of the church down the centuries, and so a useful long timebase guard against being blown too far off course by today's possibly fleeting fads and fancies.  (Also, for instance, while the doctrine of the Trinity is not "up front obvious" from scripture, nevertheless our combined Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant "tradition" has developed and accepted it.)  Reason: the recognition that our capacity to think and interpret is a valid part of our discipleship.  (St. Paul was no slouch in academic fields!)  And it also appears to me that all three (scripture, tradition, reason) bear the hallmarks of individuals working in community.

Trusting everything "except the voice within me" (your "holy self-suspicion") actually sounds reassuring to me!  On the one hand, we are open to the possibility of God speaking to us directly because of his grace (undeserved gift, etc.).  On the other hand we are aware of the weakness of our own human nature: "The heart is deceitful above all things", etc.  (Here comes the "scripture, tradition, reason".)  We test it against scripture; we measure it up against the long-term received wisdom of our tradition (denomination, etc.); we employ the gift of thinking about all this (reason) as we try to work it out.  (Here comes the community.)  Additionally we recognise that although the experience might be personal, we are still part of the wider community, the church, and the church helps us explore the charismatic gifts and experiences through their discernment of scripture, tradition and reason.

We trust, through the baptismal convenant into his church, that God is at work "within" us always (we are still in our state of sin, yet simultaneously in the saving grace of the Son through the Spirit).  We can also trust that he can, from time to time, be "upon" us.  And we can be sure that, because he gives us each very different gifts, that our own experiences of the "upon-ness", which he gives to us, will be very different from each other, yet this all works together for the good of the church, and of the church's mission into the world around us...

(Quick intro: I'm from an Anglican background, with early conservative evangelical roots (almost Calvinistic in some respects), later broadening both towards the charismatic side of things (although never having spoken in tongues) and the "high" Anglo-Catholic respect for corporate liturgy.  Quite a mongrel mixture.)

A couple of points which might assist thinking:

1) Evangelical traditions can lead us to an implicit individualism.  (Emphasis on "me and my individual salvation".  "You (singular) must use your (singular) gifts".  Both OK, but both only show part of the whole.)  We often lose sight that it is the church, corporate, which is the bride of Christ.  While the gospels are full of individual encounters, there is also a strong strand of the community of faith being built up, leading to the Upper Room (corporate), Gethsemane (still corporate), the crucifixion ("woman, behold your son"), and various resurrection appearances.  And Paul's letters to the churches are packed full of the corporate.  (As, of course is the brilliant book of James (I disagree with Luther's "book of straw" slur!) and the letters to the seven churches of Revelation.)

2) Denominations such as Anglicanism have a touchstone of "scripture, tradition and reason".  Scripture: already discussed above.  Tradition: the received wisdom of the church down the centuries, and so a useful long timebase guard against being blown too far off course by today's possibly fleeting fads and fancies.  (Also, for instance, while the doctrine of the Trinity is not "up front obvious" from scripture, nevertheless our combined Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant "tradition" has developed and accepted it.)  Reason: the recognition that our capacity to think and interpret is a valid part of our discipleship.  (St. Paul was no slouch in academic fields!)  And it also appears to me that all three (scripture, tradition, reason) bear the hallmarks of individuals working in community.

Trusting everything "except the voice within me" (your "holy self-suspicion") actually sounds reassuring to me!  On the one hand, we are open to the possibility of God speaking to us directly because of his grace (undeserved gift, etc.).  On the other hand we are aware of the weakness of our own human nature: "The heart is deceitful above all things", etc.  (Here comes the "scripture, tradition, reason".)  We test it against scripture; we measure it up against the long-term received wisdom of our tradition (denomination, etc.); we employ the gift of thinking about all this (reason) as we try to work it out.  (Here comes the community.)  Additionally we recognise that although the experience might be personal, we are still part of the wider community, the church, and the church helps us explore the charismatic gifts and experiences through their discernment of scripture, tradition and reason.

We trust, through the baptismal convenant into his church, that God is at work "within" us always (we are still in our state of sin, yet simultaneously in the saving grace of the Son through the Spirit).  We can also trust that he can, from time to time, be "upon" us.  And we can be sure that, because he gives us each very different gifts, that our own experiences of the "upon-ness", which he gives to us, will be very different from each other, yet this all works together for the good of the church, and of the church's mission into the world around us...

I was overwhelmed by so many comments in favor of a so-called "Reformed Charismatic" label. For me, as a convert to Reformed Christianity, who flirted with Charismatic Evangelicalism for a while, I cannot disagree more with such stream. I apologize for being so blunt by I think we are being too naïve about the Charismatic movement and its benefits for our tradition. Yes, we need to change. But, that's what we have been trying to do since the Reformation (ecclesia reformata semper reformada…) and even before that.

The amount of heresy, arbitrary interpretations, lack of accountability, moral failures, prosperity gospel, abuse of power, apostles and prophets, latter-rain superiority, plain money-making schemes, and many other evils are more patent in the Charismatic movement than in any other segment of the Church. I can boldly say this because many, many years ago I had the "privilege" of working in a Charismatic television station, and had the chance to see first hand the lives of people who claim to be superior to other Christians who lack the fullness of the Spirit and its supernatural gifts. I've seen people who would make Bishop Earl Paulk look like a kindergartener as far as moral failures. I could go on and on, but for the sake of sanity, I am done. Please, take another look at things before jumping into a bandwagon that might look like one of those cinnamon rolls at the pastry shop, so delicious, so enticing, so sweet, so jummy, and so bad for your health.

I think we are all well aware of these lamentable aberrations and definitely have no intention of going down the prosperity gospel road. I, like you, Allejandro, am deeply grieved by and  reject the implicit "superiority" that comes from that bad and unbiblical theology of subsequentalism which is often called the second blessing theology characteristic of classic pentecostal theology. If one follows the internet discussions, it is interesting to find that the most sustained critics of Word Faith cults, prosperity gospelers, latter rain folks, the Toxic Broadcasting Network (TBN) etc., are the classic Pentecostals.

For 36 years, since "coming out" of pentecostalism and embracing the Reformed faith, I have found the Reformed faith, its theological integrity, its ecclesiology that eschews "annointed leader" syndrome and power abuses in the church is far and away the most capable for embracing the positive features of charismatic pneumatology without giving way to its imbalances, excesses and errors.  So, why would we deny the one the benefit of the other?  For 27 years I saw people burned out on Pentecostal excesses join our church precisely because our theology provided theological integrity and ecclesial saftey without requiring them to deny spritual giftings the knew from Scripture and practice were legitimate.  

The mere fact of imablances and unsavory character says nothing about the legitimacy of gifts, the many ways of the Spirit's leading, etc.  

I don't claim to be enamored of taking a "Reformed Charismatic" label to distinguish myself from any regenerated Christian who has by Scripture's teaching the fulness of the Spirit and the capacity to be used in any way the Spirit in His sovereignty deems proper.  I believe every regenerated Christian (the only kind there is) is "charismatic" to the degree that charis means grace.  The Reformed emphasis on sovereignty and grace as opposed to man-centered and Arminian teachings is the greatest antidote to abuses of spiritual gifts.  So, good enough, let's forgo the label and avoid any hint of occasioning division or elitism, but let's be done with ignoring legitmate, biblically supported giftings and biblically illustrated ways in which the Spirit leads not just individuals but the church corporately in exercising all the charimata as the Sovereign apportions them for the common good.  Does this suggestion help allay fears and promote confidence that the Reformed theological tradition is equal to the task of incorporation, evaluation, balance and providing proper accountability?

SIncerely in his grace & peace, Neil

Thanks, everyone, for such a respectful and lively discussion.  Since I started working for both the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church of America,  I have been actively trying to clarify my understanding of the "Reformed Charismatic" perspective.  I know it is dangerous to get too preoccupied with labels.  But the label helps me to articulate and clarify the concept.   Since relocating from the Philippines to West Michigan ten years ago,  I have bemoaned the loss of a worship style and ministry that fully embraced both the "Sprit Within" and "Spirit Upon"  qualities.  This dialogue has helped me greatly by putting into words the things I have been struggling with inside.  Blessings to all!   Amy

Thanks Sam for the article.  It has helped me in my discussions with area pastors as we together try to work out our faith with fear and trembling.  I love the gifts of the Spirit and seek to experience all I can in God.  

Grace and Peace.

Rich, rich, rich discussions... somehow missed this one last month =), but that 's ok... It was immensely encouraging to read it now!   Wonderful stuff!! 

one comment on hearing the "Voice" within.  a year or so ago, I was driving out in the county, and passed a farm, that I knew the family that lived there like 25-30 years ago.  As i drove past, i thought about them, but then I kept thinking about them, which made me think, "LORD, do you want me to pray for them?"  Well, I thought, if it's the LORD, or if it's me, it doesn't matter, because prayer is almost always a good thing, and definitely lines up with scripture, and in this situation it definitely won't hurt.  So I spent a few minutes praying for that family, it was very vague because i hadn't seen them in over 20 years.  and then forgot about it when I got to my destination.

The very next day, I ran into one of the daughters that I had gone to school with.  and then had the opportunity to pray with her.   Hmmm... somehow God was preparing me to meet her the very next day...  haven't seen any of the family since.

Love the additional insight of "listening" with other believers...  That is so what we're missing... because we haven't been "taught" how to hear, how to discern, how to test and how to confirm.

Love the addition of experience.  I often share with people, that the Holy Spirit is an experience. 

Love the comment about our emotions.  King David was the most emotional guy there was, and the only person in the Bible called a man "after God's heart"!   brings up our fear of "emotionalism" which is something we need to better understand the difference between experienceing our emotions and "emotionalism.  Fervency is ok in at sporting events and concerts, but not in worship =( 

Looking forward to and praying for the day, when we are more enthusiastic about worshipping the Sovereign, the Almighty, the  LORD of Hosts, and our high praises ring out, and the sound will be "heard a long way off" (Ezra 3:13)

I feel as though I am a fish out of water. Recently, learned about TULIP and so far, after only studying up to the "L", I am convinced I am where God would have me. No one seems to see the Scriptures as I do. I live in Western New York. Any suggestions?

Another sizeable denomination that emphasizes historic Reformed theology is the Presbyterian Church in America.  You can find their churches using this link. 

Hi Sam,

I too come from this "tribe" as K A Smith calls it in this thread.  I am also a Church planter for the CRC and am in the first few months of our church plant.  My ordination in the CRC was approved two years ago.  Prior to that I was in the Vineyard for 15 yrs., where I planted a Vineyard church which I pastored for almost 8 years.  Prior to my Vineyard years I was a minister in the PC(USA), where I was originally ordained (1986).  My MDiv was earned at Gordon-Conwell where Dr. G. Fee was one of my professors, and in fact became somewhat more, as a friend, since we met in his home for small group meetings and we both attended a new church plant in Beverly MA.  We also have a Sovereign Grace church in our area.  I know the pastor quite well and love the work he and his church are doing.

Now, all this being said.  I do have a couple challenges for you . . .

1.  Sovereign grace ministries is reformed "in part."  I would not give them the unmitigated affirmation you gave them.  They lack a great deal theologically particularly in the area of Covenant theology.  Therefore they are baptists in practice and only practice "believer's baptism."  I think because of their lack of understanding God working through covenant with entire families/people groups etc., they have a very individual understanding of God's grace and do not affirm paedo baptism in any way.

2.  Given Christ's own affirmation in John 10, that his sheep do hear his voice, and follow him, I believe that we should not be skittish about claiming to hear the voice of Christ.  But we should learn how to hear well, and teach others the same.  I am very comfortable saying God spoke to me . . .  I belive this is "normative" Christianity (as Fee would call it).  For a Christian to be hesitant about affirming God speaking to him/her is what I would find to be at odds with the Scirptures, and unnatural to Christianity, not the other way around.  It is my experience, that we might tend to be hesitant about hearing God speak to us, because of at least two reasons:  1) The way we've been taught in traditional Reformed and Presbyterian churches.  We've been taught that either God does NOT speak directly to us anymore, or at least we should be very cautious and avoid that if we can.  2)  We have not done a good job of teaching people how to hear their Good Shepherd's voice.  When I was young I was taught how to listen and hear God speak to me.  It has always been a regular part of my Christian life (38 years now).  The main issue, at stake, which I believe you rightly identified, is the agreement with the written revelation God has already given us as the Bible.  Now here is my proviso: It is my position that God speaks to me perfectly, by my hearing (and understanding) is not always so good!      Finally, on this point I would suggest something I belive we Reformed people have long since agreed upon, and as far as I know, it is a pretty unanimous agreement, viz., God communicates to his people.  The entire Bible affirms this truth.  And in Reformed circles (and most other "tribes" of Christianity for that matter), we have made much of this truth, declaring very loudly and consistently, that the God of the Bible has never demonstrated even a slight proclivity to leave his people in a state of agnosticism.  I say all this to affirm my conviction and experience that -- God speaking to his people throughout human history, from Adam onwards, is the norm, not the exception.  (Notwithstanding, there is at least one occassion we are told that "the word of the Lord was rare in those days" (1 Sam. 3:1).  However, it is virtually impossible to get through one page of Scripture without "a word from the Lord" being divinly imparted to a human!  I agree with the Reformed tradition that this matter of God speaking, communicating to his people is the norm. And I see nowhere is Scripture where that historically consistent pattern of God is ever indicated to cease.  I believe our struggle in Reformed churches is not our affirmation of this "norm," but rather our "application" of it.  John Wimber (Vineyard) was marvelous at creating and opening doors to allow "applications" of our doctrines to develop.  I still appreciate that "experimental" risk taking approach.  For "where there is no ox, the stable is clean, but much strength comes from the ox" (prov. 14:4).  In other words, we can all keep a nice clean controlled church, if we do not encourage and allow people to try applying their faith.  But when we do encourage people to "go for it," they WILL make some mistakes along the way, and there will be some clean up to do after them.  But in the long run, I am very happy to be on the clean up crew if people learn and grow and the church makes real advance.

I hope this adds some value to the conversation.

By the way, I came into the CRC (of course by the providence of God), but for my part, based on the need for a theology to explain what the Spirit was doing in our churches (a weak point in the Vineyard).  Good theology does not resist the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in our lives or churches.  Rather it, helps us understand His presence and work, and what our response, if any, should be.

Peace to all,

Randy Simon

I attended the Ligonier conference in Orlando, FL this past weekend.  After hearing Ravi Zacharias speak for years on the radio and online, this was my first opportunity to see him in person.  He was the last speaker on Friday evening, between 8 and 9 pm and had a great message; yet, throughout the meetings, I longed for one thing even more than to hear Ravi personally -- concentrated worship in an effort to draw the presence of God.  We are not meant to worship the letter, but Jesus.  Where was that being directed?  What if the Lord wanted to interrupt man's plans, especially where 5000 Christian believers have Him in their midst?  Instead, for me, it was merely academic.  As sound as the messages were, God's presence was missing.

What are you missing? Baptism in the Holy Spirit. According to Scripture there is absolutely "two" baptisms. One into Christ at regeneration, born again, and two the baptism in the person of the Holy Spirit. This is plainly evidence in that we are saved when we believe Jesus is raised from the dead or resurrection faith, which we see both the 120 in the upper room had and also the Apostle Paul had before the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit. This is so evident its elementary and continually denied and missed by eminent scholars, at least that what their bio says. WAIT. Are you saying I dont have the Holy Spirit. No. We are born of the word by the Spirit. God is one. Word, Spirit, Father. Can not be separated, yet are separate. So the "person of Christ dwells in us, as in Christ within us the hope of glory, when we are "born again", but we need subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit, as did Christ when the Spirit descended as a dove.. I have typed this explanation in blogs so many times I should have a form explanation. The better debate should be after the second subsequent baptism in the person of the Holy Spirit, is the evidence of this "baptism" speaking in tongues. This is a little more ambiguous and is beyond the scope of this answer. Frankly, Pastor you are clueless when it comes to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the meaning of charismatic. stick to the five points,. Hope that clears things up.

GUARANTEED: Truth spoken in love

doctrine of predestination

Brother Sam,

You are exactly where I have come to in my journey. We are kindred spirits. I came out of charismatic and Pentecostal churches. I love an equal emphasis on fullness of the Spirit and soundness of doctrine.

God bless,

Stephen

I affirm to this view and thank you for posting. My issue is that when trying to find a church for my family this can be difficult. We live in the south and there are plenty of churches around. How to find a denomination that might lean to this teaching is difficult.