J_Edwards said: Reformed Charismatics defend their position of continued revelation in a very unscriptural manner. Attached is a sample from Grudem’s Systematic.
How many problems do you see?
Joe,
Too many! To begin with, he equivocates on the difference between an Old Testament prophet and a New Testament apostle by defining these terms as "one having the authority to compose Scripture." Is this how Scripture defines these offices? No. Scripture treats a true prophet as one who speaks the word of God given to him by God through the Holy Spirit (it matters not whether he composes Scripture). The apostles were a much smaller group of men, appointed directly by the incarnate Christ Himself as His special representatives in the church (whether or not they composed Scripture).
He then argues for a different meaning of "prophet" in the NT versus in the OT, based on variant uses of the Greek term in the time of the NT. But Jesus and the Apostles all referred to both the OT and NT prophets as prophetês, so they themselves regarded the OT and NT offices of prophet as continuous. In that light, it is special pleading to regard most instances of "prophet" in the NT as referring to something other than an office equivalent to the OT office.
He next does some marvellous eisegeting of relevant NT texts, assuming prophetic fallibility in order to prove it. Especially objectionable is his treatment of commands to "test/weigh" prophecy—he says this indicates that NT prophecy has good and bad in it, and we are to find the good and discard the bad. However, it is evident that what the apostles have in mind is not mixed prophecy, but determining whether a prophet is true or false!
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Agreed. I especially found his examination of testing prophecy wanting. He makes it sound as if we do not need to test the "written" Word of God when used by another person (and even ourselves <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />), however, Jesus did it (Matt 4) when He dealt with Satan in the wilderness, et. al. How many times have we seen people use the Word of God out of context to make a point? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
William said: The words Reformed and Charismatic are like fried onions and ice cream, they just don't go. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
The Scripture references that Grudem refers to need some clarification. Though I have not taken the time to exegete these passges I believe the following commentaries offer reasonable explanations and defeat Grudem’s analysis.
Quote
Grudem—
Acts 21:4: In Acts 21:4, we read of the disciples at Tyre: “Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” This seems to be a reference to prophecy directed towards Paul, but Paul disobeyed it! He never would have done this if this prophecy contained God’s very words and had authority equal to Scripture.
Luke relates that the Christians in Tyre seek to dissuade Paul from going to Jerusalem. They have received a revelation from the Holy Spirit (compare I Cor. 14:32) that Paul is going to meet adversities there. This revelation supports Paul’s comment that the Holy Spirit warned him about future imprisonment and hardship (20:23).
Is there a contradiction between the revelations Paul received from the Holy Spirit and those which the believers in Tyre obtained? No, not at all. The Christians in Tyre heard the Holy Spirit say that Paul would meet adversities, but they did not understand the purpose of Paul’s future suffering. Conversely, Paul understood the warnings as confirmation that “he must suffer for [the Lord’s] name” (9:16). He considered these divine revelations to be symbols of God’s grace designed to prepare him for the immediate future. (New Testament Commentary).
Quote
Grudem—
Acts 21:10–11: Then in Acts 21:10–11, Agabus prophesied that the Jews at Jerusalem would bind Paul and “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles,” a prediction that was nearly correct but not quite: the Romans, not the Jews, bound Paul (v. 33; also 22:29), and the Jews, rather than delivering him voluntarily, tried to kill him and he had to be rescued by force (21:32). The prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies in detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet. On the other hand, this text could be perfectly well explained by supposing that Agabus had had a vision of Paul as a prisoner of the Romans in Jerusalem, surrounded by an angry mob of Jews. His own interpretation of such a “vision” or “revelation” from the Holy Spirit would be that the Jews had bound Paul and handed him over to the Romans, and that is what Agabus would (somewhat erroneously) prophesy. This is exactly the kind of fallible prophecy that would fit the definition of New Testament congregational prophecy proposed above—reporting in one’s own words something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.
The IVP New Testament commentary series states, in the light of Acts 19:21, it seems that Paul’s intentions to go to Jerusalem and then Rome were purposes directed by the Holy Spirit and that the warnings were to prepare him. ….. In a symbolic act much like the acted-out prophecies of the Old Testament prophets, Agabus predicted Paul’s coming arrest in Jerusalem. He took Paul’s girdle, the long cloth that was wound several times around his waist, and bound with it his hands and feet. Then, just like an Old Testament prophet, he gave the interpretation of the act, introduced by the usual, “Thus says the Lord,” here expressed in terms of revelation through the Holy Spirit. Paul would be bound by the Jews of Jerusalem and handed over to the Gentiles. The parallel to the fate of Jesus could hardly be more explicit (cf. Matt 20:18f.; Luke 18:32). This was not so much a warning on Agabus’s part as a prediction. Unlike the Christians of Tyre, he did not urge Paul not to go. Rather, he told him what was in store for him. …. The act itself set into motion the event it foretold. It established the reality of the event, the certainty that it would occur. Agabus’s act prepared Paul for the events to come and assured him of God’s presence in those events.
As far as the Roman administration was concerned, Caesarea was the capital of the province of Judea; however, Caesarea was a Gentile city, it was not considered by the Jews as a part of their country in the popular sense of the word. ….
Quote
Grudem—
1 Thessalonians 5:19–21: Paul tells the Thessalonians, “do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:20–21). If the Thessalonians had thought that prophecy equaled God’s Word in authority, he would never have had to tell the Thessalonians not to despise it—they “received” and “accepted” God’s Word “with joy from the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13; cf. 4:15). But when Paul tells them to “test everything” it must include at least the prophecies he mentioned in the previous phrase. He implies that prophecies contain some things that are good and some things that are not good when he encourages them to “hold fast what is good.” This is something that could never have been said of the words of an Old Testament prophet, or the authoritative teachings of a New Testament apostle.
1 Corinthians 14:29–38: More extensive evidence on New Testament prophecy is found in 1 Corinthians 14. When Paul says, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said” (1 Cor. 14:29), he suggests that they should listen carefully and sift the good from the bad, accepting some and rejecting the rest (for this is the implication of the Greek word “..” (G1359) here translated “weigh what is said”). We cannot imagine that an Old Testament prophet like Isaiah would have said, “Listen to what I say and weigh what is said—sort the good from the bad, what you accept from what you should not accept”! If prophecy had absolute divine authority, it would be sin to do this. But here Paul commands that it be done, suggesting that New Testament prophecy did not have the authority of God’s very words.
Grudem fails to realize that we also need to judge Scripture (Matt 4) and tell whether it is being used in context, et. al. (Jeremiah 23:36). His whole argument is flawed.
There are so many other problems here, but there is just not enough time …
The words Reformed and Charismatic are like fried onions and ice cream, they just don't go.
The outrageous idea of a "Reformed Charismatic" is an oxymoron. It is contradictory and impossible to hold to Sola Scriptura and belief in continuous propositional revelation in any form, at the same time. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> This is even more so than some of these others here:
The outrageous idea of a "Reformed Charismatic" is an oxymoron. It is contradictory and impossible to hold to Sola Scriptura and belief in continuous propositional revelation in any form, at the same time. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> This is even more so than some of these others here:
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Dominion Work - Reformed Charismatics by Joseph Mc Auliffe descibes the movement and it's tenants. As with so many hybrid churches they are a work in progress. Many who call themselves "Reformed Charismatics" are coming out of the Charismatic movement and discovering Reformed doctrine. As you can see by the article I've enclosed it has many problems but also may bring something to the church which was lacking namely more emphasis on the essential work of the Holy Spirit.
Quote
Mc Auliffe writes:
Charismatics begin the journey in the Spirit but is is Reformed theology that develops them in the apostolic Faith. The emphasis on Sola Scriptura punctuates the paramount authority of God's Word and consequently subjugates every spiritual expression to the Biblical standard. RCs do not equate the content of any spiritual gift with that of Scripture.
The principal tenets of the Reformed Faith are precisely the antidote to charismatic deficiencies.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
I hope I did not give this impression. My point was not that the Holy Spirit is not active in the Scripture affirming and faithful life of believers, but that for one to affirm "propositional" revelation outside of the Scripture is a denial of the union of God's words with His Spirit.
This is also a denial of the orthodox Trinity and IMO, the reason for the Charismatic's disregard and disrespect for "doctrine" and the clarity and efficiency of the Scripture.
The Charismatic often says he has a "word of knowledge" or God told me this or that, and they truly believe that they have extra-biblical insight and/or a special or hidden revelation from God. This leaven is indeed "puffy".
Quote
The principal tenets of the Reformed Faith are precisely the antidote to charismatic deficiencies.
Exactly, however, I cannot call this charismatic horror merely "deficiencies" but an outrageous and soul destroying deformity. It truly is amazing how closely these charismatics camp with the RCC with their "infused" righteousness and spirituality.
Denny
Romans 3:22-24
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
William said: The words Reformed and Charismatic are like fried onions and ice cream, they just don't go. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
And yet, many people who hold to Charismatic view points are still considered "Reformed". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
William said: The words Reformed and Charismatic are like fried onions and ice cream, they just don't go.
And yet, many people who hold to Charismatic view points are still considered "Reformed".
John Knox, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones among them.
Tom
According to The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique, the Charismatic doctrine of the second blessing (i.e. Spirit-baptism) is a deviation from Protestant orthodoxy. It was not taught by the Spirit-filled Protestant Reformers (e.g., Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Knox, etc.). It was not taught by any of the great theologians of sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth centuries (e.g., Gillespie, Rutherford, Owen, Edwards, Turrentin, Hodge, Dabney, Warfield). And it has already been shown to you that MLJ did not speak in tongues, et. al.
Instead of examples which you can't prove, prove it from the Scriptures. First, prove that "all" the gifts are "still" in existence. Second, show their compatibility with true Reformed doctrine. We are waiting!
I have said this before, but I guess I need to say it again.
I am not a Charismatic in any sense of the word. In fact much like Robin, I came out of that movement. My intention of posting my last post was not to defend people like D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, but to state things that research shows me to be true of them. I have two books by D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in which he makes himself quite clear that he believes in what is referred to in Charismatic circles, as “the second blessing”. He goes on to make statements to show that he indeed does have Charismatic leanings. However, I think it is safe to say that he is no radical. That of course does not prove the matter from a Scriptural position, but it does show what he believes the Bible teaches.
As for John Knox, I don't think I want to get into that discussion again. I have seen evidence presented from both sides and all I can say is, so far the evidence that John Knox was used in the gift of prophecy, is in my opinion stronger than the evidence used against this notion. That does not necessarily mean they are right, but to me anyway it is how I interpret the evidence I have researched.
As for proving them from the Scriptures, why would I try to do that, since my understanding of the matter is more towards what you believe than Charismatics? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
There have been numerous charismatic movements in almost every century, and the great church fathers dealt with them all:
The 2nd century Montanists were among the first charismatics after the gifts ceased. They believed in "the new prophecy" which was the primary thing that caused the church to declare them as heretics. Augustine and Chrysostom soundly refuted them and the movement eventually died out. The medieval period saw a number of claims to the miraculous and prophetic, particularly by the Roman Catholic papacy. The great John Hus exposed these miracles as fraudulent and was burned at the stake by the Roman church. Martin Luther also faced the charismatics of his day in the "Zwickau prophets" and Thomas Muntzer, and faced the same threats of "opposing the Holy Spirit" that non-charismatics hear today. But Luther was not persuaded by stories of great men who must be heeded because they have been so "mightily used and have performed such great miracles." In a debate with Erasmus, Luther challenged his opponent to prove for certain that those so-called miracle workers were possessed by the Holy Spirit and not by evil spirits. John Calvin also strongly maintained that apostles and prophets were extraordinary offices that passed away when scripture was completed. In expounding upon 1 Cor 14, both Calvin and Beza refuted the view that the tongues-speaker did not undertand what he spoke. And on verse 11 of 1 Cor 14, Beza writes, "they become barbarians to themselves, who use a language unknown to themselves." The reformers also dealt with Anabaptists whose claims to visions, signs, miracles, prophecies, and tongues, were soundly refuted as fakes. Even a claim to a raising of the dead was exposed as fraudulent. These early charismatics included the so-called "Munsterites," with names like Melchior Hoffman, Ursula Joosten, and Jan Matthys among their leaders. Although Menno Simons was among the Anabaptists, he stood firmly with Chrysostom, Augustine, Basil, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, and Beza, and renounced continuing prophecy and miraculous gifts.
Then there was those great Puritans, John Owen, John Bunyan, and John Flavel who dealt soundly with the charismatics of their day. John Owen writes of them, "And no otherwise hath it fallen out with some in our days, whom we have seen visibly acted by an extraordinary power. Unduly pretending unto supernatural agitations from God, they were really acted by the devil; a thing they neither desired nor looked after, but being surprised by it, were pleased with it for a while: as it was with sundry of the Quakers at their first appearance." Various claims to the office of apostle and prophet, as certified by claims to the miraculous, were refuted by all the great Puritan preachers, often quoting 2 Pe 1:19 and saying, "The Scripture is sufficient. We need no more." When John Flavel himself had a vision of Christ after a day of fasting and prayer, he cried out, "Avoid Satan, I know no image of Christ but the Scriptures!"
Then there were the so-called "French prophets" rising up in the late 1600s and early 1700s, even making their way to New England. Among their leaders were John Lacy, Elias Marion, Francis Moult, and John Potter. They claimed to speak in tongues and prophesy. Specific predictions of fantastic future events always proved to be false, including a claim to have raised one of their own from the dead. But these "prophets" would make excuses such as, "the miracle had been postponed because of the danger of the large crowd molesting the risen prophet." Even John and Charles Wesley strongly refuted the charismatics of their day. Even Whitefield, often an opponent of Wesley on other matters, joined with Wesley in refuting the charismatics. Jonathan Edwards wrote extensively on the false doctrine of charismatics in his volumns I and II of "Works." Charles Spurgeon likewise preached against the false views of charismatics in his day. All of these maintained that 1 Cor 13:10 was properly interpretted as referring to completed scripture, not heaven. The earliest claims to tongues and prophecy in the 1800s were the Mormons. Early church history of the Mormon church looks almost identical to the Brownsville Assembly "revival" a few years ago. The Irvingites in Scotland, along with 15-year-old Margaret MacDonald in 1830, were the early charismatics in Great Britain. The Church of Scotland defrocked Edward Irving for preaching heresy and allowing tongues and prophecies to occur in his church.
It's old news that most people living today have never heard, even though it has been repeated over and over again in church history - thus we keep having to repeat the lesson.
Tom said: I have said this before, but I guess I need to say it again.
I am not a Charismatic in any sense of the word. In fact much like Robin, I came out of that movement. My intention of posting my last post was not to defend people like D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, but to state things that research shows me to be true of them. I have two books by D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in which he makes himself quite clear that he believes in what is referred to in Charismatic circles, as “the second blessing”. He goes on to make statements to show that he indeed does have Charismatic leanings. However, I think it is safe to say that he is no radical. That of course does not prove the matter from a Scriptural position, but it does show what he believes the Bible teaches.
As for John Knox, I don't think I want to get into that discussion again. I have seen evidence presented from both sides and all I can say is, so far the evidence that John Knox was used in the gift of prophecy, is in my opinion stronger than the evidence used against this notion. That does not necessarily mean they are right, but to me anyway it is how I interpret the evidence I have researched.
As for proving them from the Scriptures, why would I try to do that, since my understanding of the matter is more towards what you believe than Charismatics? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Tom
Tom,
There is a difference in BEING a mere Charismatic and BEING Reformed and having some views that differ with the rest of orthodoxy concerning the gifts of the Spirit. YOUR OWN definition of Charismatic is: "When I say "Reformed Charismatic", I am referring to people who embrace the doctrines of grace, but believe to one degree or another that gifts like tongues etc... are still around today," which NEITHER Knox or MLJ embraced. NEITHER spoke in tongues, which was the crux of YOUR definition. If by definition someone MUST speak in tongues to be called a Charismatic then even Wayne Grudem, by your definition, is not a Charismatic—for he teaches that it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be filled with the Spirit of God.
PS: if you would read MLJ’s books, Joy Unspeakable and The Sovereign Spirit according to your own Charismatic John Piper, you would discover that MLJ (and may I add Johnny) condemned much in the Charismatic movement. According to Piper:
Quote
1. He insisted that revival have a sound doctrinal basis. And from what he saw there was a minimization of doctrine almost everywhere that unity and renewal were being claimed (see note 53). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and revival will be shallow and short-lived without deeper doctrinal roots than the charismatic tree seems to have.
2. Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit, to come and go on his own terms. "Spiritual gifts," he says, "are always controlled by the Holy Spirit. they are given, and one does not know when they are going to be given" (see note 54).
You can pray for the baptism of the Spirit, but that does not guarantee that it happens ... It is in his control. He is the Lord. He is a sovereign Lord and he does it in his own time and in his own way (see note 55).
3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which of course he rejects.
It seems to be that the teaching of the Scripture itself, plus the evidence of the history of the church, establishes the fact that the baptism with the Spirit is not always accompanied by particular gifts (see note 56).
4. But even more often most charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This, he argues is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them (see note 57).
5. Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ (see note 58).
The aim is not to have experiences in themselves but to empower for outreach and making Christ known (see note 59) ...
We must test anything that claims to be a movement of the Spirit in terms of its evangelistic power (see note 60) ...
The supreme test of anything that claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit is John 16:14—"He shall glorify me" (see note 61).
6. Charismatics can easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts that person is thus a good person and is fit to lead and teach. This is not true. Lloyd-Jones is aware that baptism with the Holy Spirit and the possession of gifts does not certify one's moral fitness to minister or speak for God. The spiritual condition at Corinth, in terms of sanctification, was low and yet there was much evidence of divine power.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is primarily and essentially a baptism with power ... [But] there is no direct connection between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and sanctification (see note 62) ... It is something that can be isolated, whereas sanctification is a continuing and a continuous process (see note 63).
7. Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture. Be suspicious, he says, of any claim to a "fresh revelation of truth" (see note 64). (In view of what he said above concerning how the Holy Spirit speaks today in guidance, he cannot mean here that all direct communication from God is ruled out.)
8. Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go. Lloyd-Jones disagrees. "We must never let ourselves go" (see note 65). A blank mind is not advocated in the Scriptures (see note 66). the glory of Christianity is what we can "at one and the same time ... be gripped and lifted up by the Spirit and still be in control" (see 1 Cor. 14:32) (see note 67). We must always be in a position to test all things, since Satan and hypnotism can imitate the most remarkable things (see note 68).
While Dr. Lloyd-Jones did not believe that sign gifts had necessarily ceased (The Fight of Faith, Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), he in no way believed them to be necessary. At the Welsh Minister’s Conference in June 1977 these were his words:
Quote
The trouble with the charismatic movement is that there is virtually no talk at all of the Spirit ‘coming down’. It is more something they do or receive: they talk now about ‘renewal’ not revival. The tendency of the modern movement is to lead people to seek experiences. True revivals humble men before God and emphasize the person of Christ. If all the talk is about experiences and gifts it does not conform to the classic instances of revival.
Prove All Things, p. 146, cited in Iain Murray’s The Fight of Faith, Banner of Truth Trust, p. 487
Iain Murray also quotes a conversation he had with MLJ:
Quote
I was against Pentecostalism and still am. My doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit is that it gives full assurance. I have never been satisfied with any speaking in tongues that I have heard. (…) It is very unfair to put the label Pentecostal on me. p. 695
Dr. Lloyd-Jones did not believe in continuing revelation [the TOPIC of this series of posts] or the continuance of apostles and prophets in our time (see, God’s Way of Reconciliation, Baker Books, pp. 355ff). His own words with regard to becoming personally revived are: “Seek not an experience, but seek Him, seek to know Him, seek to realize His presence, seek to love Him” (God the Holy Spirit, Crossway Books, p. 253). Apparently MLJ’s definition of “Charismatic/Pentecostal” is different than yours for he was insulted when he was called one! If you would like to read about some of the errors of MLJ''s exegesis maybe you would enjoy the remainder of the article: Tongues-Nonsense and Martin Lloyd-Jones.
If you are not willing (or able) to support what you are assuming are historical statements of truth with the Scripture (or even proper historical accounts), then you might think twice about making them!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />
Perhaps my understanding of what should be considered Pentecostal/Charismatic is flawed. However, if that is the case then many in the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement have the same flawed view. Though the majority view of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with in the movement is that tongues always accompany it. It is also a debated issue with in the movement itself. Many holding that tongues may just be a sign that one is Baptized in the Holy Spirit. But not necessarily because God is the determiner of what gifts He bestows. What is not debated however is that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is "the second blessing". This is what I consider to be a mark of a Charismatic, regardless of whether they themselves speak in tongues or not. By the way, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't say that one who is Reformed Charismatic necessarily speaks in tongues. But many do believe that it is a gift that is still around today.
Something you may or not also be aware is that many with in the Pentecostal Church also believe that much of what is being passed off as tongues today are not true tongues at all. I was one of these people and it was probably one of the things that contributed to me leaving the movement.
There are also Charismatics who believe that if one doesn't speak in tongues, then one isn't truly "born again". But then again, with in the movement itself, there are various understandings, usually depending on the denomination, but not necessarily so.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.smileypad.com/v202/Cache/Feelings/Hum.gif)