Where Reformed Meets Charismatic...
Challies' review of Sam Storms' latest book prompted these thoughts.
Nobody would argue that the tag "Reformed Charismatic" is not without its popular adherents- from Wayne Grudem to C.J. Mahaney to John Piper (Though I'm not so sure if he would want that tag; but, nevertheless, he fits it well).
Storms, in his latest book, urges Calvinists who adhere to the traditional Reformed understanding of the charismatic gifts to alter their understanding and "converge" with charismaticism. Obviously, arguments will be needed. He gives us them. (If you want to learn more about it, then do read the review)
Anyway, I'm not exactly discussing Storms' book, but about the "Reformed Charismatic" group. Certainly, they have some great men of God at the helm. Without a doubt, their arguments sound convincing. But alas, I'm not.
I believe they have the right to call themselves Reformed Charismatics, but I'm not so certain whether the two would fit together exactly. For, the majority "Reformed" opinion has been that the gifts have ceased. That puts it right at odds with charismaticism.
I not about to launch into a critique of charismaticism (and a defense of the opposite view) here, but I would like to say that it certainly matters which side you're on. If you choose to implement tenets of two views together, then at least do it with lots of study.
I certainly am not complaining that non-cessationists have the right to hold to a "Reformed" tag, but I do believe that although Calvinism is certainly biblical, Charismaticism is not- hence, for me at least, those two words might be an oxymoron.
Of course I tremendously respect people like Grudem and Piper (They have been greatly influential in forming my beliefs on complementarianism and Calvinism respectively). But one certainly has to be aware that despite the seemingly good fruits of combining charismaticism and Calvinism together, the Word of God should always take precedence- even if it results in loss of something, be they charismaticism or Calvinism.
Nobody would argue that the tag "Reformed Charismatic" is not without its popular adherents- from Wayne Grudem to C.J. Mahaney to John Piper (Though I'm not so sure if he would want that tag; but, nevertheless, he fits it well).
Storms, in his latest book, urges Calvinists who adhere to the traditional Reformed understanding of the charismatic gifts to alter their understanding and "converge" with charismaticism. Obviously, arguments will be needed. He gives us them. (If you want to learn more about it, then do read the review)
Anyway, I'm not exactly discussing Storms' book, but about the "Reformed Charismatic" group. Certainly, they have some great men of God at the helm. Without a doubt, their arguments sound convincing. But alas, I'm not.
I believe they have the right to call themselves Reformed Charismatics, but I'm not so certain whether the two would fit together exactly. For, the majority "Reformed" opinion has been that the gifts have ceased. That puts it right at odds with charismaticism.
I not about to launch into a critique of charismaticism (and a defense of the opposite view) here, but I would like to say that it certainly matters which side you're on. If you choose to implement tenets of two views together, then at least do it with lots of study.
I certainly am not complaining that non-cessationists have the right to hold to a "Reformed" tag, but I do believe that although Calvinism is certainly biblical, Charismaticism is not- hence, for me at least, those two words might be an oxymoron.
Of course I tremendously respect people like Grudem and Piper (They have been greatly influential in forming my beliefs on complementarianism and Calvinism respectively). But one certainly has to be aware that despite the seemingly good fruits of combining charismaticism and Calvinism together, the Word of God should always take precedence- even if it results in loss of something, be they charismaticism or Calvinism.
This entry was posted
on Friday, November 04, 2005 at 2:03 PM.
|
