Spiritual Gifts and Reformed Theology: Can They Co-exist?, Part 2
3) Confining spiritual gifts to conversion: By the time of the Reformation, Christian mysticism had developed into several different strands. The mystical treatises previous to Luther’s time always emphasized the availability of God’s presence in a post-conversion state, similar to the doctrines of sanctification and the baptism in the Holy Spirit of the Holiness and Pentecostal traditions. But Luther consciously rejected these mystics and chose to draw from the work of John Tauler and the anonymous Theologia Germanica instead. Both of these works (and subsequently Luther) taught that all the gifts you need you receive at conversion alone. There is no post-conversion experience and the gifts these works cite are the Isaiah list passed down through Scholasticism. This is really the first place that the idea of “one baptism, many fillings” shows up in Christian history. Any experience a believer can have originates strictly at the salvation moment. There is no baptism in the Holy Spirit other than what the Holy Spirit does to enforce the saving work of Christ.
Because of all of this, Luther’s commentaries pass over most passages that describe Jesus’ healings in the gospels. Miracles have passed away and “no new and special revelation or miracle is necessary” since an “immeasurably greater and more glorious work and miracle” is found in salvation. Tongues is no longer given since the church speaks all languages and only “fanatical spirits and sectarians” would seek such a gift. Luther, like Gregory before him, attaches merit to not seeking spiritual gifts since “nobody should presume to exercise it if it is not necessary or required.” The inference here is that since God determines all detailed events in life by his sovereignty, the need for signs and wonders should never arise. A miracle would contradict the natural order and ultimately contradict God’s predetermined will.
Calvin towed the line, stating that healing “had its beginning from the Apostles, which afterwards, however, was turned into superstition, as the world almost always degenerates into corruptions.” His cessation sentiments are similar to those before him: “[The possibility of spiritual gifts] either does not exist today or is less commonly seen.” Counterfeit miracles are determined by their association with wrong doctrine rather than their supernatural nature. For Calvin, the more charismatic gifts of 1 Corinthians have mutated into more permanent gifts of the intellect – tongues is seen as the ability to preach in a foreign language and the gift of discernment is the ability to rationally determine false doctrine. That sounds alot like the Reformed tendencies of today to me.
4) Modern expressions of these issues: Charismatics maintained a distinct post-conversion experience until the rise of the the Third Wave movement in Pentecostalism. Beginning in the 1980s with its influence continuing well into the 1990s, the basic premise of Third Wave groups is to embrace the move of the Holy Spirit, particularly the aspects of healing, deliverance, intimacy of worship, and spiritual warfare without disrupting the general church structures or denominations of which they are apart. The phrase was coined by C. Peter Wagner, who spearheaded the doctrinal emphasis of the movement. On a practical level, however, John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement were the driving force behind the Third Wave phenomenon. Wimber, once an associate of Chuck Smith, would eventually separate from Calvary Chapel due to his emphasis on spiritual gifts while choosing to retain a Reformed approach to doctrinal issues. Similarly, Wagner cites a Reformed-based approach to spiritual gifts in describing Third Wave doctrine. This is particularly evident in the Third Wave belief that the baptism in the Holy Spirit only occurs at conversion with multiple fillings that may resemble what Pentecostals would normally consider a second experience. Once again, “one baptism, many fillings” is directly imported from the Reformed tradition. Also, common the Third Wavers is the absence of the gift of tongues. Though the Third Wave movement made some charismatic manifestations acceptable in mainline denominations, it aggressively minimized the distinctive phenomena that had characterized the Pentecostal movement since its inception. Following its Reformed roots, the Third Wave essentially made Pentecostalism non-Pentecostal.
Many theologians, although accepting limited roles of experience, reject a secondary post conversion event. James Dunn, Max Turner, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen restrict forms of Spirit baptism to the conversion experience. Unfortunately, even some Pentecostal theologians have gone along with the crowd. Assemblies of God theologian Gordon Fee followed the Reformed tendency to see sanctification as merely a “metaphor for conversion.” So even though charismatic manifestations are now acceptable, all historical attempts to integrate spiritual gifts into Reformed theology have consistently resulted in the diluting of spiritual gifts. Reformed attempts to integrate spiritual gifts have generally left charismatic Christianity a mile wide and an inch deep. History proves this to be true. And though it’s not the popular opinion, I just can’t accept that. I can’t help but feel that Christian spirituality is meant to be deep and event-laden. To minimize the charismata is remove one of the main points of intimacy between us and God. Though others see the gifts as expendable, I’ll take them every time. Can spiritual gifts and Reformed theology co-exist? If historical precedent is any indication, the answer is no.
10 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (6)
- September 2009 (9)
- August 2009 (11)
- July 2009 (9)
- June 2009 (12)
- May 2009 (13)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (18)
- February 2009 (12)
- January 2009 (11)
- December 2008 (12)
-
Categories
- American Idol
- atheism
- athletics
- Bible
- books
- business
- calvinism
- children
- Christianity
- church
- church history
- consumerism
- culture
- dad
- diet
- divorce
- entertainment
- eschatology
- exercise
- Extreme Makeover
- family
- father
- football
- forgiveness
- gay
- George W. Bush
- God
- Holy Spirit
- homosexual
- humor
- husbands
- internet
- Jesus Christ
- Joel Osteen
- leadership
- lesbian
- life
- literature
- love
- marriage
- medicine
- Methodism
- Methodist Church
- missions
- mom
- mother
- music
- New Age
- occultism
- open theism
- parenting
- philosophy
- politics
- praise and worship
- preaching
- Process Theology
- psychology
- Reformed theology
- religion
- science
- sociology
- spirituality
- sports
- technology
- The Shack
- theology
- Uncategorized
- wicca
- wives
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

The larger problem with reformed anything is that its opinions are subject to the reformer. If something is misunderstood or disliked it is generally dismissed. I am not deeply studied or educated in this field so my comments are limited to the scope of my experience. I firmly believe in an ongoing outpouring of God’s spirit through the various gifts and miracles seen in the Bible. It always amazes me when scholars ignore certain parts of the Bible while using others to make their point. 25 years of experience tells me that what was then is for now.
Just a thought, Glenn Smith Jr
Comment by kingdomkeysbooks | May 8, 2009 |
Hi Glenn –
You’re right – people are bound to filter (“reform”) their theological positions through the lens of what makes them comfortable or understandable, often with an air of superiority. Though the historical understanding of “Reformed” is different than that, your point is still very much accurate. Mainly I believe the issue is one of control – and many chairsmatic gifts seem “unsafe.” You would think the massive global adherence to a belief in spiritual gifts would deter some from watering down their power. But alas, theology rarely is done with the world in mind; it rarely escapes the opinions and context of the writer.
Thanks for comenting,
Sam
Comment by Sam | May 8, 2009 |
At the same time, modern pentecostal theology was built off of experience, not exegesis. This is something that all parts of the church seem to be guilty of on one level or another. A true reform perspective, considering total depravity and irresistible grace etc., leaves no room for pride…and yet pride still exists. The same can be said of the pentecostal circles. There is no room to take pride (a self-righteous, divinely opposed pride) in a gift you have been given. Yet, we see pride run free in many of our charismatic churches.
Ultimately, the desire for control is a lack of faith in the sovereignty of God an can be referred to as an idol. It seems that the issues in our churches are more related to each other at the heart than we commonly recognize.
P.S. I would recommend checking out Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. Mahaney. They are based out of Maryland, have churches all over the U.S., hold to reformed theology for the most part, and yet are active in the 1 Corinthians 12 gifts. The way they apply order to their use while encouraging their activity, though, is awesome to me. A mentor of mine was involved in one of their congregations, so that is where my information has come from. I’m not sure if they have any official documentation on the topic, but if they do, I’m sure it would be interesting. I know that Bob Kauflin has done work on prophetic worship. Just some thoughts.
Comment by Daniel | November 11, 2009 |
Hi Dan -
Good points. Pentecostal theology deeply values experience, and (as you said) all theological perspectives have a level of experience or personal perspective that informs exegesis. In this way all exegesis has a bit of eisegesis as well. I don’t know that that’s anything to be “guilty” about. Your example of pride is a great one – that’s not really a experience issue as much as a human issue, though. We see pride “run free” anywhere we see people. That’s part of the human condition, not a spiritual gifts issue. God decided in his sovereignty to involve humans in the history of redemption, fully understanding their propensity towards self-preservation, fear, and pride.
“Ultimately, the desire for control is a lack of faith in the sovereignty of God an can be referred to as an idol. It seems that the issues in our churches are more related to each other at the heart than we commonly recognize.”
I completely agree. Their outward manifestations may change, but often the need for control lies at the root of our decisions. Much of church history has to do with issues of authority and control rather than doctrinal issues (though much is couched in doctrinal dialogue).
Thanks for the recommendation on Mahaney – I’ll check him out…
Sam
Comment by Sam | November 12, 2009 |
excellent posts sam.
“Reformed attempts to integrate spiritual gifts have generally left charismatic Christianity a mile wide and an inch deep.”
I think this is where much of the AG is right now… (well, large parts of it). A lot of what is read in AG schools are reformed in their bent (one example would be using Bryan Chapell’s Christ Centered Preaching book for preaching courses). In addition not a few professors in the AG schools all have training in expressly Reformed seminaries, for example RTS, Westminster, Gordon-Conwell, etc.
One large influential AG church recenly had Mark Driscoll come and speak at a marriage conference they had and the church bookstore is replete with John MacArthur books and John Piper books.
This was deeply concerning to me on a number of levels – and these posts are bringing some clarity for me as to why.
Thanks,
Brian
Comment by brianfulthorp | May 8, 2009 |
Brian, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the posts – thanks for linking to them. You’re examples are perfect for what I’m talking about. On a popular level and an academic one, people often miss the incongruency of a Reformed outlook and the practical integration of charismata. It’s like oil and water – you can vigorously shake them and keep them together (especially at times of high popularity like today) but eventually, history shows they’ll separate.
Comment by Sam | May 8, 2009 |
One more note…seeing as our theological foundations should be based on proper exegesis…and our experiences should be interpreted through this lens…I don’t think it is biblical to describe reform circles and charismatic circles as inevitably separate. This is a direct contradiction to the words of Christ, when praying to the Father in gethsemane. He says in John 17:22: “22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.” In context, the purpose of this unity is the proclamation of the gospel. It is a stretch, but an argument can be made that, according to this passage, the biggest cause of heathenism in the world today is our disunity. The hard part is, who moves first? The pentecostal brother feels that the reform brother hinders the spirit. The reform brother feels that the pentecostal brother all too often focuses on the gifts of the spirit at the expense of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ…ultimately defeating the purpose of the faith.
Tough scenario. I personally believe that these “Reform Charismatics” may be God’s provision to us and our greatest leaders. Just a thought.
Comment by Daniel | November 11, 2009 |
I agree – unity is the goal. However, there remain some serious obstacles to reconciling the Reformed tradition and the charismatic one. Some of these topics have been broached – there’s plenty of scholarship that explores their congruence. The main problems have to do with sequential issues regarding Paul in contrast to the Luke-Acts narrative. I side with the Luke-Acts erspective and believe Paul writes with that position in mind. Others (mostly Reformed) feel that Pauline understandings about the Spirit takes precedent. I don’t feel comfortable doing that at the expense of the gospels. Over time, a consensus will emerge. “Reformed charismatics” are welcome to be the answer as long as they hold true to the charismatic distinctions by which they call themselves. Otherwise, they need to pick another name that doesn’t confuse those who already see the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as a separate and secondary experience from conversion.
Comment by Sam | November 12, 2009 |
[...] and in more posts to come he’ll address 3) confining spiritual gifts to conversion, and 4) modern expressions of these issues. [...]
Pingback by Reformed and Charismatic? « συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life | May 8, 2009 |
Hi Sam, I appreciate your article very much. I’m wondering if you could let me in on the location of your sources and quotations. Specifically, the scholastic mystic sources that Luther rejects, Luther’s treatment of tongues and other charismata, Luther and Gregory’s virtue of not seeking spiritual gifts, and the Calvin quotations on the gifts. This would be a huge help to me as I am a Ph.D. student working on a theology of the charismata and in the middle of my literature review.
I can be reached at benjamin@livehope.us if you have the time to help me.
thanks,
Benjamin
Comment by Benjamin Robinson | July 2, 2009 |