For reasons which I have never really understood, there are many Christians who assume that the two theological terms “reformed” and “charismatic” are mutually exclusive, as if they were opposites. Yet the opposite of reformed is arminian, and the opposite of charismatic is cessationist. It should be clear, therefore, that these terms could easily be combined in four different ways. For example, it does not take long to find Arminian Cessationists. It was with incredulity that I recently listened to a preacher, expounding his belief in cessationism, and quoting extensively from Norman Geisler. Geisler was certainly a learned theologian. But he did not, for example, believe in the biblical timescale for creation, as outlined in Genesis. Nor did Geisler accept the five points of Calvinism. He did, however, hold to the belief that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit had ceased.
So, before we proceed, we had better define these terms. Reformed theology largely follows the soteriology (doctrines of salvation and how it happens) as described by the reformer John Calvin. Therefore, those who hold to reformed theology are often referred to as Calvinists. Arminians generally hold a view opposed to this, believing in the autonomy and free will of he human spirit, rather than the sovereignty of God in all things, including soteriology. Arminians would say they were following the ideas of Jacob Arminius. This is not the place to examine the bunny trail of whether or not Arminius was really closer to Calvin’s ideas, rather than those of his claimed followers.
A charismatic believes that the Gifts of the Spirit, including the miraculous gifts, are still available today, and will continue until Jesus returns. Many Reformed Charismatics would probably prefer the term Continuationist, in order to distinguish themselves from the excesses that are seen in many aberrant charismatic churches and leaders. Charismatics are similar to Pentecostals in belief - distinguishing between these schools of thought is usually not so much a matter of doctrine, rather than a matter of their history.
There are those who say that the historic confessions of reformed theology do not allow for miraculous gifts today. For example, the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith states, in chapter 1:
It pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His church; and afterwards 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 Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
At first sight, one might assume that this refers to the cessation of the Gifts. On closer inspection, however, we realize that what is being referred to is the cessation of biblical revelation; i.e. the Canon of Scripture is closed, and there will be no more books added to the Bible.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is similar, but concludes:
Those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now completed.
This completion clearly refers to the Bible itself being closed. A Reformed Charismatic, such as myself, would concur that biblical revelation has ceased. But we deny that gifts such as tongues or propecy are revelatory in nature. They do not add anything to the closed Canon of Scripture, and nor should they be used in such a way. Indeed, the weighing of such gifts should include, first and foremost, a test of whether a word of prophecy, for example, is adding to or even contradicting Scripture. If it were, then this would or should lead to the rejection of that word of prophecy, and the criticism of the one giving the “prophecy”.
With these provisors, we can see that it is perfectly possible to be a Reformed Charismatic. Indeed, there is much evidence that a minority of Puritans held to such a position, and this was also the position of the Scottish Reformers.
I hope to be able, in subsequent articles, to put a good deal of flesh on these bones. These articles will clearly be critical of cessationists. However, they will also be critical of any charismatics, as much confusion and error has taken root in such churches, and these errors, to my mind, inform a great deal of the anecdotal foundational arguments of the cessationists.