EPC, Women's Ordination, & Confessionalism

[Austin]

Steve: absolutely. Those I know who believe this say that it is a private prayer language by which the Spirit encourages the hearts of the person so endowed. For many it seems to be occasional, not something that they can 'learn' (which is, in my mind, heterodox at best) or do all the time. Others who claim to have experienced it (particularly on the mission field) do it "decently and in good order" by having an interpretation. I have also heard people of a Reformed bent apply the rubric of Moses to words of knowledge (i.e., if it comes to pass, well & good, if not, then it was not of God). As far as a word of knowledge, or prophecy, I know a CRC minister who has an inexplicable insight into the lives of people with whom he ministers. Most of them come from a very troubled background (ritual, sexual abuse, drug problems, etc) and he has been able in prayer with them to note things which they've never told anyone, and which he would have no way of knowing. Now, as these things have been used by God, under the oversight of solid sessions/consistories, and to the edification of the flock, I a extremely reticent to judge it as being anything but of the Spirit.

As I say, I have not personally experienced these things, but those whom I know who have are Christians whose theology I deem orthodox. Another note is that most of the people i know who've experience these things (in my circles) were cessationists (more or less) prior to having these experiences. Almost universally, they are people who wouldn't have believed it unless they'd experienced it.

 

[Scott1]

To merely think God may "gift" someone in "this" way does not make one a charismatic or pentecostal.

So, to be clear, you believe that someone could be "gifted" with tongues, yet neither be charismatic nor Pentecostal? If so, that's a novel idea - one that I would be interested in exploring further. If not, then it is not "much ado about nothing."

To be as clear as possible:

1) Charismatic/pentecostal communions are centered on seeking extra biblical revelation as an ordinary means of grace, and particularly as a focus of corporate worship

2) They are identified by teaching and practicing of a second means of grace, "a baptism of the Holy Spirit" separate from the Holy Spirit's work at salvation, evidenced by some I Cor. 12 spiritual gift

Neither of these propositions are biblical, not in light of the completion of Scripture. They are not compatible with reformed theology.

One does not have to believe these things above,

but might instead say something like

1) God might extraordinarily provide revelation (only saying it is possible, because God is not limited by anything)

2) or a manifestation of this kind of gift might have a personal, exhortation (faith building) purpose still (only saying possible, again because God is not limited by anything)

(If I'm understanding, this is more what Austin is getting at by his comments)

But neither of those beliefs would make the person, or the communion "charismatic" or "pentecostal"- not at all.

Does that make sense?

 

[Austin]

Oh, I thought of another example over dinner. The minister who was my college pastor is a very 'weak kneed charismatic' (if you will). He was, as far as I know, more or less a cessationist until one evening he was at worship when he was a Ruling Elder (before he went to seminary). There was someone at a prayer meeting who started speaking in tongues. While this was going on (and while he was, I imagine, rolling his eyes), he suddenly had this sense that he had an interpretation. He was quite uncomfortable with this, but Paul's injunction about having an interpretation came to mind, and so he shared what was 'laid on his heart.' (He did it simply out of obedience to the Word of God as he understood it, not as something he wanted to do.) Anyhow, it turned out to be an accurate word of knowledge (or prophecy). No one was more surprised than he! Anyhow, this was not something he spoke widely of, but it was something that he experienced. And this man is a Reformed minister whose theology I consider above reproach. Until he shared this with me, I was a cessationist (more by reaction against 'chaismatic/pentecostals' than real consideration). However, since that time I have met a number of such individuals who've had odd experiences such as these. Some may say that these things are flukes, or psychological oddities, but as I find no explicit warrant in Scripture for the 'gifts of the Spirit' (or whatever you want to call them) ceasing, I find myself a reluctant, 'closet charismatic.'

Thoughts?

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

Scott: that makes perfect sense. And that's what I am indeed referring to. I use the term 'charismatic' b/c I don;t know of another term to use. Perhaps the right word would be 'non-cessationist.' I dunno. Anyone have a good term?

 

[Steve Curtis]

To merely think God may "gift" someone in "this" way does not make one a charismatic or pentecostal.

So, to be clear, you believe that someone could be "gifted" with tongues, yet neither be charismatic nor Pentecostal? If so, that's a novel idea - one that I would be interested in exploring further. If not, then it is not "much ado about nothing."

To be as clear as possible:

1) Charismatic/pentecostal communions are centered on seeking extra biblical revelation as an ordinary means of grace, and particularly as a focus of corporate worship

2) They are identified by teaching and practicing of a second means of grace, "a baptism of the Holy Spirit" separate from the Holy Spirit's work at salvation, evidenced by some I Cor. 12 spiritual gift

Neither of these propositions are biblical, not in light of the completion of Scripture. They are not compatible with reformed theology.

One does not have to believe these things above,

but might instead say something like

1) God might extraordinarily provide revelation (only saying it is possible, because God is not limited by anything)

2) or a manifestation of this kind of gift might have a personal, exhortation (faith building) purpose still (only saying possible, again because God is not limited by anything)

(If I'm understanding, this is more what Austin is getting at by his comments)

But neither of those beliefs would make the person, or the communion "charismatic" or "pentecostal"- not at all.

Does that make sense?

I guess I am taking issue with your blanket characterizations of “charismatic/Pentecostal.” For one thing, you seem to think that the only distinguishing attribute between charismaticism and Pentecostalism is the necessity of speaking in tongues.

I would argue that Pentecostalism is indeed a theological system that does, as you suggest, expect a second experience after and, essentially, superior to the work of salvation, which is evidenced by speaking in tongues. However, charismaticism does not necessarily hold the same view. As I tried to explain, and as Austin’s examples explain, there are many with solid orthodox theology who experience the “sign” gifts without attributing it to a baptism of the Holy Spirit distinct from that which occurs at the moment of salvation (1 Cor. 12:13).

In #28, you said “But the difference between charismatic and pentecostal has been that while both believed in a second work of grace after salvation, a "baptism of the Holy Spirit," separate from salvation, Pentecostals believed it is necessarily accompanied by speaking in an unknown tongue- whereas charismatics, not necessarily, could be any one of the I Cor. 12 gifts. That has been the differentiating.” I am not sure where that quote came from, but it would certainly not be accepted by many of the charismatic churches and Christians with which I am familiar.

I also would disagree with your generalization that:

“Charismatic/pentecostal communions are centered on seeking extra biblical revelation as an ordinary means of grace. . . They are identified by teaching and practicing of a second means of grace, "a baptism of the Holy Spirit" separate from the Holy Spirit's work at salvation, evidenced by some I Cor. 12 spiritual gift.”

That may be how some people identify them, but that is not how all charismatic churches would identify themselves. Setting aside the spurious union of the two groups, I don’t think that such a statement fairly represents all charismatic communions. Many, many churches that allow or practice the gifts are by no means “centered on seeking extra biblical revelation.” In fact, many would repudiate the very notion. The position taken by many who are Reformed in their theology and yet also accepting of charismaticism goes something like this:

If one person were to stand up in a church in America and declare something that is wholly consistent with God’s Word but said it in Swahili and another person stood up and translated that statement into English, how is that extra-biblical revelation? Granted, there may be issues of who should be preaching/exhorting, etc. and other legitimate issues, but it hardly rises to the level of extra-biblical revelation – it is, in fact, biblical revelation, though perhaps reworded in the same way the pastor “rewords” the message of Scripture in his sermon as he expounds upon it. So what if God gave a person the “gift” of being able to speak in a tongue he didn’t know previously, or gave to another the gift to interpret a language he didn’t now previously?

We may wonder why this exercise would take place, why God would use such means. We may certainly even question whether He, in fact, does. But before you can refute the position of sincere believers – many of whom are committedly Reformed – you have to correctly relate that position. Building straw men about all charismatic communions being “centered on seeking extra biblical revelation” is, quite frankly, counterproductive.

Having said all of that, I must confess that I have never “sought” nor experienced anything like the so-called sign gifts. I have never been involved with a church that even practiced them. I am only concerned with at least acknowledging the convictions that are held by many that I know and respect. I would wholeheartedly agree that Pentecostalism is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. However, though as I said I am not a charismatic, I agree with Austin: “I find no explicit warrant in Scripture for the 'gifts of the Spirit' (or whatever you want to call them) ceasing.” That being said, unlike Austin, I am not a “closet charismatic; I am simply frustrated with generalizations and straw men.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

When I came into the OPC from the EPC, I knew I’d be asked about charismatic gifts, experiences and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. I prepared a statement to share with the credentials committee and presbytery, which in part said:

There are no miraculous or extraordinary spiritual gifts validating God’s Revelation today, nor is any new Revelation given. The Canon is closed, God’s Special Revelation complete. Thus defined, God’s extraordinary activity has ceased.

.....

“God in his ordinary providence makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above and against them, at His pleasure.” (WCF V:3) Although there are no extraordinary works of God to confirm additions to His Word, a Sovereign God may use special providential means to guide, deliver or protect His people, especially in times of persecution, hardship, or advancement of the Kingdom, never as a contradiction, an addition to, or with the infallible certainty of canonical Revelation, but “as gracious intimations of the will of God, granted to them in answer to prayer, for their own encouragement or direction” (McCrie, Story of the Scottish Church). Scripture does not forbid one to pray for God’s special providential intervention to deliver beyond His ordinary workings through man and nature. ...



Regarding EP and the EPC: The first EPC GA I attended was in 1989 in St. Louis (their 9th). An invitation came to participate in an international Psalmody Conference at Bonclarken (ARP) Conference Center in the late summer of 1990. The Committee reported back to the floor a recommendation to decline the offer as the EPC was not Exclusive Psalmody.

I said to my wife, “The invitation said nothing about Exclusive Psalmody; but it is a conference on the singing of Psalms. That’s part of our heritage; Let’s go.”

Which we did. As far as I know, we were the only members of the EPC at that conference; one of the best conferences I’ve ever attended, at which there were people from at least 17 denominations and possibly five countries.

Thus, began my understanding and appreciation of metrical Psalmody. I introduced the singing of Psalms in my home missions work in Eastern Kentucky, noting it was part of our Appalachian Ulster-Scot heritage. Twenty years later, I now hold Exclusive Psalmody convictions, which would be difficult to maintain if I were still within the EPC, and are somewhat "inconvenient" even in the OPC.

I pray EPC officers and congregations might come to a fuller understanding of Regulative Principle Worship and sing more Psalms, even if they are not EP.

 

[Austin]

I was just recently singing a metrical version of PS 121 to my son as were looking at the mountains north of Tucson during his bedtime. It was a great time of fruitful discussion for my son (almost 6 years old) and myself.

"I lift my eyes to the hills, from whence cometh my help? My help is from the Lord our God, maker of heaven & earth."

It's nice that the version I have memorized is in both English & Hebrew.

Esai enai
El he-harim
Me-ayim yavo ezri
Ezri meyim Adonai
Ose shamayim va-aretz

El yaten lamot ranlecha
El yanum shomrecha
Hine lo yanum
Va-lo ishan
Shomer yisrael

I lift up my eyes
Unto the hills;
From whence shall come my help?
My help is from the LORD our God,
Maker of heaven & earth.

He will not give to the moving of your foot,
Nor shall slumber He who keeps thee.
Behold He’ll not slumber
Nor will He sleep;
He who keeps Israel.”

 

[Scott1]

kainos01
I would wholeheartedly agree that Pentecostalism is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

Yes, in some important ways- e.g. necessary "second work" of Holy Spirit, extra-biblical revelation through unknown tongues/intepretation as ordinary means of grace and as center of corporate worship, plus...

Arminian influence, dispensationalism, no confession.

That's why there is such disorder in communions that denominate themselves that way.

In line with the original post,

That's why it's so important for a reformed denomination to settle these parameters, and not leave them open for individual interpretations under notions of "liberty."

That's necessary for the peace and purity of the church, and that's reformed.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Boliver: I forgot that Buck was there. When I started in CSP he was at a different church. But yeah, everyone loves Buckoli.

It is funny but my first service at CEPC, Buck preached. It was an amazing sermon on grace. My wife and I looke at each other and said this where we are going to church. We came back next weekand to our surprise, Buck did not preach! I grew to love my pastor's preaching though.