In positively contending for the merger of the Reformed tradition and Continuationism, my plan has been to do so by concisely addressing common rebuttals and misunderstandings that presently exist. In previously look at common rebuttals at such a cross pollination, it’s important to define how I do and do not use Continuationism and Reformed.
What Continuationism is Not
Since many people misunderstand what Continuationism means, and since I don’t know exactly how everyone else uses the term, I think it’s best for me to begin by saying what being a continuationist does not include, at least for me:
- Continuing revelation, as if God is adding words and pages to the Bible,
- A second baptism with the Holy Spirit that is evident by speaking in other tongues,
- ESP, Fortune Telling, Magic, Astrology, or Palm Reading that people look to for direction
- Uncontrollable laughter and convulsions
- Spiritually induced drunkenness,
- Barking like dogs,
- Oinking like pigs,
- Gold dust falling from the sky and the changing of peoples teeth fillings into gold,
- Living extravagant lifestyles on the financial “seeds” of others,
- Perpetual health and wellbeing, or
- Blowing people over with a breath of air or the waive of your hand
Now that I’ve got this out of the way, I hope that the path is clear for me to explain what I mean by being a continuationist without being mislabeled and misunderstood.
What is Continuationism?
A Continuationist is a person who believes that every gift of the Holy Spirit continues today (Sam Storms, Convergence, pg. 21). In particular, a continuationist is a person who believes that the revelatory gifts, such as tongues, prophecy, and words of knowledge and wisdom continue, as well as the working of miracles and the gift of healing still continue today, and have done so throughout history in varying degrees (Rom. 12.3-8; 1 Cor. 12.4-11; Eph. 4.11)
I know that many will have a hard time accepting that a person can be a continuationist, yet claim that no new revelation is being given by God. There will be some that are skeptical of God working miraculously through people without confirming new revelation. But now that we know how I’ll use the word continuationist, I now need to clarify what I mean by being Reformed. This is a great question and one that has sparked much controversy.
Squabbles over Etymology
Ever since Collin Hansen penned his journalist ventures with the “New” Calvinist in Young, Restless, and Reformed, there seems to have been a lot of ink spilled and keys typed in defining what it means to be Reformed.
Even though I could be wrong, it seems that much of this debate didn’t come to surface following Hansen’s book. To me it seems that this debate heated up after Mark Driscoll originally responded to an article in Time Magazine that dubbed the “New” Calvinism as the third greatest idea changing the world right now.
Writing in response to this article, Mark Driscoll wrote a pithy comparison of the “old” and “new” Calvinism. With this post on Resurgence many took odds with Driscoll’s comments. In particular, R. Scott Clark – Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California – took odds with Driscoll. Dr. Clark’s qualms were not with Driscoll’s profane rampages or culturally fashionable garb. Dr. Clarks misgivings with Driscoll was over his self-identification as Reformed.
In March 15, 2009 Dr. Clark took up verbal arms with Driscoll in writing a post entitled Calvinism Old and “New.”
After briefly addressing some misunderstandings surrounding what it means to be a Calvinist, Dr. Clark fired off the following remarks:
There is precious little evidencethat the doctrine confessed and preached at Mars Hill Church is Reformed. There’s little evidence that Mars Hill is a recognizably Reformed congregation. Compare the Mars Hill doctrinal statement to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Standards. The doctrine of the continuing work of the Spirit confessed by Driscoll and Mars Hill Church is closer to that of the Anabaptists than it is to Calvin (who regarded the Anabaptists as “fanatics”), Beza, the Synod of Dort, or the Westminster Assembly. The doctrine of baptism confessed by Driscoll and Mars Hill Church is exactly opposite that confessed by all the Reformed Churches since the earliest 16th century.
Not only did Dr. Clark rattle off these remarks, he concluded his post by saying,
Better, however that he and we be honest about that fact that Pastor Driscoll isn’t actually a Calvinist. He may not be pleased with the “old” Calvinists but at least they were actually Calvinists.
Even though I greatly appreciate the work that Driscoll is doing through Mars Hill Church, Acts29, The Resurgence, and would have no qualms serving under or alongside of him, I do have to side with Clark on this matter.
Now, if this is the case and Mark Driscoll is not Reformed in the technical, historical, etymological sense of the word, even if he adheres to predestination, then what does it mean to be Reformed?
Is this just a game of semantics?
In following the lead of Dr. Clark in answering this question, we have to look no further than how Reformed Churches have defined themselves throughout history than the confessions she embraces.
Reformed Churches throughout history have accepted such documents as The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, the Heidlerberg Catechism, and the Baptist Confession of Faith as an accurate systematization of the Christian faith “that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So, to be Reformed means to embrace the Christian faith as it is expressed in these documents.
Although such beliefs as the Five points of Calvinism (i.e. T.U.L.I.P.) and the sovereignty of God are tenants of the Reformed tradition, holding to such convictions alone no more makes someone Reformed as does being born in the Bible Belt makes a person a Christian. Such an understanding of Reformed is a limited expression of a historical tradition that proclaims a whole system of thought for life, faith, and church polity.
I know, I know, this does seem like a game of semantics and petty. But then again, is it?
Is someone a Christian just because they were born in the Bible Belt, signed a card, prayed a prayer, or knelt down at an altar? Is someone a Baptist if they baptize someone? Is someone a Presbyterian if they baptize infants? Lest I regress, you get the point.
Personally, I’m O.K. with someone calling themselves Reformed and/or Calvinist even if they only adhere to the Five Points of Calvinism, because I know what they’re getting at. The only reason I’m addressing the meaning of Reformed is to make my point clear. When I use the term Reformed, I mean it in the historic sense.
With this being the case, here’s the million dollar question, “Is there such a thing as a Reformed Continuationist?”
Is there such a thing as a Reformed Continuationist?
Technically speaking, no. Based upon the historical meaning of Reformed a person cannot adhere to both the Reformed tradition – which is overwhelmingly cessationist – and the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit at the same time.
But does this mean that someone cannot hold to the Reformed tradition while embracing the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit? Personally, I think not.
Continuationism can be understood underneath the umbrella of the Reformed Tradition without having to change or give-up other portions of the historic confessions. It is for this reason that I began this piece by emphasizing how I’m not using continuationism so that I can dispel any misunderstandings. In my opinion, based upon the books I’ve read and the people I’ve spoken with, many erroneously lump everybody under the same label with the same beliefs when they say they’re either a Charismatic or Continuationist .
For a list of posts on Reformed Continuationism, check-out the category with the same name.
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post:
Related posts:
- Reformed Continuationist: The Gifts of the Spirit were not Confined to the Apostles Some oppossing the continuation of the gifts of the...
- Reformed Continuationist: Why the Gift of Prophecy Does Not Undermine the Authority of the Bible In 1 Corinthians 14.30 we observe that prophecies are...
- Reformed Continuationist: The Abuse of the Gifts of the Spirit do not Undermine their Credibility Today The continuation of the gifts of the Spirit is...
- Reformed Continuationist: Why Ephesians 2.20 does not Disprove the Continuation of the Gifts of the Spirit Based upon Ephesians 2.20, some argue that since the...
- Reformed or Calvinst? From Alister McGrath’s, A Life of John Calvin, pgs....
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Leave a Reply