"Phonity. noun: superficial unity for which fundamental differences are ignored."

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
SharperIron's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 6/29/09
Posts: 1686
"Phonity. noun: superficial unity for which fundamental differences are ignored."

Tags: 

“As long as Reformed—which I assume to be cessationist*—and Charismatic Christians continue to pretend the differences between them are minor and sweep them under the couch, their unity is fake, false, phony, fraudulent, and fraught with failure.” Phonity

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6638
Does anyone happen to know?

Who is The Thirsty Theologian?

Thanks

 

Offline
Since
Sat, 4/16/11
Posts: 32
David Kjos?
Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
The reason for the phonity, as far as I can tell

is spelled P-I-P-E-R, with a dose of G-R-U-D-E-M on the side. Piper is the uber-leader of the young and reformed crowd. He is so fashionable. Well, he believes in Charismata Lite...not too much, but just enough to get you going in the morning. A little prophecy (hey, its not scripture, it must be "judged"), a little Spanish tongues to help you if you get lost in Monterrey for some reason, etc. But, certainly not a full-blown Charismatic. Healing gifts? Why not...but not like Kenneth Hagin or Copeland or Benny Hinn. Add a little CCM and its all good! On top of that, he is a theologian turned "Pastor for Preaching and Vision" (whatever that means...I guess it means don't call me at 2am if you're sick in the hospital...or if you need a funeral service), and now a retiree. So, he is legitimate.

Surprisingly, he has even drawn so called young fundamentalists his way.

Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 873
some comments

rambling thoughts here, as I have now gained a bit of real life experience with charismatics ...

They are our brothers and sisters.

Yes, I have met several who are terribly ungrounded in Scripture and who tend to be unstable and even unethical/immoral as a result.  (There is one particular church here that is huge and this seems fairly pandemic. But they are very evangelistic. The pastor.)

I have met several who are very grounded in Scripture and wonderfully stable and godly.

They have a very high regard for pastors.

They have women pastors--although I don't know if they are actually ordained women pastors here--they just have a lot of "pastors" it seems.

I try to be gracious and not judge them because I assume that I also have glaring faults in some beliefs about God that I don't see.

I don't like the way fundamentalists respond to charismatics by acting as God's gatekeepers in how He is or is not allowed to communicate to us or work among us. I think there are normative ways God communicates to us and works, and we should not search for nor expect "ecstatic" things, but I don't think we should say God is not allowed nor will ever do certain personal things. I think that may even be blasphemous of us in a sense.

Offline
Since
Thu, 10/1/09
Posts: 341
Anne Sokol wrote:I don't

Anne Sokol wrote:

I don't like the way fundamentalists respond to charismatics by acting as God's gatekeepers in how He is or is not allowed to communicate to us or work among us. I think there are normative ways God communicates to us and works, and we should not search for nor expect "ecstatic" things, but I don't think we should say God is not allowed nor will ever do certain personal things. I think that may even be blasphemous of us in a sense.

Absolutely true Anne. My entire life I have struggled with the fundamentalist dogmatism about the ceasing of sign gifts when the Bible is not dogmatic about it at all.

Offline
Since
Mon, 7/4/11
Posts: 26
Mark, is your sarcasm

Mark, is your sarcasm justified? How about fair?

he is a theologian turned "Pastor for Preaching and Vision" (whatever that means...I guess it means don't call me at 2am if you're sick in the hospital...or if you need a funeral service), and now a retiree.

I happen to agree with the basic point that Piper (and Grudem) helped to legitimize this (unfortunate) marriage between Charismaticism and Reformed theology. But I can appreciate some of his other contributions without resorting to the kind of vinegar you're sprinkling about here.

Does that make me one of those "so-called young fundamentalists"?

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
GregH

Have you ever seen a sign gift in operation? I am NOT asking if you have ever heard of an answer to prayer for healing, for example. I am asking if you have ever observed the "gift of healing" where a person laid on hands and a physical disability immediately was healed? Or, some other dramatic miracle that can be attributed to a gift of the Spirit in operation in an individual?

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 956
Mark, how do you know John

Mark, how do you know John Piper has never been called at 2am for a hospital call? Are you suggesting he never does funerals?

Even if these two things were rare, are you suggesting it is wrong for a senior pastor to delegate some aspects of pastoral ministry? Or should each pastor do everything in the church for everyone?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
I don't know

The side comment was meant to figure out what "Pastor of Preaching and Vision" means. Do you know?

 

Nonetheless, focus on the thread, which is the connection between Charismatics and Calvinists. Clearly, as a Calvinist who is a continuationist he has been responsible to a significant degree for the relationship between the two.

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
To directly answer you Greg

To me...

Pastor means I do it all.

Senior Pastor means I do the administration plus some of the personal ministry but I delegate to others under as well

Pastor of Teaching and Vision means I preach...and dream up new things to do, but don't bother me with the administration or personal ministry.

Offline
Since
Sun, 6/7/09
Posts: 84
Mark_Smith wrote: The side

Mark_Smith wrote:

The side comment was meant to figure out what "Pastor of Preaching and Vision" means. Do you know?

If you were reading the title with as much charity as you'd expect your own words to be read, I don't think there's even anything worth explaining. It's self-explanatory. But I'll take a shot anyway: first, you're dealing with a plurality of elders, so there's no "senior pastor." And in that plurality the work is going to be divided up by gifting (which only makes sense.) So one is going to naturally carry more administrative workload, one more counseling workload, etc. (obviously this doesn't mean exclusivity, but a larger portion.) And so the one gifted most strongly for teaching is going to shoulder the majority of the teaching load. Vision just means that by virtue of the fact that you're shouldering the bulk of the teaching load you're going to naturally have the most practical influence on setting the vision for what the church is going to look like (as you're the one doing most of the communicating of that vision to the congregation as a whole.)

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1739
The side comment was meant to

The side comment was meant to figure out what "Pastor of Preaching and Vision" means. Do you know?

If that was what you wanted to know, then why the s[n]ide comment? Why not just ask? Or better yet, use Google.

The first thing that comes up when you Google "Bethlehem Baptist Church pastor of preaching and vision" is this: http://www.hopeingod.org/job-description-pastor-preaching-and-vision

You will be able to find an answer to your question there.

In a church that large, someone in Piper's position doesn't do much hospital visitation, funerals, or the like. I listened to him recently where he lamented that fact. But it's probably reality in a large congregation where priorities have to be drawn up and tasks delegated. My guess is that most people were not at Bethlehem because Piper had a great bedside manner in the hospital, or knew just the right words to say as the dirt was hitting the casket. They were there for his preaching.

But let's not detract from this any further.

Piper's popularity is not due to his continuationism. It is due to his preaching and writing. Grudem's popularity is likely due to his systematic theology which is very usable in many ways. I doubt anyone likes either one primarily because of their view on the gifts. Other things are far more prominent.

What does that matter? In this particular article, I think there is a good point, that many overlook significant things for the sake of a faux unity. And that is wrong, not to mention dangerous. However, that does not mean that these men or others like them have nothing of value.

 

 

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
Exactly Larry

They like his preaching and teaching. They then see he is a continuationist. They then start to move in that direction.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3533
Ignore

Let me encourage everyone here to review Mark Smith's posting history - especially his emphasis on CCM and glossalalia - and decide for themselves whether or not this is a discussion that is worth pursuing.

It seems pretty clear to me that Mark is not really here to discuss - just to gore his particular oxen.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
So Jay

Type cast me...I see. 

 

ONCE AGAIN this thread is about the connection between Calvinism and Charismatics. I mentioned the popularity of it comes from Piper/Grudem...and you try to type cast me. That is very low of you sir. Jay...has Piper had a major role to play in the cozy relationship between Calvinists and Charismatics?

 

Imagine, a fundamentalist against tongues...and he's castigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
Piper

doesn't believe in "gibberish" tongues, but the "human" language variety. Correct?

 

Edit-- As Larry suggested, I googled "Piper tongues" and found this

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/piper-on-prophecy-and-tongues

 

I didn't realize Piper was that far into continuationism. I was under the impression he was a little shallower. 

 

 

Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 873
wait a sec

M_S, I don't think anyone is promoting tongues speaking here. I think they are just more concerned with your lack of discussion/argumentation skills.

 

I just wanted to clarify that what I said about fundamentalists setting themselves up as God's communication gatekeepers: I'm not necessarily talking about sign gifts themselves. I just have observed that we tend to go overboard in limiting how God, through the Spirit, works in us, communicates to us, etc., generally.

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
Anne,I want this thread

to be about Calvinism and its connection to Charismatics.

Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 873
it is an interesting discussion actually

because one guy in our church brought this up with our international singles group. they advertise on social media, so it's a mix of baptists, pentacostals, charismatics.

And he was saying, why do we allow this when they have such serious doctrinal fallacies--believe in apostleship, revelation, etc.

It's made me wonder if there are systematic theology books by charismatics that spell all this out, b/c it's kind of a hodge-podge of understanding it, from what I've experienced.

Like most of them don't think their daily "visions" or revelations are on the level of Scripture revelation, if you press them, I don't think. Though they might act on it with that level of surety for a time.

I was in a directors meeting once, and the head guy had us all close our eyes for several minutes to see what visions God would give about a particular issue. then they went around and shared them, trying to observe how they were related to the issue at hand. 

They tend to pray very loudly; I haven't yet figured out the significance of this. Some, when they speak in tongues, it's just a clicking sound. Others, it sounds more like language. I have never seen it where it's obviously a work of the Spirit though.

Anyway ...

I have wondered if it will come a time in the US  when protestants will work together more because there will be so few. I have only had contact with them because of my pro-life work. But I'm glad for the experience. I've never really been in a conflict-of-interest with them doctrinally really. Our work together has a different focus.

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
Anne, you know the irony

I generally consider myself a pretty lenient fundamental Baptist. I use non-KJV bibles. I happen to like Petra, the CCM rock band, though I would never use it in church and I rarely listen to them today, etc...I am certainly not a Calvinist though. And I am no longer a Charismatic and I try to fight against that error when I can.

 

But compared to the POSTERS at Sharper Iron I sound like Jack Hyles.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3533
Well said

Mark_Smith wrote:

Anne, I want this thread to be about Calvinism and its connection to Charismatics.

Which is why your posting history is germane.  Pointing that out is not an attack, a typecast, or being castigated.  You want me to stop pointing it out?  Then don't post repeatedly on one topic.

Mark, you can attack me all you want.  If you want to start a thread about Calvinism and Charismatics, stop hijacking other threads and go start your own.  This thread is about false unity, not Calvinism/Charismaticism bashing. 

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
Jay

This thread IS about Calvinism and Charismatics!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I suggested the false unity comes from Piper/Grudem. Other people then started drifting from that attacking me.

I didn't start it.

 

Am I wrong?

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1739
They like his preaching and

They like his preaching and teaching. They then see he is a continuationist. They then start to move in that direction.

Maybe, maybe not.

I want this thread to be about Calvinism and its connection to Charismatics.

But Calvinism is not connected to Charismatics, and this thread is about the article linked to above which is about ignoring differences in important issues.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

 

 

Offline
Since
Mon, 7/4/11
Posts: 26
Other people then started

Other people then started drifting from that attacking me.

Asking you to justify a disparaging and gratuitous comment about someone is attacking you?

(And to answer a question you asked earlier: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/piper-on-prophecy-and-tongues)

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
OK

I'll leave. The thread issue is being ignored. Have a nice day. 

 

I NEVER hijacked the thread. This thread is about the connection between Charismatics and Calvinists. The starting link sought to remind people of the difference. I suggested Piper was a cause of the false unity. That is all I'll say since the topic has degenerated.

Offline
Since
Mon, 7/4/11
Posts: 26
Larry: I don't see how

Larry: I don't see how Charismaticism & Calvinism are irrelevant to this discussion. The quote in the OP includes both (considering the obvious connection between Calvinism and Reformed theology).

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1739
Did you read the article? It

Mark_Smith: This thread is about the connection between Charismatics and Calvinists.

Dan B.: I don't see how Charismaticism & Calvinism are irrelevant to this discussion. The quote in the OP includes both (considering the obvious connection between Calvinism and Reformed theology).

 

Did you read the article? It is about cessationism and continuatism. The Reformed bit only comes when he defines them by the line "which I assume to be cessationist." Everything in the article is about cessationism, not about Calvinism. Every instance of "Reformed" is a substitute for "Cessationist." In fact, I just did a quick search (that didn't even need Google), and found that he doesn't use "Calvinist" or any derivative anywhere, not even in the "quote in the OP."

The issue in the article is that cessationists and continuationists are sweeping major differencesunder the rug when they should not, and he even describes them, none of which have to do with Calvinism. There is no mention in the article of Calvinism or any of its distinctives or beliefs. The issue is cessationism vs. continuationism.

Offline
Since
Fri, 11/5/10
Posts: 93
To your question re:Piper

Mark,

I don't think that Piper has been all that influential on the specific issue connected to continuationism. I say that mainly because more people than not have been surprised when I have told them that he is a continuationist. Clearly he is, but it is also clear that he has not made that a dominant note of his public ministry (aka outside of BBC).

Grudem has been more influential in attempting to lay a foundation for continuationism--in fact, Piper had him in to lead one of their pastor's conferences years ago as Piper was becoming more open about this matter. I'm not certain, though, that many people have even read Grudem's work on prophecy.

In reality, it was probably more works like Carson's Showing the Spirit and a load of other works in the 80s and early 90s that paved the way. Long before I had heard of Piper or Grudem, exegetical defenses were being made by those who were wrestling with the Third Wave movement. the cumulative effect of those defenses did more to create an openness toward the gifts than any particular popular preacher.

I think, too, that this is not a Calvinistic issue--there have been defections from the cessationist position across the board. It probably seems more significant mainly because the Calvinists were so vocally cessationist during the Pentecostal and Charismatic aspects of the movement. The Third Wave forced a number of younger Calvinist exegetes to engage the issue in the 80s and many of them came away less convinced of their forefathers' defenses.

As an aside, but I think a pertinent one, the shift toward a more Kingdom now theology in evangelicalism (already-not yet/realized eschatology) probably has more to do with this than is often recognized. John Wimber, a chief figure of the Third Wave, openly said that his views were the outgrowth of what he learned re: inauguarated eschatology/kingdom theology under Ladd. He thought that a cessationist view of inaugurated eschatology was unfaithful to the text. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him--I have never understood the halfway house that wants the presence of the kingdom without the signs of the kingdom. Wimber, I think, was right to say you have to choose one or the other. I think he chose wrongly, though.

DMD

Offline
Since
Mon, 7/4/11
Posts: 26
Larry, point taken that this

Larry, point taken that this is not the focus of the article. And, yes, of course I read the article.

The Reformed bit only comes when he defines them by the line "which I assume to be cessationist."

I find that bit to be intriguing, that's all. Did you notice that the text you quoted has an asterisk which points to this article? That's why I thought this wasn't totally irrelevant to the article.

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
I feel I must say this

The  blog starter is the Thirsty Theologian. He is clearly a Calvinist. I was using Calvinist as a synonym for Reformed. He uses the "sola gratia...semper reformanda" in his title. The man is a Calvinist. OK.

The actual text has near the beginning "As long as Reformed—which I assume to be cessationist*—and Charismatic Christians continue to pretend the differences between them are minor and sweep them under the couch, their unity is fake, false, phony, fraudulent, and fraught with failure." He assumes all Reformed believers are cessationist. That is his point. He provides a link to another article making the same assertion. In that article there is a picture that features none other than Grudem, Piper and Mark Driscoll. Clearly though, not all Reformed believers are cessationist. Some have drifted over into continuationism.

 

The author is speaking to Reformed believers, asking them to reconsider the fashionable connection among some of them with Charismatics. I addressed that by suggesting that one reason for the appeal between Reformed believers (i.e. Calvinists) and Charismatics is continuationist leaders like Piper and Grudem.

Donn R Arms's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 74
Mark_Smith wrote: I'll

Mark_Smith wrote:

I'll leave.

I knew it was too good to be true. I was thankful as the moderators seem to have abandoned this thread. When Dave Doran weighed in I was doubly thankful. Dave has a way of settling a matter when he writes.

Donn R Arms

Offline
Since
Fri, 6/26/09
Posts: 166
Mark_Smith wrote: The  blog

Mark_Smith wrote:

The  blog starter is the Thirsty Theologian. He is clearly a Calvinist. I was using Calvinist as a synonym for Reformed. He uses the "sola gratia...semper reformanda" in his title. The man is a Calvinist. OK.

The actual text has near the beginning "As long as Reformed—which I assume to be cessationist*—and Charismatic Christians continue to pretend the differences between them are minor and sweep them under the couch, their unity is fake, false, phony, fraudulent, and fraught with failure." He assumes all Reformed believers are cessationist. That is his point. He provides a link to another article making the same assertion. In that article there is a picture that features none other than Grudem, Piper and Mark Driscoll. Clearly though, not all Reformed believers are cessationist. Some have drifted over into continuationism.

 

The author is speaking to Reformed believers, asking them to reconsider the fashionable connection among some of them with Charismatics. I addressed that by suggesting that one reason for the appeal between Reformed believers (i.e. Calvinists) and Charismatics is continuationist leaders like Piper and Grudem.

 

Mark, I think it is important to recognize the difference between Reformed Theology, Calvinism (and for that matter, Covenant Theology). They are distinct theological concepts and they are not equivalent terms to each other. You are muddying the waters by 1) making these terms synonymous, and 2) by understanding them to be necessarily pejorative.

As someone who enjoys the writings of Piper and Grudem, I can assure you that I have not automatically taken any theological position merely because Piper believes it. I am certain that there are some that have an undue acceptance of all the teachings of Grudem and Piper, but I doubt that they even comprise a significant minority.  It is an interesting hypothesis...but it is certainly un-quantifiable and it does not appear to pass the "sniff test."

Overall, I think that your intent was to stay on topic. Perhaps you were a target of unwarranted castigation for straying from the topic. However, you have opened yourself up to some criticism because of your not-so-subtle digs at various topics along the way (i.e. "bashing" Piper and Grudem [too strong?], dismissing "CCM" [however you define it], mocking a pastoral title that you weren't familiar with, and generally attacking Calvinism). You can certainly entertain all of your opinions on these topics...but don't expect others to give you a free pass.

May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1739
I was thankful as the

I was thankful as the moderators seem to have abandoned this thread.

Hi Donn, My name is Larry. Have we met??

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
So just to be clear

What is the difference between Calvinist and Reformed? Why the reaction to it? Is it that Reformed adds in paedo-baptism, covenant theology to so called Calvinism? By Calvinism I mean TULIP, in a nut shell.

 

I have hovered over at James White's Alpha and Omega blog and website and never noticed them make a distinction between Calvinist and Reformed.

Offline
Since
Fri, 6/26/09
Posts: 166
Basically

Reformed theology is so-called for its systematization and reemphasis during the time of the Reformation. The basic points of Reformed Theology are summarized in the five solae (Scriptura, fide, gratia, Christo, gloria Deo). Though it shared these solae with the Lutheran church, the term "Reformed" came to be used to distinguish this branch of Protestantism from the Lutherans. It is almost always Covenantal and most frequently Calvinistic. Arminian theology is actually an off-shoot of Reformed theology. However, Arminius' infamous umbrage with Calvinism has led some to assume that Calvinism and Reformed theology are equivalent. You may realize, depending on your view of Baptist origins, that Baptists are within the realm of Reformed Theology (broadly speaking), though they might wish to distance themselves today. The Reformed Church is not necessarily the perfect embodiment of Reformed Theology.

Covenant Theology explains God's plan for the universe in terms of Covenants. Initially, the Covenant of Redemption is the consensus of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to create mankind and redeem then redeem him. According to Covenant Theology, this covenant is implicit unless one is to believe that Redemption is "Plan B." The Covenant of Works is the Creator/Creation agreement between God and Adam whereby Adam will have life in exchange for Obedience. As a created being, Adam was still entirely dependent on God's grace. After the Fall, mankind could no longer fulfill their end of the Covenant of Works. With the proto evangelium, God instituted the Covenant of Grace whereby man could receive life by faith implicitly (OT Saints) and explicitly (NT Saints) in Jesus Christ. This was the position to which almost all early Baptists would have held. Basically, Covenant Theology sees one implicit agreement and two explicit dispensations (If you read Hodge or Berkhof, you will actually see the word "dispensation" as opposed to "covenants").

In theological writings, Calvinism specifically refers to the concepts outlined by "TULIP," as you have referenced. They cover issues of Anthropology, Hamartiology, and Soteriology. They affirm man's utter depravity, God's sovereignty in salvation, the limited efficiency (but unlimited sufficiency) of the atonement, the complete efficacy of God's call (and the complete inefficacy of man's will), and God's power to save, sanctify, and glorify the believer. Of course, TULIP can be distorted so as to be unrecognizable to a Calvinist and abhorrent to anyone. But rightly understand, the five points of Calvinism provide the framework on which evangelicalism has been built. Certainly, there are evangelicals that are neither Reformed (select Catholics, select Lutherans, Baptists?, etc) nor Covenantal (the several flavors of dispensationalism), but I am hard pressed to understand how an evangelical is not Calvinistic to some extent on these points. (Mark, this last statement is one of those Easter eggs that I suggested that you occasionally drop in your posts. I apologize for it, and hope that we can discuss it in another forum).

I am certain that others can find fault with this basic comparison of these three distinct, but related theological constructs. You will notice a complete absence of citations...please comment accordingly. I also recognize that it is somewhat off-topic....hopefully it won't distract from the actual discussion.

May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch

Mark_Smith's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 4/29/13
Posts: 428
Thank you Todd

Thank you Todd

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/30/09
Posts: 487
Mark,   It is my opinion that

Mark,

 

It is my opinion that the influence of Piper and Grudem has affected this generation's view of the cessationist/continuationist debate.  Their popularity makes the acceptance of continuationism more palatable in Calvinistic circles.  In fact I spent considerable effort trying to undo Grudem's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 in my Th.M. thesis for DBTS.  I am thankful that MacArthur is making this issue a major theme in his next conference.  As a Calvinistic dispensationalist I am opposed to continuationism.  I share the author's concern. On a more personal note, I am glad that you left the charismatic movement and see the problems in the the CCM world.  Also, a big thank you to Todd and Dave for their clear delineation of both the recent history of continuationism and clarification of the distinction between Calvinism and Reformed Theology.

Pastor Mike Harding

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/7/11
Posts: 332
labels and unity

This recent article describes Driscoll (a continuationist) as "conservative Reformed, or New Calvinist" and it highlights Driscoll's latest sermon series in which he's publicly saying cessationists are wrong. It doesn't sound like he's interested in being united with cessationists. In fact, he distances himself from cessationists with public statements that say they are flat-out wrong. Also, Driscoll is a continuationist who's referred to as "Reformed" and "Calvinist."

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3533
Driscoll

I'm not sure why people on SI keep pointing to Mark Driscoll.  He's got so much theological baggage and so many oddities that I'd be surprised if many here agreed with his position or espoused his particular variety of Christianity.

I say that because more that a few have thrown his name out as someone that users of SI or young fundamentalists support, and I've never seen that to be the case here. 

 

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/7/11
Posts: 332
Jay wrote, I'm not sure why

Jay wrote,

I'm not sure why people on SI keep pointing to Mark Driscoll.  He's got so much theological baggage and so many oddities that I'd be surprised if many here agreed with his position or espoused his particular variety of Christianity.

I say that because more that a few have thrown his name out as someone that users of SI or young fundamentalists support, and I've never seen that to be the case here.

 

I can't speak for anyone but myself, so here goes:  My comments were simply an observation, not an indictment of SI users or young fundamentalists. I thought it was pertinent to the two-pronged discussion going on here: labels and unity. My comments were not about who supports or disagrees with Driscoll or whether or not that occurs here on SI.