This post is the third in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction
Are there incompatibilities?
When you really listen hard, what does Phillip Jensen actually offer as incompatibilities?
As hard as I tried, I could only find two: Second Baptism, and the Authority of the Scriptures.
Baptism of the Spirit
On this issue, I’m with D. A. Carson, who says “Although I find no biblical support for a second-blessing theology. I do find support for a second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-blessing theology.” (Also on this team: Stott, Piper, Lloyd-Jones, D. L. Moody, Jonathan Edwards and so on)
Phillip Jensen asserts that there are 7 references to baptism of the Spirit in the Bible and that all refer to regeneration, so any second (third, fourth) blessing theology is fundamentally at odds with reformed views on regeneration.
Here are all 7. I’d argue, actually, that only one refers to regeneration.
Jesus says in Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” What event happened just days after Jesus said this? Pentecost, where the already regenerate disciples (see John 15:3-4) who already had the Spirit (see John 20:21-22), were filled, baptised in the Spirit. And this is something subsequent, quite apart from the work the Holy Spirit has already done in regenerating them.
The first 6 references clearly all refer to that baptism. The 7th, 1 Corinthians 12:13, is not concerned with the Baptism of the Spirit at all, but rather with regeneration. I’ve argued this elsewhere.
So the charismatic position is that the Holy Spirit is essential in regeneration (and is thus compatible with reformed theology) and also that the baptism of the Spirit is subsequent to that regenerating act. There is no incompatibility.
Authority of the Scriptures
This is a tired argument: the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. Any charismatic idea of prophecy being God speaking today tends to push us away from the Scriptures.
Well, that is certainly a temptation… which is why the Bible clearly instructs us to test prophecies and only hold on to what is good (1 Thes 5:19-21). Of course the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. No charismatic gift can replace that; nor is any necessary. And that perfect, inspired Word is precisely the means by which all prophecy is tested.
Yet God still blesses the church with prophets in grace that goes beyond what is merely necessary, whose authority is less than the Bible. And we are told not to despise them (1 Thes 5:20).
What Phillip is identifying here is not a disagreement, but rather a danger. The danger is that we might forget that Scriptures are the highest authority. Yes, it is a danger, but it is not a disagreement.
(Just like non-Charismatics face the same danger from reason and experience.
The topic of prophecy is a good example. Even though Paul talks about prophetic powers of understanding all mysteries (1 Cor 13:2) and lists it with healings, miracles, tongues, and distinguishing Spirits (1 Cor 12:9-10), Phillip has no experience in such extraordinary prophecies. Therefore, he interprets Scripture under the authority of his experience and so redefines prophecy to mean the preaching of Christ. So we’re all prophets, we all teach about Christ. He justifies this with Revelation 19:10, arguing it equates testimony about Jesus with prophecy. It doesn’t, it merely says that prophecy is to testify to Jesus, and so John is a fool to worship the angel.)
Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?