What Exactly Is a Reformed Charismatic, Anyway?
Through Sovereign Grace and New Attitude, as well as the ministries of Josh Harris and C.J. Mahaney, I’ve become aware of this new (?) title of being a “reformed charismatic.” I understand what being reformed means. I would definitely call myself reformed. And I have a dim understanding of what being charismatic means, mostly in connection with the spiritual gifts and Pentecostalism. But I have to admit that I don’t understand the combination of the two or how that makes a Reformed Charismatic different from someone who’s only reformed, or only charismatic.
What I’ve read so far has convinced me that I really like this category. I have heard preaching connecting doctrine and life from reformed charismatics in ways that I’ve never heard it from anyone else. Their passion for both real doctrine and real life faith amazes me. But I don’t know if there are doctrinal intricacies that I’m overlooking or not understanding.
Any reformed charismatics out there willing to enlighten me a little? Anyone who wouldn’t classify themselves as such but who has a pretty good understanding of what it means?
5 Comments to What Exactly Is a Reformed Charismatic, Anyway?
I would be lying if I knew the exact definition.
But from what I can lift from the mighty works of Google is this: People who can have an emotionally experience with God and seek out sound, solid doctrine.
If this can be confirmed, then I can dig it.
Hi Anna
I come from an interesting church background having been a missionary kid for a good part of my life and so experiencing AOG and all kinds of stuff - but predominantly I’ve come from a Brethren background (with some similarities to Reformed - which is what my Dad grew up in) and now I go to a much more Charismatic (Vineyard) church where I think the balance is healthier. I absolutely love the depth and breadth of theological digging but it can’t stand on its own and well, Brethren recognize the Holy Spirit but really don’t spend any actual time there.
Soooo. I’m not sure how to give you a straight definition but I am going to recommend a book that is very helpful in looking at the differences (especially the good bits) of some church tradition/doctrine/position.
So: A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren and the subtitle (to give you some idea) is: WHY I AM A: missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished CHRISTIAN.
check it out, you don’t have to agree with all of it, I thought it was great and it definitely got my head ticking over.
Ran across your question while taking a break in a theology class and searching for “charismatic cathollic reformed” .. love McLaren’s work btw.
One place to begin exploring this world is the charismissional or post-charismatic world. Google “post-charismatic”
Interesting how there is so much willingness to embrace diversity and an unwillngness to settle for Word OR Spirit.. a desire to hold them together and walk in the “radical middle” (the title of a book that came out of the Vineyard movement. excellent)
grace on your journey!
len
November 26, 2007
Months later…
In the shortest sense you are reformed and charismatic. Some say reformed theology is simply calvinism, to which I disagree. Basically you believe in predestination, total depravity, security of salvation and so on. Basically, biblical. By the way, Puritans: reformed. Charismatic is a word used that has so many different meanings that Sovereign Grace is beginning to lean towards the phrase continuationist. Basically that there is no biblical reason to believe that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased.
January 19, 2008
“Basically you believe in predestination, total depravity, security of salvation and so on. Basically, biblical.”
Yes, if you are reading the bible in a modern context. But I wonder if any of the really early Christians, would have considered it so? Could it be that we see things in the text because we have been taught to look for them and actually we miss its original meanings because we have not tried to understand the original context but instead find evidence for our own theological positions?

August 20, 2007