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.
I grew to love my pastor's preaching though.