Well, in a contrarian sort of way.
But I have always found it curious how Calvinists pile on Pentecostals for being good Pentecostals and bad Calvinists. When Pat Robertson discerns providence that’s because he’s not a Calvinist, who, along with Calvin say that to do so is to “enter a labyrinth from which there is no hope of return,” and confess with Belgic 13:
“…And, as to what he doth surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into, farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgments of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are disciples of Christ, to learn only those things which he has revealed to us in his Word, without transgressing these limits.”
The Pastor Pat’s of the world don’t subscribe to any of this. So what gives with all the condemnations of bonker-o-sity? Aren’t they a bit like blaming dogs for not being cats?
What is actually more interesting is when neo-Calvinists like John Piper think they can discern the secret will and divine providence of God. For whatever reasons, that tends to get lesser airtime in ostensible Calvinist environs. Thankfully, those of a more paleo shade of Calvinist light up at least a sliver of the Reformed world when the neo’s show their quests for illegitimate religious experience.
It just seems to me that prying open the heavelies is prying open the heavenlies no matter who is doing it. True enough, theological error should be called out for what it is, but I also wonder why so many of us go somewhat ballistic when those so badly prone to it do what they have always done. Somebody once said there is nothing new under the sun. I think he was really onto something.