Reformed vs. Charismatic: Some Quick Thoughts

I've been lightly following the discussion in the blogosphere between cessationist and continualist/charismatics. It's interesting to me because I came out of the charismatic tradition into the reformed camp, so I think I have a interesting perspective on the whole subject.

First, it strikes me as odd that being reformed is limited to the view that God is sovereign and believing in TULIP. There is so much more to the reformed position that I haven't seen expressed. Such as, being confessional. To me you can't call yourself "reformed" unless you hold to one of the historic protestant confessions like the Westminster Confession or the Belgic Confession. A person might not hold to every point in their particular confession, but realize the importance of confessioning what one believes. Another point missing is the means of grace. Historically protestants believed that the Holy Spirit operates within the means of grace: Word and Sacrament. But you don't hear the importance of that with Reformed Charismatics.

Second, it doesn't seem clear to me whether continualist are debating about particular gifts of the Spirit, such as what Grudam explains in his systematic theology, or is it the work of the Holy Spirit that has cessed? The reason why I asked this question is because if its the latter than of course you have a red herring fallacy. It seems to me the view is reformed churches in general don't experience the presence of God. So now the 'reformed' believers that want to stay reformed, but have a personal experience with God want to find the 'middle ground.'

This leads me to my final point. Did the Reformed-Charismatics forget the historical Reformed view of the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church and within the believer? Because it is one thing to say that you want a personal experience with God, but it is another thing to say that experience has to be tongues and prophecy.