Communion with God: Reformed vs Charismatic

  • Thread starter Deleted member 7239
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 7239

Guest
I would like to hear how you would describe the difference between proper vs improper communion/intimacy with God.

It seems like intimate knowledge and fellowship with God is what the neo-Pentecostals are very successfully offering (Hillsong, IHOP, Bethel, etc.) and people are responding.

How do we properly view intimacy with God without promoting a false-intimacy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to hear how you would describe the difference between proper vs improper communion/intimacy with God.

It seems like intimate knowledge and fellowship with God is what the neo-Pentecostals are very successfully offering (Hillsong, IHOP, Bethel, etc.) and people are responding.

How do we properly view intimacy with God without offering a false-intimacy?
Charasmatic viewpoint regarding spiritual communion with God is that they see us as not being people of the Book, but of the Holy spirit, and so while many see us as communing with God wheile reading and feasting upon the scriptures, they see that as being a more basic level, and that we need to directly be with God through the Holy Spirit now residing in us.
In the extreme forms of Charismatic experiences, they see Christians as being the same as Jesus was, as we now are "little gods".
 
Charasmatic viewpoint regarding spiritual communion with God is that they see us as not being people of the Book, but of the Holy spirit, and so while many see us as communing with God wheile reading and feasting upon the scriptures, they see that as being a more basic level, and that we need to directly be with God through the Holy Spirit now residing in us.
In the extreme forms of Charismatic experiences, they see Christians as being the same as Jesus was, as we now are "little gods".

Would you say the main difference is how we define "being led by the Spirit"?
 
Communion with God comes through the means of grace: the Word, prayer, and sacraments. It doesn't come through swaying back and forth while singing "praise chorus" mantras.
 
Would you say the main difference is how we define "being led by the Spirit"?
That would be one important criteria.

We have to understand that Guide is guiding us in our decision making processes, that what we are discovering as we work out things is not mere accident. I think Acts 17:16 offers an answer:

"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols."

I become very worried when people start saying, "the Lord spoke to me today" or "I don't do anything unless the Lord tells me to do it", etc., as if God is actually directly speaking to someone. God does not provide special revelation outside of his Word now that the foundation of our faith is laid in it by the prophets and apostles in His Word. Furthermore, God has told us not to seek "signs and wonders."

Rather than seeking the Lord to give us direct revelation, we should be content with God’s provision in His word (our only infallible rule of practice and faith) to guide us as to what is his will for our lives, what He commands us and expects of us concerning Him, and to know how great the love of Christ is to us.

Murray writes in The Guidance of the Holy Spirit:

“The moment we desire or expect or think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a direct intimation of us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or consists in such an intimation and is therefore in the category of special direction from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit. And this, in respect of its nature, belongs to the same category as belief in special revelation”​

Some will claim they had a vision about God's will or a burden about this or that, when what they really mean is that they had some "impression". If that impression is Scripturally sound, I think it proper to say the impression was a nudge by the Holy Spirit, just as Paul was "provoked within him" (Acts 17:16). Not a few persons expect some "road to Damascus" like answer from God, failing to note that Paul was not even looking for guidance from God on that fateful road!

We should also realize that not every non-moral decision facing us has a single right answer. Leveraging the factors described above, we must decide and trust that God will accomplish His will. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13).

To drive home the key point of being willing to obey when seeking guidance, I offer this humorous illustration:

A Christian hunter is hunting bears in the woods. While walking up a hill he grabs a branch for leverage and it breaks sending the hunter tumbling down the hill, rifle flying off elsewhere. When the hunter dusts himself off he sees a huge bear charging him. The hunter begins running, but trips and falls, landing on his knees. Seizing the opportunity, and being a good Christian, the hunter begins to pray, "Lord, make this bear a Christian."

The woods are quiet, the hunter turns and, Hallelujah! He sees the bear on his knees, paws together, praying! Listening, he hears the bear praying, "Father, bless this food to my body."​

God answers prayers of the righteous, but the answer you get may not be the answer you want, but it will always be the right answer. ;)
 
That would be one important criteria.

We have to understand that Guide is guiding us in our decision making processes, that what we are discovering as we work out things is not mere accident. I think Acts 17:16 offers an answer:

"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols."

I become very worried when people start saying, "the Lord spoke to me today" or "I don't do anything unless the Lord tells me to do it", etc., as if God is actually directly speaking to someone. God does not provide special revelation outside of his Word now that the foundation of our faith is laid in it by the prophets and apostles in His Word. Furthermore, God has told us not to seek "signs and wonders."

Rather than seeking the Lord to give us direct revelation, we should be content with God’s provision in His word (our only infallible rule of practice and faith) to guide us as to what is his will for our lives, what He commands us and expects of us concerning Him, and to know how great the love of Christ is to us.

Murray writes in The Guidance of the Holy Spirit:

“The moment we desire or expect or think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a direct intimation of us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or consists in such an intimation and is therefore in the category of special direction from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit. And this, in respect of its nature, belongs to the same category as belief in special revelation”​

Some will claim they had a vision about God's will or a burden about this or that, when what they really mean is that they had some "impression". If that impression is Scripturally sound, I think it proper to say the impression was a nudge by the Holy Spirit, just as Paul was "provoked within him" (Acts 17:16). Not a few persons expect some "road to Damascus" like answer from God, failing to note that Paul was not even looking for guidance from God on that fateful road!

We should also realize that not every non-moral decision facing us has a single right answer. Leveraging the factors described above, we must decide and trust that God will accomplish His will. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13).

To drive home the key point of being willing to obey when seeking guidance, I offer this humorous illustration:

A Christian hunter is hunting bears in the woods. While walking up a hill he grabs a branch for leverage and it breaks sending the hunter tumbling down the hill, rifle flying off elsewhere. When the hunter dusts himself off he sees a huge bear charging him. The hunter begins running, but trips and falls, landing on his knees. Seizing the opportunity, and being a good Christian, the hunter begins to pray, "Lord, make this bear a Christian."

The woods are quiet, the hunter turns and, Hallelujah! He sees the bear on his knees, paws together, praying! Listening, he hears the bear praying, "Father, bless this food to my body."​

God answers prayers of the righteous, but the answer you get may not be the answer you want, but it will always be the right answer. ;)
I agree with your assessment. I wonder if there are charismatics who subscribe to sola scriptura or if that is an oxymoron. I've heard charismatic types say that Reformed tend to downplay the leading of the Spirit. In actuality we simply have a different definition of what it means to be led by the Spirit of God.
 
I know its hard to pinpoint where we and other theological views depart from each other, but where would you say that happens for the Reformed and Charismatic types? Is it an overall hermeneutical difference? What would you say?
 
I know its hard to pinpoint where we and other theological views depart from each other, but where would you say that happens for the Reformed and Charismatic types? Is it an overall hermeneutical difference? What would you say?

The departure happens early, in my estimation. Much of the movement is a-theological and a-scholarly. Why would it be different when feelings are king? There is not one N.T. scholar, not one Systematician, not one prominent theologian from the camp we might call "Charismatic" that pops in my head. For most other groups, usually a name of someone will come to mind.....not here. The arguments I've heard from them are frequently atomistic and anti-contextual when trying for a biblical case.
Guys like Piper get much more grace from me as they are trying to be scholarly and faithful. I wouldn't put them in the same camp.....:2cents:
 
Last edited:
I agree with your assessment. I wonder if there are charismatics who subscribe to sola scriptura or if that is an oxymoron. I've heard charismatic types say that Reformed tend to downplay the leading of the Spirit. In actuality we simply have a different definition of what it means to be led by the Spirit of God.
Many in the Charismatic movement though would see God as still giving forth additional revelations in addition to the scriptures, as modern Apostles and Prophets will give forth from the Lord to us in their view. That is why they rely so much on the personal aspect of being "guided and led" by the Holy Spirit, as if the scriptures are OK to them, but that fresh and new revelation is more important.
 
The departure happens early, in my estimation. Much of the movement is a-theological and a-scholarly. Why would it be different when feelings are king? There is not one N.T. scholar, not one Systematician, not one prominent theologian from the camp we might call "Charismatic" that pops in my head. For most other groups, usually a name of someone will come to mind.....not here. The arguments I've heard from them are frequently atomistic and anti-contextual when trying for a biblical case.
Guys like Piper get much more grace from me as they are trying to be scholarly and faithful. I wouldn't put them in the same camp.....:2cents:
There are among them some such as Dr Grudem, Dr Fee, and Dr Piper who at least are trying to keep to a solid foundation stance, as they see certain gifts still operating, but are solid on the Gospel and main doctrines, unlike many in the Charismatic movement that have really bad theology.
 
That would be one important criteria.

We have to understand that Guide is guiding us in our decision making processes, that what we are discovering as we work out things is not mere accident. I think Acts 17:16 offers an answer:

"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols."

I become very worried when people start saying, "the Lord spoke to me today" or "I don't do anything unless the Lord tells me to do it", etc., as if God is actually directly speaking to someone. God does not provide special revelation outside of his Word now that the foundation of our faith is laid in it by the prophets and apostles in His Word. Furthermore, God has told us not to seek "signs and wonders."

Rather than seeking the Lord to give us direct revelation, we should be content with God’s provision in His word (our only infallible rule of practice and faith) to guide us as to what is his will for our lives, what He commands us and expects of us concerning Him, and to know how great the love of Christ is to us.

Murray writes in The Guidance of the Holy Spirit:

“The moment we desire or expect or think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a direct intimation of us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or consists in such an intimation and is therefore in the category of special direction from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit. And this, in respect of its nature, belongs to the same category as belief in special revelation”​

Some will claim they had a vision about God's will or a burden about this or that, when what they really mean is that they had some "impression". If that impression is Scripturally sound, I think it proper to say the impression was a nudge by the Holy Spirit, just as Paul was "provoked within him" (Acts 17:16). Not a few persons expect some "road to Damascus" like answer from God, failing to note that Paul was not even looking for guidance from God on that fateful road!

We should also realize that not every non-moral decision facing us has a single right answer. Leveraging the factors described above, we must decide and trust that God will accomplish His will. "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13).

To drive home the key point of being willing to obey when seeking guidance, I offer this humorous illustration:

A Christian hunter is hunting bears in the woods. While walking up a hill he grabs a branch for leverage and it breaks sending the hunter tumbling down the hill, rifle flying off elsewhere. When the hunter dusts himself off he sees a huge bear charging him. The hunter begins running, but trips and falls, landing on his knees. Seizing the opportunity, and being a good Christian, the hunter begins to pray, "Lord, make this bear a Christian."

The woods are quiet, the hunter turns and, Hallelujah! He sees the bear on his knees, paws together, praying! Listening, he hears the bear praying, "Father, bless this food to my body."​

God answers prayers of the righteous, but the answer you get may not be the answer you want, but it will always be the right answer. ;)
I had to deal with this truth when departing from Pentecostal circles, namely that in the scriptures God already and is still speaking to us, and that witness is always infallible.
 
I had to deal with this truth when departing from Pentecostal circles, namely that in the scriptures God already and is still speaking to us, and that witness is always infallible.

I still struggle with relating to God properly and I think it's from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. It's tough to fully recover from bad practical theology.

What was the hardest part to adapt to when you came out of the Pentecostal church?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Communion with God comes through the means of grace: the Word, prayer, and sacraments. It doesn't come through swaying back and forth while singing "praise chorus" mantras.
Good--you are saying that we should only seek to experience true communion with God through the ways he has established. This makes a good point. We shouldn't attempt to commune with God where he hasn't promised to be commune with us.

Why do you think Christians seek to commune with God apart from his appointed means? Maybe an over realized eschatology? An expectation of his presence that we only will have in glory?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is not one N.T. scholar, not one Systematician, not one prominent theologian from the camp we might call "Charismatic" that pops in my head.
J. Rodman Williams would be the only true systematician I could name.

(I'm only familiar with him because we were members of the same church for a while!)
 
Last edited:
I still struggle with relating to God properly and I think it's from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. It's tough to fully recover from bad practical theology.

What was the hardest part to adapt to when you came out of the Pentecostal church?

The hardest part is to unlearn all the bad theologies. The best thing to do is to soak your mind with B.B. Warfield and Hodge teachings. Study church history from John Wycliffe to Jonathan Edwards. And lastly, read the bible from cover to cover 2x a year.
 
The hardest part is to unlearn all the bad theologies. The best thing to do is to soak your mind with B.B. Warfield and Hodge teachings. Study church history from John Wycliffe to Jonathan Edwards. And lastly, read the bible from cover to cover 2x a year.

Yes it's definitely a lifelong process of renewal of the mind. 10 years ago I started reading the Bible in 90 days every Jan 1 and it's probably what has led to me becoming Reformed. It allows me to get the big-picture view of Genesis-Rev. Warfield's essays on the Holy Spirit are good. Scripture memory and meditation on the truths of scripture has also been indispensable to me.

All this being said, old habits die hard. It's an ongoing renewal process as with all of us.
 
I still struggle with relating to God properly and I think it's from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. It's tough to fully recover from bad practical theology.

What was the hardest part to adapt to when you came out of the Pentecostal church?
There seems to be extremes on this, as some see Jesus as being their big Brother, while others see Him as the stern taskmaster and judge. We must get to a biblical based understanding on how he relates to us now once saved by the grace of God.
 
I think that Dr Grudem also would be a ST who accepts some of the Charasmatic Movement doctrines and theology.

Though more a "b" level theologian, I still wouldn't put Grudem in with the run-o-the-mill charismatic movement types. I believe he wishes to come to the text for correction, even if many conclusions are wrong.
 
Unsuspecting Christians coming into or growing up in the evangelical, non-confessional climate, routinely hear and see it affirmed that we can expect today the same type of "leading" that Elijah (the famous still, small voice) and the apostles received. There is no understanding in that climate that we're not to expect those experiences, and why. Even evangelistic but Calvinistic/cessationist pastors I've known struggle to explain why we are no longer to expect such direct messages and direction. The Baptist and other bookstores are full of books by Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer telling women how they too can (and should) hear directly from God for guidance. It's in the PCA too, sad to say.
 
Though more a "b" level theologian, I still wouldn't put Grudem in with the run-o-the-mill charismatic movement types. I believe he wishes to come to the text for correction, even if many conclusions are wrong.
Though I agree that Wayne Grudem is scholarly, his section on prayer in his systematic theology may have helped make the idea of hearing from God apart from Scripture more mainstream than ever.
 
Though I agree that Wayne Grudem is scholarly, his section on prayer in his systematic theology may have helped make the idea of hearing from God apart from Scripture more mainstream than ever.

Good catch, Jeri. I am unfamiliar with that work of his.
 
Unsuspecting Christians coming into or growing up in the evangelical, non-confessional climate, routinely hear and see it affirmed that we can expect today the same type of "leading" that Elijah (the famous still, small voice) and the apostles received. There is no understanding in that climate that we're not to expect those experiences, and why. Even evangelistic but Calvinistic/cessationist pastors I've known struggle to explain why we are no longer to expect such direct messages and direction. The Baptist and other bookstores are full of books by Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer telling women how they too can (and should) hear directly from God for guidance. It's in the PCA too, sad to say.

Yes-- I was surprised how popular Jesus Calling became also. Do you think that the popularity of these types of books address a problem that we as the church should be addressing or is it just standard idolatry? It seems like they are filling an emotional need that isn't being met.
 
Though more a "b" level theologian, I still wouldn't put Grudem in with the run-o-the-mill charismatic movement types. I believe he wishes to come to the text for correction, even if many conclusions are wrong.
I would classify him as being A level for today, and agree with you that he is not a full on Charismatic, but he is sympathetic to some of their views regarding sign gifts for today.
 
Unsuspecting Christians coming into or growing up in the evangelical, non-confessional climate, routinely hear and see it affirmed that we can expect today the same type of "leading" that Elijah (the famous still, small voice) and the apostles received. There is no understanding in that climate that we're not to expect those experiences, and why. Even evangelistic but Calvinistic/cessationist pastors I've known struggle to explain why we are no longer to expect such direct messages and direction. The Baptist and other bookstores are full of books by Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer telling women how they too can (and should) hear directly from God for guidance. It's in the PCA too, sad to say.

This is an interesting area, as while the scriptures are indeed the word of the Lord speaking to us today, and fully sufficient, we still at times due get convicted/led/nudged by the Holy Spirit to speak to someone, to become aware of a situation, for examples.
 
Though I agree that Wayne Grudem is scholarly, his section on prayer in his systematic theology may have helped make the idea of hearing from God apart from Scripture more mainstream than ever.
He has departed from the scriptures only tosome degree, by redefining what things such a sprayer and prophecy are for today.
 
Do you think that the popularity of these types of books address a problem that we as the church should be addressing or is it just standard idolatry?
I think the teaching of those books does (harmfully) fill a void that's present. The void comes from the failure to teach what Scripture is and how the Holy Spirit works through God's word that we may know him so intimately and be sanctified and filled with wisdom. So I think many Reformed/confessional churches, thankfully, are teaching and living out experientially the warm truths summarized in our confession and written about in the Reformers' and Puritan writings. But I think it's hard to get a hearing for it in too many of the less confessional churches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is an interesting area, as while the scriptures are indeed the word of the Lord speaking to us today, and fully sufficient, we still at times due get convicted/led/nudged by the Holy Spirit to speak to someone, to become aware of a situation, for examples.
The problem with using language like that- that the Holy Spirit nudges, prompts, moves us, etc. to do or say something- is that it's really, in the end, just the same as saying that he 'tells' us to do or say something. Rather, we should think of events as providential and not try to pry into the secret things of God. We are to strive to act and speak from wisdom informed by the teaching of Scripture. We got the idea of being nudged and prompted (led) by the Holy Spirit to do and say things from our wrong understanding of descriptive vs. prescriptive passages of Scripture. If you keep those distinctions in mind, you'll see that nowhere in the Bible are we directed to expect such immediate "leadings" of the Spirit. It's very freeing (as the truth always is) to grasp this. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top