>

Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Daily Bible Verse

Sunday, January 28, 2007

A Response to, "The Prosperity Gospel in Nigeria: A Re-Examination of the Concept, Its Impact, and an Evaluation"

(Note: Click on the title to see the article being discussed).

Although I am not familiar with the author of this article in the online theological journal, Cyberjournal For Pentecostal-Charismatic Research (http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/), I am familiar with pentecostal-charismatic theology in general and with the prosperity gospel in particular. Having spent ten years or more of my life within the pentecostal-charismatic movement, I feel that I am qualified to comment on the doctrinal aberrations and distinctions of various traditions within the broader movement. Additionally, my theological training was completed at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Lakeland, Florida. (Now known as Southeastern University, a mostly liberal arts college). Although my seminary training was completed at Asbury Theological Seminary, I was a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies for two years.

As a young pentecostal I at first accepted uncritically most of the things which were being taught in my new local church--which was a member of the Assemblies of God denomination--and in home prayer group meetings and Sunday school classes. Although I was well read in the Scriptures, I thought that these folks knew something that I did not since I was only a new Christian having recently accepted Jesus Christ as my savior at age twenty-five. But the longer I was a member of the church and the more I read Holy Scripture some things did not seem to agree with what the total context of Scripture seemed to say. However, I continued to set aside my reservations under extreme peer pressure and group control.

In my opinion the severe control tactics of pentecostal-charismatic groups approaches the level of spiritual abuse and maybe even the level of cults like the Moonies or the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Those who question the doctrines or practices of the group are severely attacked and forced out.

The theological roots of the pentecostal-charismatic movement lies within the Wesleyan holiness movement of the 19th century and its later influence upon those on the more Augustinian/Calvinist side of things in the so-called Keswick or Higher Life movement. The Wesleyan holiness movement further developed its theology from John Wesley's theology of entire sanctification, which was apparently an adaptation from the Anglican doctrine of confirmation and from an Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification.

While Wesley's doctrine of justification by faith alone was taken from the Reformed views of the Moravians, his other doctrinal innovations came from a more semi-pelagian view of things via William Law and Eastern Orthodoxy. The real problem with Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification, however, is that it leads to a division between ordinary Christians and those who are "carnal" or "baby" Christians. While Wesley himself never claimed to have attained the state of entire sanctification it is almost certain that he believed he was in such a state. Later holiness theology of the 19th century went beyond Wesley in saying that a second work of grace or entire sanctification could be instantaneously received much like a conversion experience, whereas Wesley taught that entire sanctification was a gradual process and at some culmination later a state of entire sanctification or sinless perfect was reached. Phoebe Palmer, a female lay preacher with the Free Methodist Church, is credited with making this innovation of an instantaneous experience of entire sanctification, thereby laying the groundwork for the pentecostal revival of the 20th century. The Keswick higher life movement borrowed from the Wesleyans and led to such groups as the Moody Bible Institute and the Christian Missionary Alliance.

All this essentially created two groups of Christians, those who were in the know and those who were barely saved by the skin of their teeth. A spiritual elite, if you will, and a not so spiritual second class level of Christians who needed more. This, combined with the extreme emphasis on eschatology and the end times, led to the emphasis on the restoration of all the New Testament spiritual gifts from the apostolic period, including the supernatural gifts of healing, miracles, signs, wonders, words of wisdom, words of knowledge, prophecy, tongues and interpretation, etc. This emphasis on hidden knowledge available only to the spiritual elite sounds an awful lot like gnosticism.

Which brings us to the beginning of a second innovation that sprang up out of the pentecostal revival. From the initial pentecostal revival beginning in Topeka, Kansas and the Bible institute run by Charles Parham to the spread to the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, California with the black holiness preacher, William J. Seymour, the pentecostal movement was prone to heterodoxy and even outright heresy. In 1914 the Assemblies of God was forced to formulate a basic doctrinal statement emphasizing traditional trinitarian theology in response to the so-called "New Issue." The Jesus Only baptism movement had led directly to a denial of the trinity and the separation of many churches into several anti-trinitarian pentecostal groups.

A third heretical group arose from the theology of the 1940's healing movement under ministers like Kenneth Hagin and William Branham. Hagin in particular is known as the father of the Word of Faith movement. Hagin initially claimed to have received his doctrines by "revelation knowledge" or by direct revelation from God. Later, however, scholars like D.R. McConnell, formerly a professor of New Testament at Oral Roberts University, exposed the fact that Hagin had instead plagiarized word from word from works by E.W. Kenyon, a baptist minister who had accepted the doctrine of divine healing. The trouble was that Kenyon himself had syncretized his baptist theology with Christian Science and New Thought doctrines he had picked up while a student of oratory at Emerson College in Boston.

This extreme emphasis on visualization and speaking positive confessions sounds like Christian Science precisely because that is the original source of such aberrant thinking. If you will forgive the pun, the Word of Faith Movement is "stinking thinking" in and of itself! I would agree with D.R. McConnell that the Word of Faith movement is indeed a heresy of the first order and that those involved in the movement are in need of a conversion to Christ. The health and wealth gospel or prosperity gospel is really a different gospel and completely foreign to biblical theology.

When the charismatic renewal struck the mainline denominations in the 1960's, beginning with Dennis Bennett, a Episcopal minister in Van Nuys, California, the pentecostal theology of spirit baptism and spirit gifts was adapted by dropping the pentecostal insistence on the "initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues" as evidence of receiving the second work of grace or Spirit baptism. Unfortunately, liberal mainline converts to the charismatic movement did not forsake their tendencies to accommodate to culture and liberal theology. They also apparently had no problem with Christian Science or the Word of Faith movement as this was readily assimilated as well. Additionally, the traditional classical pentecostal denominations were one by one subdued by the charismatic movement, though they did "officially" stick to their doctrines of initial physical evidence and second or even third works of grace.

Thus, what we see today is a hodge podge of theology within the charismatic-pentecostal movement at large such that the prosperity gospel is almost synonymous with the charismatic-pentecostal movement. I might also mention that classical pentecostalism has been assimilated into the charismatic movement for the most part. Thus, most pentecostal churches look and sound more like charismatic churches than pentecostal churches. The former emphasis on biblical exposition has given way to an extreme emphasis on the supernatural to the point that experience is the source of doctrine rather than Scripture. It is therefore no surprise that heretical movements within the pentecostal-charismatic tradition have arisen many times since the turn of the twentieth century. I might mention the Latter Rain Movement, the oneness pentecostal movement, the Word of Faith Movement, Kingdom Now, the Shepherding Movement, etc., et. al.

What I find particularly troubling about the article referred to in the link in the title is that the author, Dr. George O. Folarin, seems to have no problem accepting the prosperity gospel as biblical. He as much as admits there are problems with the doctrine in statements like these:

A major problem with the prosperity gospel as presently practiced in Nigeria is that it is not fully delivering on its promises. There are still many sincere Christians who are financially poor, sick, and/or demon oppressed. For Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture, the fault cannot be with God and his promises. It must be the interpretations that prosperity gospel preachers use to justify the theology that are wrong. Some Christians tend to believe that in the attempt to provide answers to the existence of evil on earth despite belief in an all-powerful and all-good God, preachers of prosperity have sometimes ended up creating a truncated gospel of salvation. http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj16/folarin.html
The problem is that the prosperity gospel is based more on the confirmation by ecstatic experiences of charismatics or pentecostals than on a sound exposition of Holy Scripture. If Holy Scripture is the final word in matters of faith and doctrine, then experience must take a backseat to Scripture. Also problematic is the origin of the prosperity gospel in the Word of Faith movement, which is itself a syncretization of Christian Science and New Thought doctrines with Christianity.
Dr. Folarin also admits that many adherents, teachers and preachers within prosperity gospel circles have not been discipled in basic Bible theology or traditional Reformed understanding of the Holy Scriptures:
The prosperity gospel, as it stands, however, has serious weaknesses. Some of these are theological. These weaknesses are the results of the faulty hermeneutics that prosperity preachers adopt. Many of them never attended standard theological schools that could help them approach Bible interpretation more systematically. Unfortunately, many of them also never passed through good Sunday School classes that could have helped them in their formative years. Worse still, many prosperity preachers never underwent discipleship training after conversion. If they had been discipled, a fair grasp of biblical theology would have influenced their formulation of prosperity theology. http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj16/folarin.html


There are other serious flaws in the prosperity gospel, including its understanding of God and Satan as almost equals, which implies dualism rather than the sovereignty of God over all forms of evil (see Isaiah 45:7). The Word of Faith understanding of Jesus as merely a Spirit-empowered man sounds like they either have a deficient understanding of the hypostatic union or they have adopted a doctrine of kenosis which goes beyond merely the voluntary non use of the Son's divine prerogatives. Thus, the prosperity gospel denies the sovereignty of God and uses subtle deviations to describe a completely different Jesus from the Jesus described in Holy Scripture. (2 Corinthians  11:3-4; Galatians 1:8-10).  Other issues that go beyond the scope of this brief post could be mentioned. However, I will leave that for another day. It should suffice, however, to note that Anglicans who think the charismatic movement is somehow "conservative" have misplaced their loyalties and joined ranks with those advocating heterodoxies and even outright heresies. If Christ had not said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," I would have cause to despair.

May the peace of God be with you.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Am I Predestined? Luther and Calvin on the Dangers of Speculating about Election Apart from Christ


[If God desires all to be saved.  All would be saved.  Mr Rosenthal obviously believes in the semi-Arminian doctrine of the "free offer."  God commands all men to repent.  But not all of them will repent.  That's because God does not give them grace to believe.  So God obviously does not want all to be saved after all.]


by Shane Rosenthal

© 2006, Modern Reformation Magazine, "Has God Failed?"(September / October 2006 Issue, Vol. 15.5). All Rights Reserved. Subscription Rate: $29 Per Year. Click here to subscribe or call 1-800-890-7556. For other articles from this issue, head to the table of contents.

In 1524 Erasmus of Rotterdam decided to engage the famous Martin Luther in a debate over free will and salvation. Critical of Luther’s grace-oriented approach, Erasmus warned that Christians should not “through irreverent inquisitiveness rush into those things which are hidden, not to say superfluous.” Among the list of irreverent or superfluous debates, Erasmus included the question, “whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to eternal salvation.” This assertion did not sit well with Luther who in 1525 published his book The Bondage of the Will as a way of responding to Erasmus’ complaints. “This is the cardinal issue between us, the point on which everything in this controversy turns,” Luther wrote. “For if I am ignorant of what, how far, and how much I can and may do in relation to God …I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God.”

Throughout The Bondage of the Will, Luther presents his case that one cannot have a stable view of God’s grace unless it is anchored in the doctrine of election. He argues, for example, that a man will not completely despair of himself and his own works until he has “no doubt that everything depends upon the will of God.” Knowledge of God’s sovereign will in election then, is the only medicine strong enough to kill the virus of human pride in Luther’s scheme. “For as long as [one] is persuaded that he himself can do even the least thing toward his salvation, he retains some self-confidence and does not altogether despair of himself, and therefore he is not humbled before God, but presumes that there is…some place, time, and work for him, by which he may at length attain to salvation.”

But perhaps this medicine is a bit too strong? For often when Christians begin to consider the fact that salvation is out of their hands, they begin to question whether or not they belong to the number of God’s elect, and thus despair and doubt that they themselves are truly saved. The word Luther used to describe this type of anxiety was Anfechtungen, for he personally struggled with this question for some time. After repeatedly falling into the trap of speculating over predestination apart from Christ, Luther candidly admits, “I…actually get to the point of imagining that God is a rogue.” But Luther’s angst over predestination was met with good counsel from Staupitz, Luther’s mentor, as he recalls during one of his table conversations: Staupitz said, “If you want to dispute about predestination, begin with the wounds of Christ, and it will cease. But if you continue to debate about it, you will lose Christ, the Word, the sacraments, and everything.” Luther found in Staupitz’s advice something of great value, namely that all our thoughts concerning election and predestination must be anchored in Christ.

Again and again the reformer passes along the sound advice he received, warning his readers not to “be worried by the many people in the world who are not chosen. If you are not careful, that picture will quickly upset you and be your downfall.” Instead we are to “gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God…In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure.” Only in this way does God’s electing grace become for us a doctrine of great comfort and joy. But even here, Luther still offers us words of caution, “The old Adam must be quite dead before you can endure this matter and drink this strong wine. Therefore make sure you don’t drink wine while you are still a babe at the breast.”

A crucial component of Luther’s exposition of the doctrine of predestination is the distinction between things hidden and things revealed. Based on the text of Deuteronomy 29:29, Luther continually reminded his readers that “The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children.” The Christian therefore should not attempt to seek God in his “nude majesty,” but rather seek him only insofar as he has clothed and revealed himself. Speculating about one’s predestination was dangerous for Luther because it was tantamount to trespassing into God’s secret chambers, whereas focusing on Christ and finding one’s election in him was resting in the revealed things of God. Notice for example how Luther employs this distinction in one of his sermons on John 3:16. Addressing the type of person who says, “I am too great a sinner, and who knows whether I am predestined?” Luther responds by saying, “Look at these words …‘For God so loved the world,’ and ‘that whosoever believeth on him,’ …here no one is excluded. God’s Son was given for all, all are asked to believe, and all who believe shall not be lost, etc.” Luther is not arguing here that the whole world has been chosen, but rather that the offered promise extends to all men. Though we do not have access to the list of names in the Lamb’s Book of Life, we do have access to the gospel promise which God has announced to the world through the proclamation of the gospel. “God has given us His Son, Jesus Christ,” Luther writes, “daily we should think of Him and mirror ourselves in Him. There we shall discover the predestination of God and shall find it most beautiful.”

The distinction between things hidden and things revealed is at the core of Luther’s argument throughout The Bondage of the Will. Referring to Ezekiel 18:21 (“I desire not the death of the sinner”), Luther comments, “For he is here speaking of the preached and offered mercy of God, not of that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients and partakers of his preached and offered mercy. This will is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored.” So from the perspective of God’s revealed will in the gospel, one can indeed say “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). But, from the perspective of God’s secret election, we also need to affirm that “no one can come to [Christ] unless the father has enabled him” (John 6:64). Again from Luther, “Why that majesty of his does not remove or change this defect of our will in all men…we have no right to inquire.”

It’s important here to note the similarities between the views of Luther and those of John Calvin on this point. For example, Calvin writes, “It may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish?” To this Calvin answers that “no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God . . . but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.” And with regard to those who speculate rashly about who is predestined and who is not, Calvin warns that this can become “a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself.” So what does Calvin suggest we do?

  • We cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election…if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.
Perhaps then, Erasmus did in fact have a valid concern in his criticism of the “irreverent inquisitiveness” that so frequently accompanies any and all discussions of predestination. Here Luther and Calvin are in complete agreement. The abuse of the doctrine of predestination is not a good argument for its dismissal. Rather, what is needed is careful exposition of this crucial biblical doctrine, along with suggestions for removing the numerous causes of abuse. With regard to this issue Calvin boldly asserts, “No doctrine is more useful, provided it be handled in the proper and cautious manner… If men should evade every other argument, election shuts their mouth, so that they dare not and cannot claim anything for themselves.” This is precisely the way Luther reasoned in his response to Erasmus. And it is also precisely the way in which we need to think about the sobering yet wonderful truth of God’s electing grace in our time.

Notes


In the opening of this article, Mr. Rosenthal’s discussion of the thinking of Erasmus and Luther is derived from Gordon Rupp, ed., Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969) pp. 39,116–117, 137. Following Erasmus’ initial letter to Luther, the second part of this volume contains the full text of Luther’s Bondage of The Will, translated by Philip S. Watson. Luther’s description of Anfechtungen is taken from Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1953) p. 282 and Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 456, entry 1348. For the sound advice Luther has to offer, see Timothy Lull, ed., Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings: “A Sermon on Preparing to Die,” 1519, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989) pp. 644–645; and Luther’s Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, translated by Brother Andrew Thornton, (St. Anselm Abbey, 1983), (www.iclnet.org/pub/ resources/text/wittenberg/german.bible/rom-eng.txt). See also Plass, What Luther Says, pp. 455–456.


Luther’s discussion of Deuteronomy can be found in Luther’s Works, Vol. 2, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960), page 72 (commentary on Gen. 6:18). For more information on Luther’s sermon on John 3:16, see John Nicholas Lenker, ed., Sermons of Martin Luther: The Church Postils, Vol. 3, “Second Sermon on John 3:16,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983, originally printed in 1522) pp. 363–364. Subsequent quotations from Luther in this article can be found in Plass, ed., What Luther Says, Luther’s Letter of Aug. 8, 1545, p. 454; Rupp, Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, pp. 200, 201–202.


Mr. Rosenthal’s quotations from Calvin are taken from Calvin’s Commentary on 2 Peter 3:9; Calvin’s The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.21.1 and 3.24.5; and Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians 1:4.
Shane Rosenthal is the executive producer of the White Horse Inn weekly radio broadcast.© Modern Reformation Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation.Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally appeared in the July / Aug 2006 edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.

A Short Review of In the Beginning, by Alister McGrath


Given the lack of Christian education these days in most local congregations, a study of Alister McGrath's book, IN THE BEGINNING: THE STORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND HOW IT CHANGED A NATION, A LANGUAGE, AND CULTURE, ( New York: Anchor Books, 2002) [New York: Random House, 2001], would be highly recommended. McGrath is an Evangelical scholar of the highest caliber and a minister with the Church of England. Those interested in the Protestant Reformation cannot afford to skip a thorough reading of this book, since it deals with the historical developments that led directly to the English Reformation and subsequently to the spread of the doctrinal commitments of the Reformation to America via the Puritans, Presbyterians and the Methodists. After the American Revolution the Protestant Episcopal church became the American expression of Anglicanism in the new country.


While none of the information given in McGrath's account is new, the way McGrath brings complicated strands of history together in one book is unique and informative. In particular, the effects of the Renaissance upon critical study of the Bible in the original languages gives direct rise to translations of the Bible into the common languages of the people, especially English. McGrath's explanation of Disiderus Erasmus's study of the Latin Vulgate as compared to the Greek New Testament is particularly worthy. As any student of the Reformation knows, Erasmus' work directly influenced Martin Luther and his challenges to Roman Catholic tradition which were based on mistranslations of the original languages into the Latin Vulgate, both old and new editions.


Also, McGrath's account of the methods used in translation from Greek and Hebrew into English by the authorized King James scholars is captivating. He notes accurately that many times for the sake of style the English translators used several different English words to translate the same term from Greek or Hebrew. Also, the reliance of the KJV scholars upon earlier translations such as the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible are brought out in amazing detail and contemporary cultural setting. Additionally, the implications regarding the availability of the manuscripts to the scholars of the KJV edition helps one to understand why certain translation choices were made and how the final edition took the shape it did.


Those who neglect this study of the English Reformation and the translation of the King James Version do so to their own impoverishment. In particular, those who are part of the Protestant tradition should and must read this book. McGrath's style is easily understandable and clear to even to those unfamiliar with the history of the English Bible.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.