On Friendship with the World – John Wesley

Originally from here. Published in 1786.

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of this world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore desireth to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God.
–James 4:4

1. There is a passage in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, which has been often supposed to be of the same import with this: “Be not conformed to this world:” (Rom. 12:2). But it has little or no relation to it; it speaks of quite another thing. Indeed the supposed resemblance arises merely from the use of the word world in both places. This naturally leads us to think that St. Paul means by conformity to the world, the same which St. James means by friendship with the world: whereas they are entirely different things, as the words are quite different in the original: for St. Paul’s word is aivn St. James’s is kosmos. However, the words of St. Paul contain an important direction to the children of God. As if he had said, “Be not conformed to either the wisdom, or the spirit, or the fashions of the age; of either the unconverted Jews, or the heathens, among whom ye live. You are called to show, by the whole tenor of your life and conversation, that you are ‘renewed in the spirit of your mind’, after the image of Him that created you;’ and that your rule is not the example or will of man, but ‘the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.'”

2. But it is not strange, that St. James’s caution against friendship with the world should be so little understood, even among Christians. For I have not been able to learn that any author, ancient or modern, has wrote upon the subject: No, not (so far as I have ever observed) for sixteen or seventeen hundred years. Even that excellent writer, Mr. Law, who has treated so well many other subjects, has not, in all his practical treatises, wrote one chapter upon it; no, nor said one word, that I remember, or given one caution, against it. I never heard one sermon preached upon it either before the u niversity or elsewhere. I never was in any company where the conversation turned explicitly upon it even for one hour.

3. Yet are there very few subjects of so deep importance; few that so nearly concern the very essence of religion, the life of God in the soul; the continuance and increase, or the decay, yea, extinction of it. From the want of instruction in this respect the most melancholy consequences have followed. These indeed have not affected those who were still dead in trespasses and sins; but they have fallen heavy upon many of those who were truly alive to God. They have affected many of those called Methodists in particular; perhaps more than any other people. For want of understanding this advice of the apostle, (I hope rather than from any contempt of it) many among them are sick, spiritually sick, and many sleep, who were once thoroughly awakened. And it is well if they awake any more till their souls are required of them. It has appeared difficult to me to account for what I have frequently observed: many who were once greatly alive to God, whose conversation was in Heaven, who had their affections on things above, not on things of the earth; though they walked in all the ordinances of God, though they still abounded in good works, and abstained from all known sin, yea, and from the appearance of evil; yet they gradually and insensibly decayed; (like Jonah’s gourd, when the worm ate the root of it) insomuch that they are less alive to God now, than they were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. But it is easily accounted for, if we observe, that as they increased in goods, they increased in friendship with the world; which, indeed, must always be the case, unless the mighty power of God interpose. But in the same proportion as they increased in this, the life of God in their soul decreased.

4. Is it strange that it should decrease, if those words are really found in the oracles of God: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” What is the meaning of these words? Let us seriously consider. And may God open the eyes of our understanding; that, in spite of all the mist wherewith the wisdom of the world would cover us, we may discern what is the good and acceptable will of God!

5. Let us, first, consider, what it is which the apostle here means by the world. He does not here refer to this outward frame of things, termed in Scripture, heaven and earth; but to the inhabitants of the earth, the children of men, or at least, the greater part of them. But what part? This is fully determined both by our Lord himself, and by his beloved disciple. First, by our Lord himself. His words are, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. And all these things will they do unto you, because they know not Him that sent me” (John 15:18-21). You see here “the world” is placed on one side, and those who “are not of the world” on the other. They whom God has “chosen out of the world,” namely, by “sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth,” are set in direct opposition to those whom He hath not so chosen. Yet again: those “who know not Him that sent me,” saith our Lord, who know not God, they are “the world.”

6. Equally express are the words of the beloved disciple: “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you: we know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (1 John 3:13-14). As if he had said, “You must not expect any should love you, but those that have ‘passed from death unto life.'” (Edit–that is, people who are genuinely saved and true Christians, pursuing a holy life, and trying to avoid sin.) It follows, those that are not passed from death unto life, that are not alive to God, are “the world.” The same we may learn from those words in the fifth chapter, verse 19, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). Here “the world” plainly means, those that are not of God, and who, consequently “lie in the wicked one.”

7. Those, on the contrary, are of God, who love God, or at least “fear Him, and keep his commandments.” This is the lowest character of those that “are of God;” who are not properly sons, but servants; who depart from evil, and study to do good, and walk in all His ordinances, because they have the fear of God in their heart, and a sincere desire to please Him. Fix in your heart this plain meaning of the term, “the world;” those who do not thus fear God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: it means neither more nor less than this.

8. But understanding the term in this sense, what kind of friendship may we have with the world? We may, we ought, to love them as ourselves; (for they also are included in the word neighbor) to bear them real good-will; to desire their happiness, as sincerely as we desire the happiness of our own souls; yea, we are in a sense to honor them, (seeing we are directed by the apostle to “honor all men”) as the creatures of God; nay, as immortal spirits, who are capable of knowing, of loving, and of enjoying Him to all eternity. We are to honor them as redeemed by His blood who “tasted death for every man.” We are to bear them tender compassion when we see them forsaking their own mercies, wandering from the path of life, and hastening to everlasting destruction. We are never willingly to grieve their spirits, or give them any pain; but, on the contrary, to give them all the pleasure we innocently can; seeing we are to “please all men for their good.” We are never to aggravate their faults; but willingly to allow all the good that is in them.

9. We may, and ought, to speak to them on all occasions in the most kind and obliging manner we can. We ought to speak no evil of them when they are absent, unless it be absolutely necessary; unless it be the only means we know of preventing their doing hurt: otherwise we are to speak of them with all the respect we can, without transgressing the bounds of truth. We are to behave to them, when present, with all courtesy, showing them all the regard we can without countenancing them in sin. We ought to do them all the good that is in our power, all they are willing to receive from us; following herein the example of the universal Friend, our Father which is in Heaven, who, till they will condescend to receive greater blessings, gives them such as they are willing to accept; “causing His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sending” His “rain on the just and on the unjust.”

10. “But what kind of friendship is it which we may not have with the world? May we not converse with ungodly men at all? Ought we wholly to avoid their company?” By no means. The contrary of this has been allowed already. If we were not to converse with them at all, “we must needs go out of the world.” Then we could not show them those offices of kindness which have been already mentioned. We may, doubtless, converse with them, First, on business; in the various purposes of this life, according to that station therein, wherein the providence of God has placed us; Secondly, when courtesy requires it; only we must take great care not to carry it too far: Thirdly, when we have a reasonable hope of doing them good. But here too we have an especial need of caution, and of much prayer; otherwise, we may easily burn ourselves, in striving to pluck other brands out of the burning.

11. We may easily hurt our own souls, by sliding into a close attachment to any of them that know not God. This is the friendship which is “enmity with God:” We cannot be too jealous over ourselves, lest we fall into this deadly snare; lest we contract, or ever we are aware, a love of complacence or delight in them. Then only do we tread upon sure ground, when we can say with the Psalmist, “All my delight is in the saints that are upon earth, and in such as excel in virtue.” We should have no needless conversations with them. It is our duty and our wisdom to be no oftener and no longer with them than is strictly necessary. And during the whole time we have need to remember and follow the example of him that said, “I kept my mouth as it were with a bridle while the ungodly was in my sight” (Ps. 39:1). We should enter into no sort of connection with them, farther than is absolutely necessary. When Jehoshaphat forgot this, and formed a connection with Ahab, what was the consequence? He first lost his substance: “The ships” they sent out “were broken at Ezion-geber.” And when he was not content with this warning, as well as that of the prophet Micaiah, but would go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead, he was on the point of losing his life.

12. Above all, we should tremble at the very thought of entering into a marriage covenant, the closest of all others, with any person who does not love, or at least, fear God. This is the most horrid folly, the most deplorable madness, that a child of God can possibly plunge into; as it implies every sort of connection with the ungodly which a Christian is bound in conscience to avoid. No wonder, then, it is so flatly forbidden of God; that the prohibition is so absolute and peremptory: “Be not unequally yoked with an unbeliever” (2 Cor. 6:14). Nothing can be more express. Especially, if we understand by the word unbeliever, one that is so far from being a believer in the Gospel sense–from being able to say, “The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me”–that he has not even the faith of a servant: he does not “fear God and work righteousness.”

13. But for what reasons is the friendship of the world so absolutely prohibited? Why are we so strictly required to abstain from it? For two general reasons: First, because it is a sin in itself: Secondly, because it is attended with most dreadful consequences. First, it is a sin in itself; and indeed, a sin of no common dye. According to the oracles of God, friendship with the world is no less than spiritual adultery. All who are guilty of it are addressed by the Holy Ghost in those terms: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses.” It is plainly violating of our marriage contract with God, by loving the creature more than the Creator; in flat contradiction to that kind command, “My son, give me thine heart.”

14. It is a sin of the most heinous nature, as not only implying ignorance of God, and forgetfulness of Him, or inattention to Him, but positive “enmity against God.” It is openly, palpably such. “Know ye not,” says the apostle, can ye possibly be ignorant of this, so plain, so undeniable a truth, “that the friendship of the world is enmity against God?” Nay, and how terrible is the inference which he draws from hence! “Therefore, whosoever will be a friend of the world,” (the words, properly rendered, are, Whosoever desireth to be a friend of the world) of men who know not God, whether he attain it or not, is, ipso facto, constituted an enemy of God. This very desire, whether successful or not, gives him a right to that appellation. (Edit–that is, by allowing yourself to won over to their ways, their profanities, greed, sexual immorality, impure jokes, liquors, cigars, and sinful compromises. This is not referring to the reserved form of “friendship evangelism” that Wesley was referring to in section 10.)

15. And as it is a sin, a very heinous sin, in itself, so it is attended with the most dreadful consequences. It frequently entangles men again in the commission of those sins from which “they were clean escaped.” It generally makes them “partakers of other men’s sins,” even those which they do not commit themselves. It gradually abates their abhorrence and dread of sin in general, and thereby prepares them for falling an easy prey to any strong temptation. It lays them open to all those sins of omission whereof their worldly acquaintance are guilty. It insensibly lessens their exactness in private prayer, in family duty, in fasting, in attending public service, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. (Edit–that is, close friendship with non-Christians or worldly churchgoers is ANTI-HOLINESS, ANTI-THEOLOGY, ANTI-SPIRITUALITY, and ANTI-GOD.) The indifference of those that are near them, with respect to all these, will gradually influence them: even if they say not one word (which is hardly to be supposed) to recommend their own practice, yet their example speaks, and is many times of more force than any other language. By this example, they are unavoidably betrayed, and almost continually, into unprofitable, yea, and uncharitable, conversation; till they no longer “set a watch before their mouth, and keep the door of their lips;” till they can join in backbiting, tale-bearing, and evil-speaking without any check of conscience; having so frequently grieved the Holy Spirit of God, that He no longer reproves them for it: insomuch that their discourse is not now, as formerly, “seasoned with salt, and meet to minister grace to the hearers.”

16. But these are not all the deadly consequences that result from familiar intercourse with unholy men. It not only hinders them from ordering their conversation aright, but directly tends to corrupt the heart. It tends to create or increase in us all that pride and self-sufficiency, all that fretfulness to resent, yea, every irregular passion and wrong disposition, which are indulged by their companions. It gently leads them into habitual self-indulgence, and unwillingness to deny themselves; into unreadiness to bear or take up any cross; into a softness and delicacy; into evil shame, and the fear of man, that brings numberless snares. It draws them back into the love of the world; into foolish and hurtful desires; into the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life, till they are swallowed up in them. So that, in the end, the last state of these men is far worse than the first.

17. If the children of God will connect themselves with the men of the world, though the latter should not endeavor to make them like themselves, (which is a supposition by no means to be made) yea, though they should neither design nor desire it; yet they will actually do it, whether they design it, and whether they endeavor it, or no. I know not how to account for it, but it is a real fact, that their very spirit is infectious. While you are near them, you are apt to catch their spirit, whether they will or no. Many physicians have observed, that not only the plague, and putrid or malignant fevers, but almost every disease men are liable to, are more or less infectious. And undoubtedly so are all spiritual diseases, only with great variety. The infection is not so swiftly communicated by some as it is by others. In either case, the person already diseased does not desire or design to infect another. The man who has the plague does not desire or intend to communicate his distemper to you. But you are not therefore safe: So keep at a distance, or you will surely be infected. Does not experience show that the case is the same with the diseases of the mind? Suppose the proud, the vain, the passionate (the hateful, the hot-tempered), the wanton (the lustful), do not desire or design to infect you with their own distempers; yet it is best to keep at a distance from them. You are not safe if you come too near them. You will perceive (it is well if it be not too late) that their very breath is infectious. It has been lately discovered that there is an atmosphere surrounding every human body, which naturally affects everyone that comes within the limits of it. Is there not something analogous to this, with regard to a human spirit? If you continue long within their atmosphere, so to speak, you can hardly escape the being infected. The contagion spreads from soul to soul, as well as from body to body, even though the persons diseased do not intend or desire it. But can this reasonably be supposed? Is it not a notorious truth, that men of the world (exceeding few excepted) eagerly desire to make their companions like themselves? Yea and use every means, with their utmost skill and industry, to accomplish their desire. Therefore, fly for your life! Do not play with the fire, but escape before the flames kindle upon you.


18. But how many are the pleas for friendship with the world! And how strong are the temptations to it! Such of these as are the most dangerous, and, at the same time, most common, we will consider. (Edit–OFFICE POLITICS is, I suppose the most common temptation in this area for working adults. Wesley touches on this briefly in section 23. Many business managers want to build trust and rapport with their employees, and vice versa. Most often, it seems that Christian employees throw their Christian habits to the side in order to mingle with worldly men. And before they know it, they’ve lost their connection with God, because they put their fear of men in place of their fear and love for God. Christians must have a strong faith in the providence of God, or supernatural provision, for their finances. Otherwise, they will too often get scared of losing their jobs, and play into the devil’s social clubs waiting for them at their companies. They call this networking. But in these situations, the only net Christians are working themselves into, are ones of flattery and destruction: “whoever flatters his neighbor is spreading a net for his feet” (Prov. 29:5); “proud men have hidden a snare for me; they have spread out the cords of their net and have set traps for me along my path” (Ps. 140:5). Also, as a general rule, if you don’t cuss around people who like to cuss, then they won’t want to be your friends. They will contradict you; and pick fights with you, even over the fact that you are “quiet” or “don’t cuss” like they do. And they will either avoid you or pick on you. You make them feel like they can’t speak freely around you; you make them feel uncomfortable–to be sure, they will try to trip you up by some other means and get you away from them. A lot of this WORLDLY RAPPORT-BUILDING is based on THE FEAR OF LOSING A JOB. People mistrust people they don’t know, so they engage in office politics to build trust and rapport. They often do this by non-Christian styles of joking often involving cussing. They feel the end justifies the means: after all, they have bills to pay. Even if they are not comfortable with this, they will play along. Later on, they may or may not realize they have lost their walk with God. It begs the question: should non-cussing Christians, committed to not becoming friends with the world, even be in the workplace? Should they only seek out a form of employment in which they could work for themselves, independently, such as selling insurance or real estate? It seems this would be a wiser decision, at least in the United States currently, with all the godlessness everywhere so rampant and antagonistically anti-Christian).

To begin with one that is the most dangerous of all others, and, at the same time, by no means uncommon. “I grant,” says one, “the person I am about to marry is not a religious person. She does not make any pretensions to it. She has little thought about it. But she is a beautiful creature. She is extremely agreeable, and, I think, will make me a lovely companion.”

This is a snare indeed! Perhaps one of the greatest that human nature is liable to. This is such a temptation as no power of man is able to overcome. Nothing less than the mighty power of God can make a way for you to escape from it. And this can work a complete deliverance: His grace is sufficient for you. But not unless you are a worker together with Him: Not unless you deny yourself, and take up your cross. And what you do, you must do at once! Nothing can be done by degrees. Whatever you do in this important case must be done at one stroke. If it is to be done at all, you must at once cut off the right hand, and cast it from you! Here is no time for conferring with flesh and blood! At once, conquer or perish!

19. Let us turn the tables. Suppose a woman that loves God is addressed by an agreeable man; genteel, lively, entertaining; suitable to her in all other respects, though not religious: What should she do in such a case? What she should do, if she believes the Bible, is sufficiently clear. But what can she do? Is not this

A test for human frailty too severe?

Who is able to stand in such a trial? Who can resist such a temptation? None but one that holds fast the shield of faith, and earnestly cries to the Strong for strength. None but one that gives herself to watching and prayer, and continues therein with all perseverance. If she does this, she will be a happy witness, in the midst of an unbelieving world, that as “all things are possible with God,” so all “things are possible to her that believeth.”

20. But either a man or woman may ask, “What, if the person who seeks my acquaintance be a person of a strong natural understanding, cultivated by various learning? May not I gain much useful knowledge by a familiar intercourse with him? May I not learn many things from him, and much improve my own understanding?” Undoubtedly you may improve your own understanding, and you may gain much knowledge. But still, if he has not at least the fear of God, your loss will be far greater than your gain. For you can hardly avoid decreasing in holiness as much as you increase in knowledge. And if you lose one degree of inward or outward holiness, all the knowledge you gain will be no equivalent. (Edit–most professional learning is contained in books anyway–if that’s what you desire, then read some of them or get audio books.)

21. “But his fine and strong understanding, improved by education, is not his chief recommendation. He has more valuable qualifications than these: He is remarkably good humored: He is of a compassionate, humane spirit; and has much generosity in his temper.” On these very accounts, if he does not fear God, he is infinitely more dangerous. If you converse intimately with a person of this character, you will surely drink into his spirit. It is hardly possible for you to avoid stopping just where he stops. I have found nothing so difficult in all my life as to converse with men of this kind (good sort of men, as they are commonly called) without being hurt by them. O beware of them! Converse with them just as much as business requires, and no more: Otherwise (though you do not feel any present harm, yet) by slow and imperceptible degrees, they will attach you again to earthly things, and damp the life of God in your soul.

22. It may be, the persons who are desirous of your acquaintance, though they are not experienced in religion, yet understand it well, so that you frequently reap advantage from their conversation. If this be really the case, (as I have known a few instances of the kind) it seems you may converse with them; only very sparingly and very cautiously; Otherwise you will lose more of your spiritual life than all the knowledge you gain is worth.

23. “But the persons in question are useful to me, in carrying on my temporal business. Nay, on many occasions, they are necessary to me; so that I could not well carry it on without them.” Instances of this kind frequently occur. And this is doubtless a sufficient reason for having some intercourse, perhaps frequently, with men that do not fear God. But even this is by no means a reason for your contracting an intimate acquaintance with them. And you here need to take the utmost care, “lest even by that converse with them which is necessary, while your fortune in the world increases, the grace of God should decrease in your soul.”

24. There may be one more plausible reason given for some intimacy with an unholy man. You may say, “I have been helpful to him. I have assisted him when he was in trouble. And he remembers it with gratitude. He esteems and loves me, though he does not love God. Ought I not then to love him? Ought I not to return love for love? Do not even heathens and publicans so?” I answer, you should certainly return love for love; but it does not follow that you should have any intimacy with him. That would be at the peril of your soul. Let your love give itself vent in constant and fervent prayer. Wrestle with God for him. But let not your love for him carry you so far as to weaken, if not destroy, your own soul.

25. “But must I not be intimate with my relations; and that whether they fear God or not? Has not His providence recommended these to me?” Undoubtedly it has: but there are relations nearer or more distant. The nearest relations are husbands and wives. As these have taken each other for better for worse, they must make the best of each other; seeing, as God has joined the together, none can put them asunder; unless in case of adultery, or when the life of one or the other is in imminent danger. Parents are almost as nearly connected with their children. You cannot part with them while they are young; it being your duty to “train them up,” with all care, “in the way wherein they should go.” How frequently you should converse with them when they are grown up is to be determined by Christian prudence. This also will determine how long it is expedient for children, if it be at their own choice, to remain with their parents. In general, if they do not fear God, you should leave them as soon as is convenient. But wherever you are, take care (if it be in your power) that they do not want the necessaries or conveniences of life. As for all other relations, even brothers or sisters, if they are of the world you are under no obligation, to be intimate with them: you may be civil and friendly at a distance.

26. But allowing that “the friendship of the world is enmity against God,” and consequently, that it is the most excellent way, indeed the only way to Heaven, to avoid all intimacy with worldly men; yet who has resolution to walk therein? Who even of those that love or fear God? for these only are concerned in the present question. A few I have known who, even in this respect, were lights in a benighted land; who did not and would not either contract or continue any acquaintance with persons of the most refined and improved understanding, and the most engaging tempers, merely because they were of the world, because they were not alive to God: Yea, though they were capable of improving them in knowledge, or of assisting them in business: Nay, though they admired and esteemed them for that very religion which they did not themselves experience: A case one would hardly think possible, but of which there are many instances at this day. Familiar intercourse even with these they steadily and resolutely refrain from, for conscience sake.

27. Go thou and do likewise, whosoever thou art that art a child of God by faith! Whatever it cost, flee spiritual adultery. Have no friendship with the world. However tempted thereto by profit or pleasure, contract no intimacy with worldly-minded men. And if thou hast contracted any such already, break it off without delay. Yea, if thy ungodly friend be dear to thee as a right eye, or useful as a right hand, yet confer not with flesh and blood, but pluck out the right eye, cut off the right hand, and cast them from thee! It is not an indifferent thing. Thy life is at stake; eternal life or eternal death. And is it not better to go into life having one eye or one hand, than having both to be cast into Hell-fire? When thou knewest no better, the times of ignorance God winked at. But now thine eyes are opened, now the light is come, walk in the light! Touch not pitch, lest thou be defiled. At all events, “keep thyself pure!” (1 Tim. 5:22).

28. But whatever others do, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, hear this, all ye that are called Methodists! However importuned or tempted thereto, have no friendship with the world. Look round, and see the melancholy effects it has produced among your brethren! How many of the mighty are fallen! How many have fallen by this very thing! They would take no warning: They would converse, and that intimately, with earthly-minded men, till they “measured back their steps to earth again!” O “come out from among them!” from all unholy men, however harmless they may appear; “and be ye separate:” At least so far as to have no intimacy with them. As your “fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;” so let it be with those, and those only, who at least seek the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. So “shall ye be,” in a peculiar sense, “my sons and my daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kinds of Prayer in the New Testament

Taken from every New Testament occasion of the word “prayer” in the KJV.

MATTHEW

17:21 – deliverance prayer with fasting (cp. Mark 9:29)

21:13 – prayer at church (cp. Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46)

21:22 – petition

23:14 – against Pharisaical, pretentious long prayers

LUKE

1:13 – prayer against infertility

6:12 – all night prayer vigil

22:45 – prayer for strength in Gethsemane

ACTS

1:14 – group supplication (asking earnestly for the baptism in the Holy Spirit)

3:1 – going to church for the daily hour of prayer

6:4 – habitual pastoral prayer and Bible preaching

10:31 – angelic answer to private prayer

12:5 – group church prayer for Peter in prison

16:13 – women’s prayer meeting by the river

16:16 – walking to the synagogue for the hour of prayer

ROMANS

10:1 – prayer for Israel to be saved and become Christian

12:12 – continuing and persevering in the practice of prayer

1 CORINTHIANS

7:5 – abstaining from marital sex and food for a time of prayer

2 CORINTHIANS

1:11 – group church prayer for missionaries

9:14 – praying for other Christians

EPHESIANS

6:18 – praying in the Spirit (tongues) for all Christians

PHILIPPIANS

1:4 – joyfully praying for other Christians

1:19 – prayer for protection for a missionary

4:6 – ask God and thank God

COLOSSIANS

4:2 – thank God and continue in the practice of prayer

1 TIMOTHY

4:5 – all food is sanctified for eating by Scripture and prayer

JAMES

5:15-16 – the fervent prayer of a righteous man for healing

1 PETER

4:7 – keep up the discipline of prayer

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Be Still My Soul – Second Presbyterian Church (Memphis, TN)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

7 Years of WesleyGospel.com

The development of my theological identity and growth of the website.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A History of Divine Healing

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Review of Vinson Synan’s “The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition”

John Wesley and the Holy Spirit

In the 1700s, the sermons of John Wesley began to pioneer the spirituality of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which would eventually lead to the Pentecostal experiences embraced by denominations like the Assemblies of God in the 1900s. There were a lot of steps and phases that evangelicalism went through in order to arrive at Pentecostalism, but it was essentially a process that took about 200 years. Wesley was a young Anglican priest who had graduated with an M.A. in theology from Oxford University, a prestigious education. If he had played it safe, by the rules of common order, he could have made a fine ministry career for himself in the Church of England. But shortly after his graduation, he doubted that he was genuinely saved, because he had never felt the Holy Spirit. His father had, and spoke of it on his deathbed as “the inward witness” and the “strongest proof of Christianity.” Wesley was really shaken up by this. Eventually on his journey home from a failed mission trip to Georgia, he made contact with some Moravians, who told him about their experience with the Holy Spirit. The Moravians were Lutheran pietist mystics. When he was in London, he went to a Moravian Bible study group on Aldersgate Street, and had his famous “Aldersgate Experience” on May 24, 1738: he said that his heart was “strangely warmed” by the Holy Spirit (cp. Luke 24:32) when the Bible study leader read from Martin Luther’s Preface to the Epistle to the Romans. It was here, for the first time, that Wesley had a genuine experience of the Holy Spirit. The witness was inward, so he knew it was like what his father had been describing to him, and it confirmed the truth of the Gospel: the message of justification by faith and the process of sanctification as described in Romans.

Wesley, and his theologian friends John Fletcher and Adam Clarke, in the context of an Arminian Puritan soteriology, began to develop a uniquely evangelical doctrine of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology) that was also experiential, and not confined to an intellectual, theological doctrine of the Trinity. It came under the heading of two Methodist doctrines: “The Witness of the Spirit” and “Entire Sanctification.” The first was an inward feeling of the Holy Spirit that was more like an intuitive “knowing” that a Christian is saved and adopted by God the Father as his child, and is forgiven of his sins (the experiential aspect of justification by faith) (Rom. 8:16): Wesley’s Aldersgate Experience could have been an advanced form of the witness of the Spirit. The second is described as a definite feeling of God’s presence, but that it washes the heart and the mind to such an extent that it erases all evil thoughts and feelings from the Christian; this doctrine was the most controversial of the Methodists and earned them the stigma of being called “perfectionists” by everyone else. Personally, I don’t believe in the doctrine of entire sanctification with its implication of sinlessness, but I do believe in the reality of God’s presence suppressing sinful thoughts (as this seems to be what Romans 8 refers to as walking in the Spirit). How can a man think of sinning when he is only conscious of God’s holy presence? He can’t. And that’s the essence of it, in my view. The baptism in the Holy Spirit suppresses the power of original sin, but does not annihilate it. The spiritual battle against the flesh must go on. Spirit baptism, to me, is only a moral boost, but is not an eradication of the flesh’s sinful nature. It is felt in Pentecostal worship, and the residue of it will stay on the Christian for some time, but eventually the experience will need to be repeated over and over again.

Assemblies of God and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Moderate Pentecostals like the Assemblies of God (AG) would eventually modify the doctrine of entire sanctification and call it “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” but they added to it the doctrine of “Initial Evidence,” which implies that the only way to know for sure that you have been Spirit baptized was if you spoke in tongues. I personally agree with them on this point (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:1-33). The AG did not invent the doctrine, but had only crystallized it officially by 1916. The doctrine’s first appearance was from a Bible study held by the students of Charles Parham at his Bethel Bible School in 1900. The “initial evidence” of tongues is not to be confused with the work of regeneration in justification: that experience of the Holy Spirit is just barely knowable, just a touch above accepting the Gospel intellectually in the head. Speaking in tongues is something that evangelicals have always misunderstood about Pentecostals. The AG does not teach that salvation comes through speaking in tongues (although some of the “oneness” people teach that). Spirit baptism is a second work of grace, second to regeneration: it is basically an experience of Holy Spirit filled sanctification; and since sanctification is a lifelong process, it follows that a Pentecostal could theoretically be Spirit baptized hundreds of times before he dies. Spirit baptism, in this view, would essentially be a Spirit filled utterance of tongues accompanied by the presence of God during Pentecostal worship. It can happen randomly, but its usually during a concentrated Pentecostal worship or prayer with the eyes closed and the mind focused on Jesus (Heb. 12:2).

John Fletcher (d. 1785), Charles Finney (d. 1875), and others in the holiness movement of the 1800s eventually started to speak of “the baptism of the Holy Ghost” to refer to entire sanctification: and the experience was sought for at holiness revival meetings, prayer meetings, and camp meetings. Asa Mahan, a colleague of Finney’s, published The Baptism of the Holy Ghost in 1870 to describe entire sanctification in terms of Spirit-baptism (see Vinson Synan’s In the Latter Days, p. 37). Eventually the element of speaking in tongues was thrown into the mix by Parham in 1900, and the doctrine of speaking in tongues was crystallized by William J. Seymour at the Azusa Street Revival in 1906, and subsequently by the AG in 1916. Whatever people taught, theorized, and interpreted about the experience: there was one thing held in common by both the holiness people and the Pentecostals: they both were seeking a tangible, felt presence of the Holy Spirit through prolonged prayer meetings. The holiness people interpreted the experience only in a moral sense, whereas the Pentecostals added tongues and other miraculous gifts onto God’s presence, such as visions, dreams, the voice of God, and casting out devils. This transition was mainly spread through William J. Seymour’s The Apostolic Faith magazine, Minnie Abrams’ The Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire (1907), and the ministries of Pentecostal healing evangelists like Maria Woodworth-Etter (d. 1924).

Notice how incredibly racist the next article over is.
That’s the liberal media, the communist Democrat media, back in 1906.

Pentecostals Rejected as Weird and Wild Fanatics

White American religious culture has always rejected Pentecostals as a bunch of weird, pathological, uneducated fanatics that may even be in league with the devil. This has been due to several social factors. 1. Pentecostals, especially in the first forty years (from 1906 to 1946), were mainly made up of the poor, uneducated lower classes, and had to use ugly little storefront churches. So, this automatically was a cause for their rejection by many rich snobs who attended the stately Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches. 2. The Pentecostal worship style was emotional, outspoken, wild, and expressive–something that went dramatically against the instincts of a reserved, professional white business class. 3. White Pentecostals sometimes mingled with black Pentecostals, who were also poor and uneducated, and being African-American not long after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, pretty much set them against white society with the strongest stigma possible. Pentecostals were basically integrationists in a mainly white supremacist and segregationist culture: and for this reason, sometimes the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) would persecute the Pentecostals, give them beatings, shoot at them, and even burn down their churches. 4. As early as 1909, a pseudo-Pentecostal snake handling cult formed called Church of God With Signs Following. According to a twisted reading of Mark 16:18: “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”–they came to practice snake handling and poison drinking during their church services in order to test the authenticity of their faith. Many people were harmed from being in this cult; and since the earliest days of Pentecostalism, their existence had spread the false rumor that all Pentecostals were snake handlers. This practice is associated with witchcraft; and so, demonizing the Pentecostals became even easier to do.

5. Pentecostals ordained women to pastoral ministry. This was seen as an anti-Biblical practice (1 Tim. 2:12), and brought more disrepute to the Pentecostals, as being guided by a feministic Jezebel spirit. 6. In 1918, the Presbyterian theologian B. B. Warfield, published his popular cessationist book Counterfeit Miracles. Although he did not mention “Pentecostals” or “Azusa Street” by name, he did mention A. B. Simpson and John Alexander Dowie, who were for a short time associated with the Pentecostal movement. Warfield led his readers to the conclusion that there have been no authentic miracles of the Holy Spirit since the deaths of the first twelve apostles. He rejected every story, testimony, report, or experience that claimed real Christian miracles had ever happened in church history or in modern times after the Bible was written. To him, miracles were only present during the time period that the Bible was being written, in order to give credibility to those who were writing it. This idea threw a big damper on any supernatural progress the church had been making through the influence of the Pentecostals; and it marginalized, and discredited them even more. Pentecostals mainly came to be viewed by others as charlatans and fanatics that claimed to have miracles in their churches, but who were just basically deceived by their religious zeal and emotionalism. This was also in an age of increasing liberal theology, unbelief in the Bible’s supernatural claims, and atheistic Darwinism (the Scopes Trial occurring in 1925). So, if any genuine miracles did occur in those storefront churches, they were experiences that were known only to the Pentecostals, because they had been so rejected and marginalized by others, and not taken into serious consideration for evaluation and sociological documentation. 7. From day one the very sound of speaking in tongues was scoffed at as weird babel. It scared some and made others laugh, but distanced everyone who was not willing to socially abase themselves to the point of speaking in tongues in public.

Smith Wigglesworth’s Death, the Healing Revival, and the Prosperity Gospel

In the ’40s, the international healing ministry of Smith Wigglesworth was coming to a close, with his death in 1947. He kept alive an awareness of the reality of miraculous gifts among Pentecostals. Ever since his book Ever Increasing Faith came out in 1924, his traveling ministry kept the Pentecostal movement alive and focused on their distinctives of holy living, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, words of knowledge, miraculous faith, the voice of God, casting out devils, etc. Donald Gee, an associate of Wigglesworth in his early years, sought to balance some extremes he saw in the Pentecostal revival, and wrote Concerning Spiritual Gifts (1928). In the years leading up to Wigglesworth’s death, many Pentecostals felt that the revival was dying out, because there were less and less of these miraculous gifts being used in their churches. The year after Wigglesworth’s death, 1948, saw the beginning of the Healing Revival led by William Branham, Oral Roberts, and Jack Coe; that same year, Billy Graham, the Baptist fundamentalist, launched his evangelistic ministry; and also, that same year, the State of Israel was formed, which was viewed as a sign from God that was confirming all these happenings.

The Healing Revival merged with another movement called the “Latter Rain Revival,” which taught that in the last days, super-Pentecostals would arise with such miraculous gifts that they would exceed the original twelve apostles in power, and that they would take over the world, and even become immortal, known variously as the “overcomers,” the “manchild,” or the “manifest sons of God.” The Assemblies of God rejected both the Healing Revival, and the Latter Rain Revival as heretical, and saw them as mixed together. The Healing Revival roughly ended around 1952, because Branham started to preach heretical views that were not in agreement with his Assemblies of God tour manager, Gordon Lindsay (who by the way, managed to compile some decent writings on miraculous gifts, now in a 513 page book called Commissioned with Power). Oral Roberts, who had gained a massive following as a healing evangelist, around that same year had befriended Demos Shakarian, the founder of Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International (FGBMI), and gave birth to the “prosperity gospel” stream of Pentecostalism that is now so popularly featured on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). By the early ’50s, Pentecostal experiences had pretty much fallen off the deep end; and Pentecostal churches were viewed by their revivalists as “bless me clubs” that didn’t actively engage in street evangelism. In Gary Wilkerson’s David Wilkerson, page 72, he suggests that by the year 1958, the Assemblies of God was trying to gain an air of cultural respectability, so they could remain members in good standing with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE); and that this further hindered any emotional excitement or prophetic experiences often associated with Pentecostal worship.

The Charismatic Movement:
David du Plessis, Dennis Bennett, Harald Bredesen, and Larry Christenson

In 1936, Wigglesworth burst into the office of Pentecostal pastor David du Plessis, laid his hands on his shoulders, pushed him against the wall, and forcefully prophesied in the style of an ecstatic nabi prophet:

You have been “Jerusalem” long enough…I will send you to the uttermost parts of the earth…You will bring the message of Pentecost to all churches…you will travel more than evangelists do…God is going to revive the churches in the last days and through them turn the world upside down. Even the Pentecostal movement will become a mere joke compared with the revival which God will bring through the churches (p. 225).

This prophecy started to become fulfilled in 1951. While du Plessis was pastoring an Assemblies of God church in Connecticut, he felt led by the Holy Spirit to make contact with the World Council of Churches, which is the leading association of mainline liberals. Du Plessis was a man who was committed to the conservative evangelical framework that Pentecostalism had grown from. At the time, liberal churches were viewed as deistic heretics who had embraced evolution, Biblical criticism, and anti-supernaturalism; they were seen as a lost cause, and certainly not worthy of fellowship for an evangelical fundamentalist nor a Pentecostal. But du Plessis, being led by the Holy Spirit, looked at them as a mission field. He knew things about the baptism in the Holy Spirit and miraculous gifts; and they had no idea such things were in existence today. He met with a few of their leaders, and found an unusually warm reception from them, and saw that they were eager to make contact with the Pentecostal churches. He became an individual member in 1954 and he was seated as a Pentecostal representative at several of their sessions; and he turned out to be the only Pentecostal present at Vatican II (1962 – 1965) for the Roman Catholic Church. For this, he was excommunicated from the Assemblies of God in 1962. Nicknamed “Mr. Pentecost,” he became the leading figure in the charismatic movement. More details about his life are in his testimonials The Spirit Bade Me Go (1970) and A Man Called Mr. Pentecost (1977).

Pastors in other denominations brought the Assemblies of God experiences of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, Pentecostal worship, words of knowledge, healing, and casting out demons into their denominations. In 1960, the Episcopal priest Dennis Bennett shared with his church that he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit and could now speak in tongues. The California bishop James Pike, a liberal and spiritualist, had Bennett excommunicated from the state on the grounds that Pentecostal experiences were culturally inappropriate for the Episcopal Church. The story made it into Time and Newsweek and was arguably the beginning of the charismatic movement. He was then invited to pastor the small St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Seattle, Washington. Within a short time, a Pentecostal revival erupted, with about 2,000 people from all denominations attending every Sunday. Bennett’s The Holy Spirit and You (1971), his theology of miraculous gifts, was influenced by Stanley Frodsham’s Smith Wigglesworth: Apostle of Faith and Smith Wigglesworth’s Ever Increasing Faith–both Assemblies of God books. More details about his life are in his autobiography Nine O’Clock in the Morning (1970).

In its March 29, 1963 issue, Time covered the story of Dutch Reformed pastor Harald Bredesen, who had led a Pentecostal revival at Yale University of all places, with the students speaking in tongues (they were called the GlossoYalies). He coined the word “charismatic” in reference to this movement, which was then being called “neo-Pentecostal.” He had a unique influence on the movement: it was more in the lives that he touched, men with big influence. It was through him that Pat Robertson was baptized in the Holy Spirit and led to found CBN, The 700 Club, and Regent University. He was also the catalyst for the ministry of David Wilkerson. His involvement in the early years of Teen Challenge, and a chance encounter with Norman Vincent Peale, led him and Wilkerson to John Sherrill, who co-authored The Cross and the Switchblade (1962) and They Speak With Other Tongues (1964)–two books that sparked the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, and popularized Wilkerson’s reach for the rest of his life. He had a few encounters with heads of state. He was also a repentance preacher, a fan of Charles Finney, and had struggled through the issues of law and Gospel, in a way that is rare for charismatics. More details about his life are in his autobiography Yes, Lord (1982).

Larry Christenson became another voice in the charismatic movement. Representing charismatics in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), he published the widely read Speaking in Tongues (Bethany House, 1968) and The Charismatic Renewal Among Lutherans (1976). In this latter book, Spirit baptism was viewed to occur during water baptism or at conversion, with tongues and other miraculous gifts showing up later on in the Christian life. This “charismatic” view of the baptism in the Holy Spirit was different than the Assemblies of God view, which insisted on tongues as evidence for Spirit baptism. (John Wimber and the Vineyard churches would later adopt the new charismatic view.) Christenson later became ashamed of his denomination, when in 2009, they voted for gay clergy to remain in good standing. He decided to stay in his denomination and tried to influence it for good until he died in 2017.

Charismatics in the Jesus Movement

In the late 1960s and early ’70s, young hippies in Southern California started to flock to Chuck Smith’s Calvary Chapel and turn away from their “sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll” lifestyles. With the help of the charismatic movement, which was happening at the same time, and David Wilkerson’s Teen Challenge idea of the “30 second cure”–these young junkies had gotten fed up with their drug addictions, and were seeking the baptism in the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues, as the preferred way to handle their stress. Wilkerson’s The Cross and the Switchblade book was made into a 1970 movie with Pat Boone, and resonated with a lot of the Jesus people (or “Jesus freaks,” as outsiders called them). This combination of the Jesus Movement with the charismatic movement brought about a nationwide evangelical and charismatic youth revival for a few years, and roughly ended by 1973.

Most of the Jesus people leaned in the charismatic direction (pp. 256-257), but as in past revivals, they eventually divided into a new generation of evangelicals and charismatics. 1977 saw the Conference on Charismatic Renewal in the Churches in Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium, with 50,000 in attendance. The evangelical wing of Jesus people sided with Calvary Chapel, the Southern Baptists, and Billy Graham’s type of evangelicalism. The charismatic wing sided with Assemblies of God, David Wilkerson, and eventually John Wimber’s new charismatic denomination, Vineyard Christian Fellowship, which began in 1982. Lonnie Frisbee, once a typical Jesus freak and evangelist, helped to launch the Vineyard churches by attracting the now aging generation of charismatic Jesus people–but later when it came to light that he was living a double life as a homosexual, he was excommunicated. Wimber continued to lead the charismatic wing of Jesus people into the ’80s and ’90s, as did Derek Prince (controversial leader of the authoritarian “shepherding movement”), and others who had started non-denominational charismatic churches.

The Toronto Blessing and Its Animal Noises

From 1994 to 1996, the Vineyard pastor John Arnott led what began as a genuine Holy Spirit revival in his church in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It was called Toronto Airport Vineyard and is now called Catch The Fire Toronto. It was a lot like the Azusa Street Revival in that it lasted for about 2 years, was ridiculed by secular news media, and attracted people to visit from all over the world to see miracles, get baptized in the Holy Spirit, get slain or “drunk” in the Spirit, get the holy laughter, see visions, etc. People experienced strange physical manifestations like the people did at Azusa Street, such as shakes and jerks. But there were some people who made animal noises, such as roaring like lions, barking like dogs, and crowing like chickens. These animal spirits manifested back at Azusa also, but when that happened William Seymour kept it in check and associated it with demons and spiritualism. Sometimes spiritualists would attend the Azusa Street mission to interrupt it (see Cecil Robeck’s The Azusa Street Mission and Revival, p. 168). The same thing probably happened with the Toronto revival. I suspect that New Agers attended out of curiosity, and eventually imparted these animal spirits (power animals or spirit guides) into the meetings somehow, and sabotaged the revival. The big mistake made by Arnott, however, was that he was not willing to condemn the animal behavior, but instead defended it in chapter 11 of his book The Father’s Blessing (Charisma House, 1995), claiming that the animal noises were symbolic messages from the Holy Spirit, and that they were basically a type of prophecy. John Wimber had warned against this behavior a number of times, but when he noticed that Arnott had taken this stance and published this in his book, he made the final decision to excommunicate the Toronto church out of the Vineyard (p. 277; see Bill Jackson’s The Quest for the Radical Middle, pp. 326-332).

The Brownsville Revival

During the height of international interest in the Toronto Blessing, a genuine Pentecostal revival of even greater magnitude began in Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida. Led by evangelist Steve Hill, this turned into a 5 year revival, lasting from 1995 to the year 2000. As a spiritual son of David Wilkerson and Leonard Ravenhill (died in 1994, the author of Why Revival Tarries), it seems that Hill’s revival was the answer to Ravenhill’s lifelong prayers for a nationwide evangelical awakening. At a time when the seeker-sensitive movement had pretty much taken over all of the churches, Hill attracted over 1 million people with fiery sermons on Hell, repentance, holiness, and the cross. There were tremendous outpourings of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, with people speaking in tongues, falling out, and shaking. But no animal noises. It gave Pentecostals a renewed sense of purpose in the wake of the 1987 televangelist scandals that happened with Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart. However, eventually the Assemblies of God church officials shut down the revival, because they were against the shaking manifestations that kept occurring in the meetings. Michael Brown, who headed up the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry (BRSM), was eventually dismissed because he was not an ordained Assemblies of God minister. He then moved his operations to his independent church and Bible college, which he called the Fellowship for International Revival and Evangelism, or F.I.R.E. School.

Review of Synan’s book stops here.

Pentecostals and Charismatics Since the Year 2000:
Assemblies of God, Vineyard USA, and the New Apostolic Reformation

So, where have Pentecostals and charismatics been going since the Brownsville Revival ended? Reading the Charisma Magazine back issues from the year 2000 to the present might be a good indicator of that, if you can get your hands on them. But I would say what has happened, and where the Holy Spirit seems to be guiding me the most, is in the direction of Vineyard USA (to a degree). Bill Johnson and his Bethel Church has pretty much led the way in the area of the “prophetic movement,” or what is now called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), which is comprised of thousands of non-denominational charismatic churches committed to the idea of prophetic ministry, among other things. Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries, John Arnott’s Catch The Fire Toronto, Randy Clark’s Global Awakening, Mike Bickle’s IHOP-KC, John Sandford’s Elijah House, Patricia King’s Extreme Prophetic, Jim Goll’s God Encounters Ministries, and many others featured on elijahlist.com and Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural! are pretty much leading the way in Pentecostalism right now. This new charismatic stream was documented in Julia Loren’s Shifting Shadows of Supernatural Power (2006), and has pretty much set the tone for the way Pentecostal and charismatic churches are right now. In 2008, the Lakeland Revival with Todd Bentley ended in an adultery scandal, and has been a sore spot for many charismatics. Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church has also come under scrutiny from Andrew Strom for New Age type practices. Strom wrote an article called “Why I Left the Prophetic Movement” (2004), which was later turned into a book (2007, 2012). John MacArthur’s Strange Fire (2013) issued a fresh attack on charismatics and was answered by Michael Brown’s Authentic Fire (2015). I had raised concerns about Bethel Church in an article and video that had quite a spike in viewers in 2017-2019, but I have since withdrawn it, because they have responded to a lot of those issues in their “Rediscover Bethel” series.

UPDATE: 10/5/24

Leaders to Learn From in Pentecostal History

There are some diamonds in the rough. I’ll highlight a few right here.

  • John Wesley – his Works have a lot of moral and charismatic material
  • William J. Seymour – Larry Martin’s “The Complete Azusa Street Library
  • Smith Wigglesworth – Stanley Frodsham’s Smith Wigglesworth, etc
  • Donald GeeConcerning Spiritual Gifts, etc
  • Gordon LindsayCommissioned with Power, etc
  • John Sherrill They Speak With Other Tongues
  • John WimberPower Healing, etc
  • Jack DeereSurprised by the Voice of God, etc
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Dynamics of Lordship Salvation

I had thought recently about the dynamics of salvation. In the beginning is the fear of the Lord. Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Surely, the beginning of our knowing Jesus is first knowing that without Him we have an eternity to dread in Hell. There is no doubt about Hell as punishment for us, as Jesus mentions it several times throughout the Gospels, and sprinkled in other places through Scripture. Some would argue that He “does not judge,” but its been a clear conviction of the church through the ages, and through pure reason, that there is punishment for sin that is to come. Jesus is the only way out for that! When one is beginning to be born again – truly born again – the realization comes strong that Jesus is the Christ, and that if He does not become their new life, then they have Hell to pay.

On the other hand, I never want to downplay the joy that comes from knowing Jesus as the Lord and seeing for the first time with spiritual eyes. The first time that I saw this with spiritual eyes was in college. I knew it was true in my head, and I even tried to do the will of God from time to time, but I was not regenerated and couldn’t see until the revelation of Jesus as Lord came to me in knowledge that I could now talk to God freely, and know with a knowing that Jesus is God. It’s just a knowledge that came over me, and I realized deep down that it was what I always wanted.

I am also thankful for the “glasses” that were put on my eyes for the “house church” aspect of church life that helped me to see that it was all about Jesus, and not about any facade that claimed to limit Him to their human regulations. I never thought about Christians meeting together for any other reason other than church stuff. But when I was exposed to the experience of worshiping in a home, I got surely saved, and would never again doubt that I could hear from God just for myself. God’s prophetic word, (futuristic telling of truth communicated through another believer), also played the other greatest role in getting me saved. (But I will put the disclaimer that God uses a million ways to get to get a person saved, as He is not limited to house church, though that is a very effective way.)

Also, it is true that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Rom. 10:17). I heard testimonies of others at my college environment that were about Jesus speaking directly to them and guiding them and leading them to finding mates, or paths in life – and I wanted that so badly! So I would say lastly, that the message of salvation: with its dynamics of Hell as punishment, and joy of knowing Jesus as Lord subjectively, are the dynamics that every believer needs both in equal measures. We should not be overly concentrated on Hell as punishment, nor overly concentrated on knowing the joy of Jesus that comes from hearing God, but if both are present in our lives, then we will be the healthiest believers possible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is Pentecostalism? – Ryan Reeves

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sanctification Through the Holy Spirit by Faith in the Cross – William J. Seymour

Taken from “Sanctified on the Cross.”

The Lord Jesus says, “Blessed are the pure in heart.” Sanctification makes us pure in heart. Any man that is saved and sanctified can feel the fire burning in his heart, when he calls on the name of Jesus. O may God help men and women everywhere to lead a holy life, free from sin, for the Holy Spirit seeks to lead you out of sin into the marvelous light of the Son of God.

The Word says, “Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.” So, beloved, when we get Jesus Christ our King of Peace in our hearts, we have the almighty Christ, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because He trusteth in Thee.” We shall have wisdom, righteousness and power, for God is righteous in all His ways and holy in all His acts. This holiness means perfect love in our hearts, perfect love that casteth out fear.

Brother Paul says in order to become holy and live a holy life, we should abstain from all appearance of evil. Then the apostle adds, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). “To the end He may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints” (1 Thess. 3:13). Bless His holy name. O beloved, after you have received the light, it is holiness or hell. God is calling for men and women in these days that will live a holy life free from sin. We should remain before God until His all cleansing blood makes us holy—body, soul and spirit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Alleluia


Based on Revelation 19:1-6.

VERSE 1

                  1p   Em        1p  Em
I heard a roar of      Alleluia
———-1p         Em            1p       Em
He hath judged the great prostitute
—————1p           Em     1p  Em
Smoke goes up from her,  Alleluia
———1p       Em            1p                      Em
Never seen again, the woman of  ill repute

CHORUS x8 (with a harmony)

4p   Em / 4p 5p Em
Alleluia

VERSE 2

               1p   Em          1p  Em
Ye that fear Him,      Alleluia
—–1p                   Em   1p    Em
The Lord omnipotent reigneth
———-1p        Em       1p  Em
Mighty thund’rings,  Alleluia
——1p                        Em           1p   Em
The worship of our God maintaineth

CHORUS x16 (with a harmony)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment