Spirit Burn – Dan Wheeldon

Lyrics and chords originally from here.

VERSE 1

C                 G                   Em
Bless Your church with tongues of fire, and
C       G        Em
Holy Spirit move
C               G           Em
Leave no trace of man’s desire, and
C        G                 Em
Spirit burn right through
           C              G         Em
Spirit burn

CHORUS

                       C            G          Em
Glorify Your Name
                                 C          G        Em
Let Your kingdom rule over our hearts
                                 C          G        Em
Father show Your face
                           C            G                 Em
Let the light of Heaven shine from us

VERSE 2

Rushing wind blow through this place
Pierce this worldly veil
Fill our streets with Your sweet salvation
Love that never fails

Spirit burn

BRIDGE

C       G     C           Em
Holy fire, fall like rain
C                  G               C                Em
Mark Your church to bear Your Name
C            G           C               G
Come in power, come and reign
C      Em         C              G
Sanctify and stir Your saints

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why I Believe In Evangelical Revivalism

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Non-Conformists – The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Originally from here.

NPG D29704,The Farewell Sermons of ...,by Unknown artistNON-CONFORMISTS: A term applied to the 2,000 clergymen who, in 1662, after the Restoration, left the Church of England rather than submit to the Act of Uniformity which required assent to The Book of Common Prayer. Later it came to apply to the Protestant dissenters and in general to those who at any period in English history, since the establishment of Protestantism, have refused to conform to the doctrines and practices of the established church. In the place of Puritanism before the Restoration now came, after the Restoration, political non-conformity, which has its seat principally among the middle or lower-middle classes, the yeomanry of former times. The Act of Uniformity was followed by other repressive measures: in 1664, the Conventicle Act declaring it unlawful to be present at any religious meeting not conducted according to the usages of the Church of England where more than five persons in addition to the family were assembled; in 1665, the Five-Mile Act intended to banish the ministers from their friends; and, in 1673, the Test Act, incapacitating every person from holding any public office who had not publicly taken the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper according to the usages of the Church of England.

In an effort to unite the opposition to the established church, the Roman Catholic King James II suspended, by a Declaration of Liberty of Conscience in 1687, the execution of all penal laws in ecclesiastical matters and all tests and oaths. As a result ministers were released from jails and restored. The Toleration Act of 1689, under William III, secured to Protestant dissenters a legal existence together with freedom of worship and government under the condition of self-support. This act did not repeal the penal statutes, which were, however, no longer enforced. The benefits conferred by it were much curtailed by the Occasional Communion Act, at the accession of Queen Anne, which excluded from civil office those non-conformists who had qualified under the Test Act; and by the Schism Bill, which restricted the work of education to certified churchmen. These restrictions were removed under George III; and the Test Act was repealed in 1743. The non-conformists have since enjoyed religious liberty, but the agitation has continued, having for its end ecclesiastical disestablishment. In 1836, the dissenters were allowed marriage by their own ministers and rites, and the tithes were commuted into rent charges, though in the latter form they are yet a source of bitter offense. Registration of births, deaths, and marriages was transferred from Church to State and a charter given to the free University of London, imposing no religious tests.

Along educational lines, the great universities were thrown open to young non-conformists in 1871, and a system of state schools established which rendered non-conformists independent of the established church for primary education; and their latest agitation was the unsuccessful Education Bill in 1906, providing for optional religious education in all state schools. In 1880 non-conformists secured the enactment of the Burial Laws Amendment by virtue of which dissenting ministers may conduct funerals in churchyards and in the consecrated parts of cemetaries, but the customary fees must still be paid to the clergy of the established church. Though divided by distinctions of sect, yet as a compact, aggressive body, they hold the balance of power, outnumber the adherents of the Church of England, and stand as the representatives of liberality in doctrine as well as in polity. The chief organization through which non-conformity is to work cooperatively for the promotion of dissenters’ rights and religious liberty are the “General Body of Protestant Ministers of the Three Denominations” (Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist) constituted in 1727 and still meeting annually; the “Liberation Society”; and the “Free Church Council.”

Bibliography. The literature under CONGREGATIONALISTS; PURITANS; and LIBERTY, RELIGIOUS, is pertinent; A. S. Dyer, Sketches of English Nonconformity, London, 1881; T. Price, Hist. of Protestant Nonconformity in England, 2 vols., London, 1836-38; J. A. James, Protestant Nonconformity, ib., 1849; T. Coleman, The 2,000 Confessors of 1662, ib., 1860; idem, The English Confessors after the Reformation to the Days of the Commonwealth, ib., 1862; R. Vaughn, English Nonconformity, ib., 1862; T. Rees, Protestant Nonconformity in Wales, ib., 1883; J. Hammond, English Nonconformity, ib., 1893; C. S. Horne, Nonconformity in the 19th Century, ib., 1905.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What Is Revival?

sermonindex3Greg Gordon, Founder of SermonIndex.net:

In our day of Christendom, revival is a word used by many to exhibit many different ideals that we would say have veered from the apostolic version of the word revival. Firstly what revival is not: it is not healing, it is not miracles, it is not a supernatural manifestation, it is not prosperity, it is not evangelistic meetings.  The abuse of the word revival to promote many spurious manifestations in our day, and false anointings, has overwhelmed Christianity worldwide, while the true meaning of the word has been lost.

What then is revival? In short revival is simply the people of God coming into the light; and in right relationship with the living God and His Son Jesus Christ. Revival presumes declension, it presumes that one has fallen away from a state of peace, life and joy and needs to be restored to the original place with God. Revival highlights sin of all types, wickedness that puts us as enemies of God, where we must be dealt with by the grieving of the Lord’s Spirit. Revival when experienced will make Jesus Christ glorious and the only preeminent one in one’s life. Revival brings great glory to Jesus Christ alone, and not to the Holy Spirit, or any other thing. The Son must be lifted up that all would be drawn to Him; and if we get our eyes off of Him, we need revival to turn from the snakes of sin, and fix our gaze and affection solely on the Lamb of God.

—–

J. B., Founder of WesleyGospel.com:

When I think of the word revival the first event that pops in my mind is the Great Awakening of the 1730s, with Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield; and also, with John Wesley and the Methodists in England, and Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening camp meetings. I even think of William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival. I will try to explain my view of revival from what I know in Scripture, reason, church history, and personal experience.

1. Scripture. The first Biblical revival that I can think of would be the one that occurred through Enoch, when “people began to call on the name of the Lord” after a long of period of apostasy (Genesis 4:26); next, I think of Moses’ experience with the Israelites in the desert as one long series of revivals (Exodus); miracles, signs, and wonders were present, for sure; but after a long time of apostasy (the Jews had even worshiped a golden calf), God used Moses to call the people back to obey God’s commandments; while thousands opposed the revival of Moses, thousands also were revived and obeyed God. The “sons of the prophets” (2 Kings 2:3) were something like prophetic monk orders under the leadership of Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha; I guess you could call these prophetic or spiritual movements, but not revivals; a revival however, did occur when Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal in the sight of all Israel, and did a nature miracle that brought so much fear of God among the people, that they turned back to God in full repentance, and killed 400 prophets of Baal, at Elijah’s command, according to the law of Moses (1 Kings 18). John the Baptist and his disciples at the Jordan River, preaching the baptism of repentance, was a revival: perhaps one of the most important revivals in the Bible, because it was the revival that gathered a large number of Jews from all over and paved the way for Jesus. When the right time had come, John the Baptist told his disciples to follow Jesus (Luke 3:1-20). For three years, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ led revivals all over the land of Palestine. He preached repentance, forgiveness of sins by faith in Him, healed the sick, and cast out devils (Luke 4-21). And He gave the same power to many of His disciples to disperse out and do the same: this is called EVANGELISM. And we see this acted out by the apostles in the Book of Acts: especially by the apostle Paul.

2. Reason. It is common sense to observe that such a thing as revival is not only Biblical, but reasonably necessary at certain points in religious history. The word revival in the dictionary is defined as restoration to life. That which needs reviving is dead; and needs to be resuscitated, brought back to life, revived: sort of like a man whose heart has stopped beating, and needs a paramedic to shock his heart back to life with a pair of defibrillator paddles, and someone shouts, “CLEAR!” And shocks the man’s chest; and his whole body convulses, and he’s alive again, and his heart is beating, says, “Thanks for SAVING MY LIFE!” It is reasonable to say things like this should occur at various periods in church history, in the moral and spiritual sense, because if they did not, Christian life would always be meaningless and ritualistic. I think modern evangelical (as well as Pentecostal) Christianity is in a DESPERATE NEED OF REVIVALS, because all I see in these churches are dead pastors and dead people. There is often no life, no excitement over what it is they’re doing; no thanks to the Seeker-Sensitive Movement, and the decline of Hell-fire and repentance Gospel preaching.

3. Church History. Although I believe revivals have occurred since the time of Enoch and Moses, in the traditional sense of the word revival, it seems to have originated with the Puritans, when they saw lukewarmness entering the Church of England, and they wanted to see a reviving of their churches back to the original spirituality that had been stirred in former days: namely, over the rediscovery of THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST; as expressed in the Anglican and Puritan soteriology of repentance, faith, atonement, the cross, justification, regeneration, sanctification, etc. Michael J. Crawford’s Seasons of Grace: Colonial New England’s Revival Tradition in Its British Context (1991), shows that Jonathan Edwards, whom evangelicals usually think of as the first revivalist, was thinking in terms of a revival tradition that he had inherited from his Puritan forefathers. He was not too much of an innovator in that sense. Revivals of religion were also called “seasons of grace”: that is, periods where the Holy Spirit poured out on masses in the church, to revive, or renew their experience of salvation by faith and holiness of life in Jesus Christ. I like to think of Leonard Ravenhill and The Banner of Truth Trust as the last BRITISH element of this classic traditional view of revival from its Anglican, Puritan, and Methodist contexts.

4. Experience. I have never experienced a revival in the historical sense of the word. I wish I could some day. But I have experienced aspects of God’s grace in a lot of the same ways that people in times past have in these revivals. When I first came to Christ at the age of 14, it was out of a formality of church attendance at a United Methodist Church, and in the raw evangelistic altar call of a radical youth pastor named Micah, who had the guts to call his youth ministry HELLFIGHTER YOUTH CHURCH: in the midst of having recently done some stupid mischief, and gotten in trouble with the law, the altar call was enough for the Spirit of God to make it clear to my heart, that if I did not make it a point right now to live for God, then if I died, I would go to Hell. I have been walking in the fear of Hell, and of God, ever since, growing in obedience to the Bible, and loving Jesus for dying on the cross and forgiving my sins. Soon afterwards, a Christian friend led me into the experience of praising God by speaking in tongues and feeling God’s presence. I had, in these ways, been revived from a go-to-church view of Christianity (formality) to a living-for-God view of Christianity (revival; or, Christian spirituality).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Teachings of the Pharisees

“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees…Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” –Matthew 16:6, 12

Christ and AnnasThe following is a careful examination of what the New Testament says about the Pharisees and their teachings:–spiritual teachings that Jesus warned Christians against. Everything here is backed up by the New Testament. In a time like the 21st century, when rare people in the church try to make a stand for holiness, often the accusation of “Pharisee” is thrown at them. But let’s see what THE NEW TESTAMENT says about Pharisees; and make a right judgment about how to use the word “Pharisee.” And, finally obey Jesus’ teaching to be on our guard against Pharisaical teachings, as described in the New Testament. The NASB is mainly used.

I ask you, “Do you know of any church leaders, churchgoers, so-called Christians, etc. that have the teachings of the Pharisees?” Let these serve as a guide for spiritual discernment.

—–

1. Focusing on Outward Rituals (the Ceremonial Law, or man-made religious traditions); and Not Inward Holiness (Obedience to the Moral Law from the Heart). Matthew 23:36: “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.” | Luke 11:38: “When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.” | Matthew 5:20: “I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.” | Matthew 15:3-9: “He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,’ he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'” | Acts 15:5: “Some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.'” – The Judaizers were heretics in the early church who said salvation from Hell was only possible through circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and the ceremonial law…still having the residue of Pharisaism.

2. No Grace for Repentant Sinners. Luke 7:39: “Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.'” | Matthew 9:10-13: “As Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (NKJV). | John 8:3-6: “The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?’ They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him.”

3. Holier-Than-Thou: Arrogant When Comparing Themselves With Blatant Sinners. Luke 18:11: “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.”

4. Not Preaching Hell; nor Warning of God’s Wrath to Come. Matthew 3:7: “When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

The average man…“The old ‘Hell-fire’ preaching is not preached to him now, but he would not tolerate it if it were. Once it appeared sound doctrine…” (E. S. Waterhouse, “The Theological Revolution and the Average Man,” The Living Age, vol. LIX, April-June, 1913, p. 44).

5. Refusing to Accept Deliverance Ministry (or Exorcism). Matthew 9:33-34: “After the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed, and were saying, ‘Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel.’ But the Pharisees were saying, ‘He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.’ – And by saying this, they were basically saying, “You have a demon!” (John 7:20).

6. Nitpicky and Unreasonable About Sabbath-Keeping. Matthew 12:1-2: “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, ‘Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.'” | Luke 6:7: “The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him.” | In John 9:13-34, the Pharisees rejected the healing of a blind man as a proof that Jesus is the Christ, because in their view, Jesus “is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath” (v. 16):–because He healed the blind man on the Sabbath.

7. Plotting to Kill Saints. Matthew 12:14: “The Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.”

8. Putting Saints “On the Spot” to Perform Miracles. Matthew 12:38: “Some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.'”

9. Morally Lax About Divorce and Remarriage. Matthew 19:3: “Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?’” | My stance is that remarriage for the innocent party is allowable ONLY if their spouse has committed adultery (Matthew 19:9), has deserted them (1 Corinthians 7:15), or died (Romans 7:1-3). This view agrees with The Westminster Confession, “Of Marriage and Divorce,” Chapter 24; and William Heth, “Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion” in Remarriage After Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views. | The Pharisees, however, believed in divorce for any reason they could come up with (“incompatibility”: what Jesus called “hardness of heart,” Matthew 19:8).

10. Plotting to Trap Saints in Their Words: To Get Them In Trouble with the Government or Church Leaders. Matthew 22:15: “The Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.” | Matthew 22:34-36: “When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

11. Rejecting the Deity of Christ. Matthew 22:41-46: “Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: ‘What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, ‘SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET’? ‘If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?’ No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.”

12. Proud of Being Famous, Guilt-Tripping, Religious Leaders. Matthew 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.”

13. Rejecting Repentance, Baptism, and Lordship Salvation (the Gospel). Matthew 23:13: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” | Luke 7:30: “The Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” – Also called a “baptism of repentance” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4)…this is probably why Jesus’ first direction to Nicodemus, the seeking Pharisee, was for him to be born again of water first, and then of the Spirit (John 3:1-5). Before one could accept the teachings of Jesus, one had to first accept the teaching of John the Baptist: “REPENT!” (This does not mean baptismal regeneration; or salvation by baptism. It means REPENTANCE, or turning away from sin continually in the heart, and getting baptized as a sign of it, in obedience to God.) Sadly, most Pharisees were not like Nicodemus; but were impenitent when faced with the Gospel of Christ.

14. Devouring Widows’ Houses. Matthew 23:14a: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses.” – Adam Clarke’s Commentary says:

On this subject I am in possession of nothing better than the following note of Dr. Whitby.

“This sect,” says Josephus (Ant. 50.17.3) “pretended to a more exact knowledge of the law,” on which account the women were subject to them, as pretending to be dear to God. And when Alexandra obtained the government (Wars. 1.4), they insinuated themselves into her favour, as being the exactest sect of the Jews, and the most exact interpreters of the law, and, abusing her simplicity, did as they listed, remove and dispose, bind and loose, and even cut off men. They were in vogue for their long prayers, which they continued sometimes three hours; that perhaps they sold them, as do the Roman priests their masses, or pretended others should be more acceptable to God for them; and so might spoil devout widows by the gifts or salaries they expected from them. Now this being only a hypocritical pretence of piety, must be hateful to God, and so deserve a greater condemnation.

15. Acting Pious with Long Prayers in Public. Matthew 23:14b: “…for a pretense you make long prayers.”

16. Making Ungodly Disciples. Matthew 23:15: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of Hell as yourselves.”

17. Swearing Oaths on Worthless Things. Matthew 23:16-22: “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. And whoever swears by Heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.”

18. Emphasizing Tithes and Offerings:–But Neglecting Justice, Mercy, and Faithfulness. Matthew 23:23-24: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”

19. Emphasizing Beauty and Cleanliness Outwardly, But Being Robbers, Materialistic, and Self-Indulgent Inwardly. Matthew 23:25-26: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.” | Mark 7:3-4: “The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.”

20. Appearing to Be Righteous Outwardly, But Full of Hypocrisy (Pretending) and Lawlessness Inwardly. Matthew 23:27-28: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” | Luke 12:1: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” Strong’s Concordance Greek #5272 for hypocrisy: “THE ACTING OF A STAGE PLAYER.”

21. Descending From a Family Line That Kills Saints. Matthew 23:29-33: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of Hell!?”

22. Working with Corrupt Political Leaders. Matthew 27:62: “The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate.” | Mark 3:6: “The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.”

23. Breaking God’s Commandments In Order to Keep Their Religious Traditions. Mark 7:9: “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” | John 7:19: “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law?”

24. Arguing Against Jesus and His Teachings. Mark 8:11: “The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him…”

25. Refusing to Believe That Jesus Can Forgive Sins. Luke 5:21: “The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, ‘Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?'”

26. Trying to Scare Saints Away From Their Territory. Luke 13:31: “Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.” [This was a lie; because later on during the trial of Jesus, Herod sent Him back to Pilate (Luke 23:8-12); and then Pilate could barely be moved to harm Him, except at the urging of the Pharisees and the angry mob of Jews, yelling, “Crucify Him!” It was the Pharisees who wanted to kill Jesus or have Him leave their territory (Luke 23:18-25)].

27. Being Materialistic (or a Lover of Money). Luke 16:13-15: “‘No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.’ Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. And He said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.'” | Materialistic priests, pastors, clergymen, prosperity gospel televangelists–who not only love money as a thing in itself; but love to spend it on luxury items, as the rich man who went to Hell (Luke 16:19).

28. Being Against the Worship of Jesus. Luke 19:37-40: “As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, shouting: “BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in Heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.’ But Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!'”

29. Being Jealous of Saints with a Large Following. John 4:1: “The Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.” | John 11:48: “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” | John 12:19: “The Pharisees said to one another, ‘You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.'”

30. Rejecting Jesus As the Messiah or Christ. John 7:31-32: “Many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, ‘When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?’ The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize Him.” | John 7:48: “No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?” | John 8:13: “The Pharisees said to Him, ‘You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.'” | John 12:42: “Many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue (excommunicated).”

31. Using Judas Iscariot to Capture Jesus by Force. John 18:3: “Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.”

32. Believing in the Spirit World. Acts 23:8: “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.” – Perhaps this is the only good thing about the Pharisees, but as we can see from all the former teachings, it is far from good enough.

—–

Bible Dictionary Recapitulations:
Additional Things About Pharisaic Teaching to Be On Guard Against

1. “In respect to their tenets, although they esteemed the written books of the Old Testament as the sources of the Jewish religion, yet they also attributed great and equal authority to traditional precepts relating principally to external rites: as ablutions (ceremonial washings), fasting, long prayers, the distribution of alms, the avoiding of all intercourse with Gentiles and publicans, etc. See Matthew 6:5 9:11; 23:5; Mark 7:4 Luke 18:12. In superstitious and self-righteous formalism they strongly resembled the Romish church…In numerous cases Christ denounced the Pharisees for their pride and covetousness, their ostentation in prayers, alms, tithes, and fasts, Matthew 6:2, 5; Luke 18:9, and their hypocrisy in employing the garb of religion to cover the profligacy (extravagance) of their dispositions and conduct; as Matthew 23:1-39; Luke 16:14; John 7:48, 49; 8:9. By His faithful reproofs He early incurred their hatred, Matthew 12:14; they eagerly sought to destroy Him, and His blood was upon them and their children…The essential features of their character are still common in Christian lands, and are no less odious to Christ than of old” [“Pharisees” in ATS Bible Dictionary].

2. “There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matthew 5:20; 15:4,8; 23:3,14,23,25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matthew 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a “generation of vipers.” They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matthew 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11,12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matthew 12:39; 16:1-4)…From the very beginning of His ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear His doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy His influence among the people” [“Pharisees,” in Easton’s Bible Dictionary].

3. “Paul’s remembrance of his former bondage as a rigid Pharisee produced that reaction in his mind, upon his embracing the Gospel, that led to his uncompromising maintenance, under the Spirit of God, of Christian liberty and justification by faith only, in opposition to the yoke of ceremonialism and the righteousness which is of the law (Galatians 4; 5)…The Mishna has six divisions (on seeds, feasts, women’s marriage, etc., decreases and compacts, holy things, clean and unclean), and an introduction on blessings. Hillel and Shammai were leaders of two schools of the Pharisees, differing on slight points; The Mishna refers to both (living before Christ) and to Hillel’s grandson, Paul’s’ teacher, Gamaliel…The actions to be so judged were in reference to the ceremonial points as much as the moral duties…In many respects their doctrine was right (ORTHO-DOXY), so that Christ desires conformity to their precepts as from “Moses’ seat,” but not to their practice (Matthew 23:2-3) (ORTHO-PRAXY). But while pressing the letter of the law they ignored the Spirit (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:31-32)” [“Pharisees,” in Fausset’s Bible Dictionary].

4. “The chief sects among the Jews were the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, who may be described respectively as the Formalists, the Freethinkers and the Puritans…A cursory perusal of the Gospels is sufficient to show that Christ’s teaching was in some respects thoroughly antagonistic to theirs. He denounced them in the bitterest language; see (Matthew 15:7,8; 23:5,13,14,15,23; Mark 7:6; Luke 11:42-44) and compare (Mark 7:1-5; 11:29; 12:19,20; Luke 6:28,37-42)…While it was the aim of Jesus to call men to the law of God itself as the supreme guide of life, the Pharisees, upon the pretense of maintaining it intact, multiplied minute precepts and distinctions to such an extent that the whole life of the Israelite was hemmed in and burdened on every side by instructions so numerous and trifling that the law was almost if not wholly lost sight of. These “traditions” as they were called, had long been gradually accumulating. Of the trifling character of these regulations innumerable instances are to be found in The Mishna. Such were their washings before they could eat bread, and the special minuteness with which the forms of this washing were prescribed; their bathing when they returned from the market; their washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, etc.; their fastings twice in the week, (Luke 18:12) were their tithing; (Matthew 23:23) and such, finally, were those minute and vexatious extensions of the law of the Sabbath, which must have converted God’s gracious ordinance of the Sabbath’s rest into a burden and a pain (Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 18:10-17)…It was a leading aim of the Redeemer to teach men that true piety consisted not in forms, but in substance, not in outward observances, but in an inward spirit. The whole system of Pharisaic piety led to exactly opposite conclusions…With all their pretenses to piety they were in reality avaricious (greedy; materialistic), sensual (sexually immoral) and dissolute (morally lax) (Matthew 23:25; John 13:7). They looked with contempt upon every nation but their own (racism). (Luke 10:29)…The Pharisees at an early day secured the popular favor and thereby acquired considerable political influence. This influence was greatly increased by the extension of the Pharisees over the whole land and the majority which they obtained in the Sanhedrin. Their number reached more than six thousand under the Herods” [“Pharisees” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary].

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Romans 12: Practical Moral Issues

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Romans 11: A Remnant of the Jews Will Be Saved

Continuing the theme from chs. 9 and 10, Paul is saying the Gospel of Jesus Christ extends the offer of salvation from Hell to all men, both Jews and Gentiles. Even though the majority of Jews have rejected the Gospel, there will always be a remnant among them who will become born again Christians (v. 5). Personal, individual repentance and faith remain the conditions for election and salvation; and personal impenitence and unbelief the conditions for reprobation (vv. 7-10). God still has a plan to save Jews by Christ (vv. 28-32). So, Gentile Christians should not be prideful over against the Jews (a warning against antisemitism); especially because Christianity branched off of Judaism (vv. 17-24).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Modesty – Upward Call Media

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Review of P. T. Bauer’s “Dissent on Development”

Dissent on DevelopmentP. T. Bauer’s Dissent on Development, Revised Edition (1976) is considered the number one authority on development economics; it is that branch of economics which deals with the development process of Third World, low-income countries. It can be technical at times in its processing of data and statistics and interpretation, but the ultimate goal is to develop ideas by which the Third World can be elevated by economic growth, from poverty to ever-increasing wealth and better living standards. I got this book for myself; for my own economic growth. I am no economist, but it is not hard to extract and apply principles of economic growth personally to my own household which Bauer applies internationally to poor countries and people groups.

CHAPTER 1. In this chapter, Bauer issues his first blast of dissent into the economic world: he attacks the idea of the “cycle of poverty.” It is the idea that the rich are rich, because they’re rich; and the poor are poor, because they’re poor. In other words, the idea of economic fatalism is what he is criticizing; an idea that has been around since the Puritans, that some are predestined to be rich and others to be poor; the same idea pervades the Hindu caste system. Bauer has good news for the poor: you don’t have to remain poor if you change your ideas and habits (p. 38). Bauer repeatedly argues that the “cycle of poverty” myth is propagated by liberal politicians with a socialist type of agenda, who are bent on issuing out foreign aid programs to Third World nations. He criticizes these intellectuals and politicians for inaccurately painting a picture that the poor are caught in a “cycle of poverty”; and there is nothing they can do to get out of their paycheck-to-paycheck existence. Therefore, say the “cycle of poverty” people, the least we can do is provide them with some government-based foreign aid programs.

Bauer can be very technical and statistical; and can therefore be pretty dry, and boring. However, he has his moments where he will say one sentence; and it is golden with economic wisdom. In the Introduction he says his book “explains why those who have achieved prosperity so often fail to find the happiness or even the contentment naively expected of material progress” (p. 27). Amen! That is something that only a Biblical, faith-based experience of Christian spirituality can deliver on. Nevertheless, he proceeds to explain the processes of material progress, because, as is noted later, “The advantage of economic growth is not that wealth increases happiness, but that it increases the range of human choice (p. 202, quoting Sir Arthur Lewis, The Theory of Economic Growth, p. 420). The more money you have, the more choices you have, the more power and abilities you have to do what you want. For me, this affects my choices in what I want to do as a husband, father, and potential independent revival minister. But even as I explore how to make friends of the “unrighteous mammon” of money in a righteous manner (Luke 16:9), I must take heed to the Parable of the Sower: “The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the Word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful…as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature” (Matthew 13:22; Luke 8:14). Of these worries, and riches, and pleasures:–we must not be deceived. Wealth, if guided by faith in the Bible, can be very useful (Deuteronomy 8); but if handled irresponsibly or without faith, it leads to materialism and apostasy.

The “cycle of poverty” in a nutshell is this: poor people live a paycheck-to-paycheck existence; they are always just getting by, just making it, just paying their bills; they go to their job, go to work; and get a paycheck; but they are not able to save money or look to the future to do something with those savings. Therefore, these people need help: they need government aid programs; its the least we can do to help them.

In so many technical words, Bauer criticizes this whole picture and says, “Yeah, yeah…POOR PEOPLE NEED TO INVEST what little extra savings they can set aside. In time, with patience, it will yield returns for them; and they will have a good chunk of change to use for say, furthering their educations, getting job certifications and new skills, getting higher paying jobs, saving more money, and investing more money.” In order words, the poor need to not despise the day of small beginnings (Zechariah 4:10); if they are faithful with a little money in saving and investing, then God will bless and prosper them, and they will be faithful with much money (Matthew 25:21). Incremental, step-by-step investing is what Bauer is talking about; he doesn’t mention stocks though, because he is directly talking about Third World people investing in the farms they are working on (cash crops); but obviously the practical application for poor Americans is to invest in the stock market. In my case, I would want to use a stock broker, because I don’t want to get caught up in the worry, and the technicality of playing the market with charts and graphs. The fear of the risk of losing on an investment must be set aside; faith in God for financial increase; and detachment from your possessions which you are going to sacrifice for investment purposes: these must all play their own part. Faith and risk and detachment from material possessions: all Biblical, Christian principles. Better to give extra money away to a stock broker than to spend it on a movie, a burger, a vacation, or a trip to the bowling alley. Start investing in stocks now! Your family’s future depends on it! To the man who doesn’t invest, the voice of conscience will someday rail on him: “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest!” (Matthew 25:27). Bankers, stock brokers; money, stocks–same thing…just modernized. We don’t know what the interest rate of the bank was that Jesus was referring to. It was probably very high.

Bauer says that when a Third World culture comes into contact with a wealthy Western business culture it leads to economic growth. He says, “This development usually elicits a higher economic performance: more EFFORT (at the expense of leisure), more productive SAVING and INVESTMENT” (p. 39). Less entertainment, more investment–seems to be his equation for economic growth. Frequently, this order of economic growth ideas repeats in this chapter: 1. Hard work. 2. Saving money. 3. Investing money. If anything, this is basically how Bauer thinks about economic growth; incrementally, bit by bit, even for the poorest men on the face of the earth in Third World countries. If they can do it, then surely the poorest working men in America can too. I guess this is a “cycle of economic growth!” Hard work, saving, investing; hard work, saving more, investing more; hard work, saving a lot, investing a lot, etc, etc. Stewardship. “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things!” (Matthew 25:21). But always remember: it’s the Lord’s money.

CHAPTER 2. In this chapter, Bauer attacks government aid and especially foreign aid through government taxation and distribution. But don’t be deceived: there is plenty of direct, personal economic applications that you can derive and conclude from reading. Although Bauer is studying economic growth from an international scope; particularly the progress of Third World countries, this highly educated Capitalistic economics professor always spills out economic principles that are sound, solid, logical, and personally useful. He makes the case that he is expressing the dissenting or unpopular view that Socialism (government aid programs) are NOT necessary or even to be taken for granted in the elevation of the poor to greater wealth. In fact, to rely on the government for your economic future is similar to 1984, to Marxism, to limiting your career choices based on what the government gives you by way of jobs. The Employment Security Commission (ESC) comes to mind. Section 3: “Determinants of Development” contains the often-quoted passage on pages 78-79, where bad economic attitudes are listed as the REAL CAUSES for the plight of the poor:

1. Lack of interest in material advance.
2. Resignation (giving up) in the face of poverty.
3. Lack of initiative, self-reliance, and responsibility to provide for your family.
4. High leisure preference.
5. Lassitude (lack of energy; sometimes affected by working in the heat).
6. High prestige of the contemplative life (cp. St. Francis of Assisi, Hindu gurus).
7. High prestige of mysticism.
8. High prestige of renunciation of the world rather than economic achievement.
9. Acceptance of a preordained, unchanging universe.
10. Emphasis on performing duties and not achieving economic results.
11. Lack of assertiveness about one’s personal rights.
12. Lack of curiosity, experimentation, and interest in change.
13. Believing supernatural forces are controlling your destiny (economic fate).
14. Environmentalism; and not conquering nature to use it for man’s needs.
15. Belief in reincarnation:–which decreases economic effort in the present life.
16. Acceptance of being a beggar; and lack of shame in receiving charity.
17. Opposition to women working a job outside of the house.

As I already addressed in my article “Rules for Economic Growth,” if we do the opposite of these anti-development attitudes, then we will be on the path of economic growth: that is, to be VERY interested in material advancement; to not get discouraged during ebbs or low points in your economic life; to have high energy and initiative for job searching mixed with a desire to not only provide for your family, but to see them flourish; to responsibly restrict spending money on fun and entertainment, and only spend what is reasonable on such things; to live a MIXED LIFE (one that blends both the active life and the contemplative life):–so that you don’t become a lazy, unproductive spiritual guru on the one hand–but neither a workaholic, super-rich Ebenezer Scrooge on the other hand (from A Christmas Carol), totally consumed by materialism and the love of money. I think the early Methodists did a good job at living the mixed life; especially in the area of generosity, which is a way that productive, hard working, and even prosperous Christians can exert the virtue of renouncing some of their possessions for entertainment, and instead giving large amounts of money to the poor and needy for Jesus.

Economic predestination does not need to be applied to yourself. No Christian should say to himself, because Jesus said, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20) or “the poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11)–that because Christ said these things, that you yourself should draw the conclusion that you should always be poor if you plan on being blessed and going to Heaven. That is not what Jesus means. What it does mean, though, is that in the world, God will see to it that there is at least always someone who is poor, so that the virtues of charity and generosity can be exercised by those who are not poor, and faith in God as a Provider can be exercised by the poor. Also, you do not have to remain poor in order to go to Heaven. Salvation is by repentance and faith in the cross (Romans 3-4), not by remaining poor. What Jesus means is this: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). In other words, like the apostle Paul, all Christians should live by faith in Christ, when he said, “I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through Him who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:12-13). And not to trust in money, in investments, in assets; not to misplace your faith in your skills and experience, your education, your job, your retirement plan, your savings which moth and rust can destroy, which thief (and government) can break in and steal (Matthew 6:19)…but to be detached from all of these things inwardly, and be willing to GENEROUSLY GIVE THEM ALL AWAY immediately at Christ’s command, unlike the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-22), and unlike that miserable old miser Mr. Scrooge. The circumstances of poverty and wealth, I believe, are carefully under God’s sovereign control in each and every one of our lives. It does not matter that we remain in an unchangeable economic condition–whether permanently rich or permanently poor–what matters is that we live by faith and obedience to Jesus and the Bible. And if we are rich, then as rich Christians, God will test our faith; and if we are poor, then as poor Christians, God will test our faith. But I believe every Christian husband and father should seek economic growth and upward mobility to provide for his family, to serve the church, and to be a charitable influence in the world for Christ and the Gospel, always acknowledging his wealth would be eaten up, destroyed, and stolen, if he were to lose his faith in God as his Provider (see Deuteronomy 8). He must remind himself daily, that it is “God who gives him power to get wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:18); and not only himself, his abilities, and business talents.

When Christians go to work at their jobs, they should serve their masters as if they are serving Christ. But ultimately, Christ is their Master, and they must bear this in mind for the long-term (Ephesians 6:5-8). If you are living by faith in Christ, then the Spirit of Jesus will lead you and guide you in career advancement as well as economic growth and financial wisdom in all areas (Acts 16:7-9). While Christians should work hard, and be productive, excellent employees, they should also bear in mind that all these things are transitory, passing, and may only last a couple of years, until the Spirit of Christ leads them elsewhere, to more prosperous places of employment (James 4:13-15). Remaining flexible and available to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible, in the daily stuff of life, is an essential attribute of living by faith. Don’t enslave yourself in Egypt. Let God lead you to the Promised Land: just know that He will bring you through the desert to test your heart. While eternity and our standing with Christ in justification by far exceeds in importance to the state of our temporary economic conditions:–still…Biblically speaking, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8), because at least the pagans try to do that; the Christian differs in that he sets his priority on “seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,” and then from the outflow of a godly life, God will provide all these economic needs by adding them unto him (Matthew 6:32-33). It is the husband or father’s primary responsibility to be the breadwinner in the family; and even to work outside of the home. It is the wife and mother’s primary responsibility to keep house and train the children (Titus 2:4-5); but in a tough economy like this, Christian men, don’t let your “PRIDE TO PROVIDE” get in the way of your wife doing some work-at-home jobs on sites like ratracerebellion.com, sykes.com, and flexjobs.com. All of which can enable her to fulfill her Biblical role as a housewife; AND her Biblical role as the Proverbs 31 woman, who was a work-at-home mom (vv. 11, 13, 16-19, 27, 31). And hey, you yourself might want to work at home too…I know I want to.

A spirit of personal independence is important for economic growth. If you want to have better job opportunities with greater pay or benefits, then you are going to need the freedom to move anywhere, to any city or state that would help you in your economic endeavors. Bauer says that subjection to state control over your job is “subjection of the individual to authority. Such a development discourages self-reliance, personal provision for the future, sustained curiosity and an experimental turn of mind…also…restrictions on occupational and geographical mobility inhibit the establishment of new [business] contacts, the spirit of experimentation and the opportunities to set up new enterprises. Mobility and experimentation promote material advance in familiar ways, including the erosion of attitudes and customs adverse to material progress” (pp. 84-85). While there is no concern in the USA or the UK for state control over economic mobility (or freedom to move for better jobs, etc), there may be reason to beware of social or family control over such mobility. Family ties, whether mentally healthy or not, can prevent would-be upwardly mobile adults from moving away from their relatives; keep them in an economically stagnant region, and not moving to a different place with plenty of great job opportunities. This might pose a real problem for young adults with authoritarian family structures. Authoritarian state or family “planners seem more interested in controlling people’s lives than in liberating their minds or augmenting their resources” (p. 92).

On page 95, Bauer begins Part 2: “Foreign Aid” in which he argues against the wasteful spending in taxing Western countries and sending millions of dollars to the governments of Third World countries like India, who usually end up misspending the money, or not using it in a manner that the donors thought it should be used. The charitable philanthropists, in the USA and UK in government positions, are often deceived, and betrayed by the trust they place in these Third World leaders. Their heart-strings are pulled when they see the starving faces and slums of these poor countries. So, they send millions of dollars of “foreign aid” in hopes that the government officials of these countries will also charitably and philanthropically help the poor; but often, they don’t. They pocket the money for themselves and spend the rest on their armies or “freedom fighters”! This especially goes for Algeria, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Tanzania, the United Arab Republic, and Zambia (p. 130). It’s government thievery or swindling at worst; and at best, it’s at least a betrayal of trust. Also, it makes these Third World leaders feel embarrassed, shamed, and patronized by the rich leaders of the West. It demonstrates how weak their countries are; and how strong the donor countries are; and so, it hurts their pride as leaders, and they grow to resent the people giving them the foreign aid, because they feel patronized; and yet, they don’t hesitate to pocket the money for themselves! It’s just a mess. You might think, one Third World country might misuse foreign aid, but that doesn’t speak for all of them. But Bauer says over the years since World War II, the stats don’t lie: there are very few Third World countries who have seen nationwide economic growth as a result of foreign aid: namely, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Israel; and this was only because they adopted the capitalistic work ethic of the West (pp. 132-133). As far as the Third World is concerned, these four countries are the exception to the rule.

One breakthrough that Japan took advantage of was they remained humble and teachable and paid for technical advice on how to think more capitalistically. He says, “The Japanese government drew readily on foreign technical instruction and advice. The expenditure was financed from their own funds and proved very productive” (p. 104). (In personal application, I think it would be wise for the poor in the USA to pay a financial planner for technical instruction on personal economic growth and investing; but prior to that, I would suggest studying David Bach’s The Automatic Millionaire; and learn to think for yourself a bit in this area). Most Third World countries that receive foreign aid from America or rich countries in Western Europe:–their leaders misspend the money; and neither do the people have enough of a capitalistic work ethic to experience personal or nationwide economic growth. Plus, many Third World leaders lean towards communism; and automatically hate the capitalist countries of the West; not to mention the radical Muslim countries of the Middle East. Finally, Bauer concludes, the stats show that foreign aid is simply not necessary for Third World countries to experience national economic growth over time: a strong work ethic is. He says, “Many underdeveloped countries have advanced very rapidly over the last half century or so without foreign aid…in the Far East, Southeast Asia, East and West Africa, and Latin America” (p. 97). “The prime determinants of material progress are people’s economic aptitudes (skills, talents, abilities, performance)” (p. 100)–“population growth, material progress, and motivation are also clearly interrelated, with motivation the decisive independent variable” (p. 125).

“Going to college and getting a degree” is a long-standing tradition in America; and this idea has been preached to the Third World as part of the gospel of economic growth. However, oftentimes, when Third World countries build themselves universities, there is high unemployment for their graduates, because once they are out of college, and start to search the job market, they get dismayed at how low the demand is for the skills they acquired with their degrees. Engineering grads in India are an example (p. 104). However, I think the same problem exists in America, to a certain level. The vague idea of “going to college and getting a four-year Bachelor’s degree” is actually not really good enough advice. The advice to the young should be: “seek education and skills for yourself where there is an abundant demand for prosperous jobs”:–whether that involves going to a specific college, acquiring a specific degree, a specific internship, and specific skills, etc. should be entirely determined by the research the young man or woman has done in discovering where new jobs are being created; perhaps by going to career counselors, career centers, and studying books like The Top 100 Fastest Growing Careers in the current year; because from year to year these change. That way, by prioritizing personal research of in-demand jobs; the young high schooler is not going to be misguided into thinking that if he desires to be a musician, an animator, an astronaut, an English teacher, a dancer, or philosopher; and that if he gets degrees in these things, or if he gets a communications degree, because it involves topics that he is interested in, and he could get good grades and a nice GPA, that this will automatically resolve any problems for him finding a satisfying good-paying job during his job search after college.

Not so! Unless he does the research himself; and looks to acquire the skills and education for a job he not only likes, but is IN DEMAND in the society, in the stats, in the books, and he has gotten his feet wet in some volunteer interning, and has proved by personal experience that such-and-such job types really are in-demand:–then he is taking the wiser approach to higher education, and not wasting thousands of dollars and precious time. Such an approach is much wiser than just telling your kids: “Go to college and get a Bachelor’s degree, because then you will be able to get a good job.” Such a sentence is far too simplistic to prepare kids for the competitive, complex, technical, developing job market in America. I personally know several people who currently have Associates or Bachelors degrees; and are working minimum wage $8-$10/hour jobs; and they’ve been out of college for over 5 years! This is not because they are lazy, but probably because they haven’t researched the job market enough, and have not prepared themselves to acquire those specific skills, and specific education, for those specific in-demand jobs. These are key phrases, specifically: skills, education, in-demand jobs, high-demand jobs. If a student does not put an emphasis on such things, then it is no different than him going to a diploma mill, and receiving a certificate that says “Bachelor’s Degree” with nothing else on it. How would that help him in the job market? It’s just a piece of paper. He’d be swindled by the higher education racket!

Bauer argues that people should not have more children than is reasonable. In fact, he argues for poor families to have few children, and instead lay the emphasis on pursuing a better home (pp. 125-126). To a degree, I can see why that would apply in cases of extreme poverty in the Third World, but I also think that idea has been abused or exaggerated in America and the West. While starvation can result if the parents procreate at a rate that is faster than their income-earning is able to keep up, I think the threat of starvation in the USA is much less, when especially food stamps or EBT cards are available during tough times, and also decent modest houses can be acquired through rent, without having to attain to living in a MANSION or small CASTLE-like house. And I think that is truly an anti-Biblical concept anyway. Scripture plainly says, “Be fruitful and multiply” and “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Genesis 1:28; Luke 12:15). But I do think there is a real danger for poor, economically unproductive people to just keep on having more and more kids; it could lead to unnecessary financial anxiety, strain on social relationships in the family, and the ever-present fear that a social worker might threaten the parents with the incapablity of providing for their children.

I think the reasonable thing a poor Christian couple can do, is to pace themselves with regard to procreating children, at the rate of their economic growth:–for example, if they observe that in these years they are making more money than they were a few years ago, they might reasonably consider trying to have another child. But then there is the issue of the upwardly mobile Christian couple who are going through an economic transformation: who were formerly living in abject poverty, and subsisting on a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle; but who are now approaching a lifestyle that could be called “lower middle class”: personally, I would probably disagree with Bauer on this point, and would advise such couples to seek a modestly sized house that is decent, comfortable, and liveable; and to continue being fruitful and multiplying children (Gen. 1:28). Bauer, on the other hand, would probably preach extreme child limitation (family planning/strict birth control), and the pursuit of an American dream home mansion house. I think an idea like that would be totally anti-Biblical; but I think this idea is tragically widespread among the middle class in America, and I also think it produces bad parents, who put more emphasis on their house and materialistic attitudes, than they do on building healthy, meaningful relationships, or even spiritual instruction for their four, five, six, or seven children. Normally, what happens is that the middle class family gets a mortgage, pursues an American dream home; stops procreation at two or three kids, and does not emphasize kids, children, relationships, or spiritual instruction from parent to children. And I think this is a real attack on the family from a pop economics viewpoint. Our children are the greatest treasures we have; they are our future, not merely our houses (or sadly, in some cases, mansions). Psalm 127:3-5: “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from Him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.” When a warrior goes to battle, the more arrows in his holster the better! If a soldier who uses a bow-and-arrow only has two or three arrows; that’s nothing compared to the man who has seven arrows! This Scripture speaks of the godly man’s children being “a good gift, and a great support and defence to a family…[the father]…knows how to use them for his own safety and advantagechildren of different capacities and inclinations may be several ways serviceable to the family” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary). But only the children of one’s youth, whom he has personally trained and taught to trust in him; and love him with their free will. Such reliable children would serve as a strong and happy testimony for their father’s integrity against any of his enemies in court.

Voluntary Charity Is More Righteous Than Foreign Aid. Bauer says, “Foreign aid is taxpayer’s money compulsorily collected; it is outside the area of volition and choice. Indeed, contributors not only have no choice but quite generally do not even know they are contributing…The moral obligation to help the less fortunate cannot be discharged by entities such as governments. It can be discharged only by persons who are prepared to impoverish themselves and weaken their material position relative to others in order to help their poorer fellow men. Those wishing to help underdeveloped countries can easily write a check in favor of the governments or missions, schools or hospitals operating there” (pp. 126-127). I have a few thoughts on that. 1. I agree with Bauer as it relates to giving money to governmental leaders in foreign countries. 2. I would, however, remain an advocate of food stamps or EBT cards, Medicare, Medicaid, and other forms of governmental financial aid that we have here in America:–however, I don’t think extremely low income levels should be made to prevent relatively poor people from getting help with outrageously high or rare medical bills. 3. I also support things such as the Employment Security Commission, a government-sponsored place where unemployed people can go to find job opportunities; however, I have been in places like this, and I think they could do better at giving people a wider array of job leads.

In the Appendix, Bauer has some final thoughts on investing that I thought hit the nail on the head with regard to investing for economic growth:

INVESTING WISELY and EXTREMELY CAUTIOUSLY. He says that just because you have convinced yourself that saving money and investing money are key elements of economic growth:–it does not mean that you will have success with it. Especially when it comes to investing, which can be very perplexing, technical, and risky:–it requires strict discipline, study of books, and supervision, to get it just right so that it results in economic growth. Leaders of Third World countries which do not seek advice on investing do not usually have success with investing the money that foreign aid donations provide them with…they are usually very reckless, wasteful, and gullible investors that hardly ever get a profitable return on their investments (pp. 136-137). As the Chinese saying goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The application to foreign aid: it is not good enough to give money to the poor so that they can invest it and get a return on their investments; YOU MUST TEACH THEM TO INVEST WISELY AND CAREFULLY. Otherwise, they will get frustrated and disheartened if they fail at investing. See David Bach’s The Automatic Millionaire for sound investing advice (especially with index funds); and also consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner to help you meet your financial goals in life. Bauer considers it wasteful and counter-productive to spend investing money on your house and possessions (p. 138); he maintains the quicker path to real economic growth is to use the investment returns on things that would lead to higher-paying jobs and increase your income level in the long-term; that is, certifications, etc, that lead to higher paying jobs, are a much more worthy thing to spend money on received from an investment return than a hot rod, a boat, or expensive home improvement items. Furthermore, he says, “Investment is too general and vague a concept or category to furnish worthwhile criteria for development policy” (p. 142):–in plain terms, don’t be loosey-goosey with the words “investment” and “investing”; get a SPECIFIC handle on the conditions of what kinds of investing REALLY ARE going to yield RETURNS and a REAL INCREASE OF INCOME for you in the future. I’ve got some studying to do, but I’ve heard from multiple sources that a careful and disciplined practice of investing with index funds and mutual funds (bundles of stocks) over many, many years are the most likely to yield financial returns in the long run. To use the word “investing” in other ways might obscure what it is you are trying to do; and what your financial goals are. People say things all the time like “invest in gold” or “invest in your community: become a Walmart employee”; and this kind of language just obscures what a responsible investment is. Also the jibe that, “Wall Street is no different than Las Vegas,” with the idea that playing the stock market is no different than buying a lottery ticket or using a slot machine in a casino. These kinds of gambling experiences can definitely occur with stocks, but THEY CAN BE AVOIDED if you are studied up, supervised, taught right, conscientious, extremely cautious, and careful about the funds or stock bundles you are truly “investing” in. That’s real investing.

CHAPTER 3. International organizations like the United Nations are led by social reformers with a Socialist or even Communist persuasion; they are convinced that the poverty of Third World countries is to be blamed on the rich Western countries, such as Great Britain and America, for colonizing the world. “Colonialism,” as they call it, directly prevents the people in these countries from experiencing economic growth. The evidence for this, however, is vague; and is mainly assumed or asserted in speeches and books; or provoked by the jealousy of the poor against the rich; or used by the social reformers as a political ploy to guilt-trip Westerners into giving to 3rd world governments for foreign aid:–a sort of Robin Hood concept: “rob from the rich and give to the poor”: only the government acts as Robin Hood, so it comes by forceful taxation, not by free will offerings (p. 158)…those who are upwardly mobile are thereby hindered in their personal economic growth by high taxes…the extent of this is not discussed. But the colonialism concept is mainly used as a means of guilt-tripping Westerners into supporting foreign aid. Bauer rightly observes that “it is untrue to say that colonial status is incompatible with material progress” (p. 148): take, for example, the 13 original colonies of the United States, all of which were colonies of England. They materially progressed all the while under the colonial status of England; but eventually they progressed to such a degree that they became bold enough to create “minutemen,” and stand up to the king, which started the Revolutionary War. Colonialism, therefore, is not essentially an inhibitor of economic growth: on the contrary, if the colonizers, such as England or America, are encouraging free market Capitalism for all the members of the country, their colonization is probably CONTRIBUTING to the economic growth of these colonized countries, without which, would still be filled with tribal warfare, and utterly primitive economic conditions (pp. 151, 153). On page 163, Bauer however does blame some of the rich: the Socialist government leaders in these Third World countries; and particularly the stupid economic laws they often make which inhibit Capitalism; and inhibit the poor from experiencing a “rags-to-riches” lifestyle for themselves.

CHAPTER 4. Communism’s “sacred texts” are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto and Vladimir Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism:–both are intellectually depraved forms of economics; and both are used to manipulate the poor into thinking that a totalitarian government is their only hope for economic salvation. Communism also takes on a messianic view of the government: where the State becomes the hand of “god,” and the dictator is “god”; practical atheism becomes the operative view; and religion is generally outlawed, so there are no divisive ideas in the society (p. 176). Manufacturing plants in China have fulfilled the Communist ideal under the leadership of Mao Zedong (d. 1976): “Made in China.” George Orwell’s 1984 depicted what it would be like if this happened in the UK. “Industrialization” is a key concept for the Communist. They believe, generally, that if the Third World countries are going to become richer, then they need to create societies populated with “industrial proletariats”:–or, poor assembly line workers in manufacturing plants. However, Bauer says, there are several errors in this way of thinking. 1. Most Third World cultures do not have a hard working ethic, like the Chinese. 2. Even though Communist China has fulfilled the vision of Marx and Lenin, Hong Kong nevertheless adopted Capitalism, which shows that it is not Communism that has caused China to grow economically, but the strong work ethic of the Chinese people. 3. China would be better off now if it were to accept Capitalism entirely, like Hong Kong. 4. Most Third World cultures have a poor farming culture; and they have become accustomed to living that way for centuries: so, to all of a sudden have Communist governments come in, and build manufacturing plants, and expect a productive “industrial proletariat” working class to be built out of tribal farmers, is quite a stretch of the Communist imagination. 5. When a totalitarian government has control over the economic lives of its citizens, there’s not much room for personal advancement in such a system. That is, if the government says you have to be a $10/hour assembly line worker, then you have to be, or you’ll be out of a job, or worse: have to go to jail and be disciplined. If you aspire to be paid $15 or $20/hour as a more skilled worker, then the government might not let you do so, because you have to do what they say.

In his evaluation of the literature, Bauer says that Communist economists generally measure the economic success of a country based on how many manufacturing plants it has, and how efficiently they are producing products. Bauer disagrees entirely with this method; and states, “The richer countries are usually (but by no means invariably) the more industrialized ones largely because the higher rate of development and the presence of manufacturing industries reflect their possession of valuable resources (including capital, skill, attitudes and experience); the presence of manufacturing is not simply the cause of the prosperity” (p. 172). To reiterate, Bauer believes the cause of prosperity is:

1. CAPITAL, or saved-up money that is disposable for investment purposes in a company (that is, stocks, index funds, and mutual funds).

2. SKILLS learned in the workplace; and put onto your resume for future job opportunities.

3. ATTITUDES towards work: especially a very strong work ethic, and

4. EXPERIENCE: or, actual years of experience on the job, or accumulated lucrative skills and job experience, to put on your resume.

How do the Communists snag the people into their Commie trap? The same way that Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals proposes for community organizers: get all the poor people united by making them very angry at the rich establishment, and overthrow their influence by rioting, striking, intimidating socio-economic and political speeches, violence, and voting Communist. Che Guevara (d. 1967) spread Communism in South America this way. “Exploitation” is the Commie catch-phrase they use against the Capitalist Westerners. Any profit that is earned from a return on an investment in a Third World country, say in cash crops, is seen in the eyes of the Communist as Western “exploitation” of the poor Third Worlders who don’t know how to manage stocks and investments as savvy as Westerners do. So, the Communist maneuver is to get the people angry at the foreign Capitalist investors, rather than to teach the poor how to wisely invest in a productive and Capitalistic manner (p. 168). The end result: rich totalitarian Communist leaders at the top; and everyone else living in poverty as “industrial proletariats” in Communist manufacturing plants, like Communist China.

CHAPTER 5. This chapter is entirely devoted to critiquing Gunnar Myrdal’s Asian Drama (1968), a very long book which calls for a totalitarian communist-like takeover of southeast Asia, especially Malaysia and Thailand. This region is incredibly poor and rural; and Myrdal thinks the only way for this poor, tropical region to see visible economic growth is through government force: central planning. To Myrdal, this is the fastest way that the region will see economic growth. Bauer, of course, disagrees; being a good capitalist, Bauer states, “Higher incomes reflect primarily such abilities and aptitudes as readiness to perceive and exploit economic opportunity [good profitable job and investing opportunities], capacity to hard work, and willingness to save and invest” (p. 195). The majority of the people in this region have a horrible work ethic, because of the traditions and attitudes passed down through their culture. Myrdal’s forced communist ideal won’t change those attitudes:–instead it would be met with resistance. Yet Myrdal persists with his communist ideal; and attacks the character of the rich in the region. Bauer replies, “Why should it be inequitable that the Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, or the Indians in Burma, or the Europeans in south Asia should earn higher incomes than do the indigenous populations, when they work harder, often face great hardships, and incur risks far from their countries of origin?” (p. 197).

Bauer defends the hard working, risk-taking men who grew from poverty to wealth over time; yet Myrdal says they are uncharitable, and accuses them of stealing from the poor—without explanation. Then he follows up with his idea of communist government economic planning for everyone: no rich, no poor: just totalitarian leaders at the top and everyone else under government employment. Bauer concludes later, that poverty is widespread in southeast Asia, because “the population does not wish to change its ways” (p. 220):–a huge theme repeated by Bauer: ECONOMIC REPENTANCE FROM LAZINESS AND ANTI-CAPITALISM is a key concept for helping the poor realize that they can change their plight—if they would just become hard working capitalists: more than anything, it’s a matter of personal financial ideals.

Myrdal seems to attempt to become Lenin all over again, but in a different area of the world. He cites the Soviet Union and communist China as ideal communist examples to follow. They are supposedly successful countries, which after turning to communism, grew from poverty to wealth, and saw nationwide economic growth because of their communism. Bauer sobers the reader, “After half a century of severe hardship and mass coercion living standards in the Soviet Union are extremely low – almost unimaginably so by Western standards – in housing, clothing, and consumer durables”; in the footnote, he reminds us about their labor camps[1] (p. 204).

The whole discussion seems to imply that wealth cannot be attained without political or government influence. Bauer reminds us that “the Nonconformists in Britain”[2] “attained considerable prosperity without political power”; however, he leaves a sobering footnote: “preoccupation with material prosperity…diverts time and energy away from other activities” (p. 217). Christians may rejoice that hard work and financial progress can make them into independent men who don’t need to get tangled up in government politics—but becoming a workaholic or a money-mad investor are extremes that must be avoided, lest we turn away from Christian spirituality and mysticism; our holiness deteriorates; our work-life balance disappears; we have no family life; and have no good, quality Christian friends. Jesus asked, What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). Nothing! Working hard and earning wealth is not an end in itself (Ecclesiastes 2:17); your “spending money” should be used as a means to a Christian end; and a meaningful godly lifestyle, in which holiness, and Christian love, and the glory of God reach their maximum financial output; and Biblical good works are fruitful. Ask yourself: how would Jesus spend your money? 1 Timothy 6:17: “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” A man cannot serve both God and money (Matthew 6:24): if a Christian plans on living holy, then he must use his money in a Biblical manner, or he can only expect God’s displeasure. No matter how wealthy we become, we must continue to praise Jesus and keep His commandments (Deuteronomy 8:10-11, 18).

CHAPTER 6. In this chapter, Bauer critiques the United Nations (UN) and a conference they held in 1964 called the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). He basically says the UN is a communist organization that plans on taking advantage of Third World leaders to advance communism (p. 267). It’s an international extension of what Myrdal was arguing for southeast Asia in chapter 5. The first page of the chapter has a footnote: “Sections 4 and 5 of this essay are more technical than the general level of discussion in this volume; the nontechnical reader may wish therefore to omit them.” I wish I did! But I was too curious; I wanted to know all of Bauer’s arguments. In the processes that he goes through in explaining and evaluating the technical rhetoric of the UN’s economic ideas, he basically concludes their arguments are vague, devious, ambiguous, and meaningless (pp. 250, 259, 269); and in the end, that their economic documents “must be judged to be mere fiction or political propaganda” (p. 271). The UN states that there are “restrictions” on the terms of trade—whatever that means—in the Third World countries, and these “restrictions” prevent the people from economic growth. Therefore, the people must turn to the UN for help; the UN will guide them into the future; the UN is their savior; it will plan out their careers, their livelihoods, it will answer all their fears with economic progress: with commie manufacturing plants.

There are other extremely technical things that are just plain hard to follow, that I was tempted to think I was wasting my time with the chapter. For example, Bauer tries to explain the UN’s circular reasoning in the following way. This might serve to show you how difficult it really was to read this chapter: “The usual complaint is, of course, that in the aggregate their incomes grow less fast. The commodity terms of trade of the underdeveloped world will deteriorate if the ratio of the rate of growth of the aggregate incomes of the developed countries to the rate of growth of the aggregate incomes of underdeveloped countries is less than the ratio of the income elasticity of demand of the underdeveloped countries for the exports of the developed countries, to the income elasticity of the aggregate demand of developed countries for the exports of underdeveloped countries; and they will improve if the relationship between these ratios is the converse” (pp. 249-250). He ends this sentence with a footnote and what looks like an algebraic formula. So…did you get all that? Good. I have no idea what Bauer even meant. And on we go…

Notable things that Bauer remarks on: 1. Investing is not the only factor necessary for financial progress (p. 237); a strong work ethic and career advancement seem to be more essential (p. 260). 2. Crude oil (petroleum) companies are highlighted as a lucrative industry (pp. 244, 250, 254, 259)…something that makes me think it would be good to invest stock in companies like Exxon, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Marathon, Sunoco, Hess, etc. 3. Up-to-date market research is necessary for financial success in the business world (p. 256). 4. The importance of having business contacts for networking, getting new financial ideas, etc.—this makes me think of four things (p. 262-263, 265): (1) Being willing to talk about jobs and financial progress with friends. (2) Build connections on LinkedIn, which could lead to better paying job leads, or ideas for new financial goals. (3) Getting a Certified Financial Planner to give you new ideas about how to set financial goals for yourself. (4) Reading books on successful financial planning like David Bach’s The Automatic Millionaire.

CHAPTER 7. In this chapter, Bauer addresses the issue of governments having financial advisors for their presidents. In the case of Gunnar Myrdal and W. W. Rostow, Bauer offers a technical economist’s critique. Regarding these and various other economists, he says, “They literally do not know what they are talking about”—ramblings of ignorance “behind a façade of quasi-mathematical language” (pp. 289-290). Bauer, as you may know, was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher. His accusation is based on the books these advisors have published, which are often not based personal research and statistics of economic reality; they are also too vague, ambiguous, and abstract.[1] Bauer states that if you are going to be a good financial advisor who gives useful directions to people on how to achieve economic growth, then a working knowledge of economic history is absolutely necessary: medieval feudalism, the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the economic history of the Soviet Union, etc., are all necessary for a knowledgeable analysis of technical economic concepts (p. 279). He also accuses these economists for being confusing; he insists that if they are going to give clear financial directions for success, then “trite elementary propositions” need to be used more frequently (p. 286). Think of King Solomon and Proverbs chs. 10-31: this is exactly what Bauer is saying governments need: they need Solomon-like financial advisors.[2]

CHAPTER 8. Bauer admits that the branch of development economics is amorphous, and at times, very limited in what we can know about it. The desire to reach out for more financial knowledge and our willingness to achieve more money can only help us. Bls.gov, LinkedIn.com, and Glassdoor.com all came to mind as I was reading this chapter. It becomes necessary to have as much information about profitable job opportunities as possible to be able to make accurate and profitable decisions. While Bauer has a level of respect for some of the causes for financial progress mentioned by Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776),[3] he thought that Smith was not specific enough. Bauer rejects the economic growth theories of John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) and his followers Roy Harrod[4] and Evsey Domar.[5] He concludes they are too generalized, ambiguous, vague, and unclear (p. 296). Bauer finishes his book with the argument that the greatest factor in financial progress he knows, by personal observation and technical economic study—is that personal business contacts with friends who are richer than you—has an almost automatic financial transforming effect on the poor. It brings all the causes for financial progress together into one basket. Bauer, in speaking of poor countries coming into relationship with richer countries, says, “The connection in underdeveloped countries between comparative material prosperity and external contacts is not surprising. These are the channels through which human and material resources, skills and capital from developed countries reach the underdeveloped world. These contacts open up new markets and sources of supply and bring new commodities, wants, crops and methods of cultivation to the notice of the local population. They also engender a new outlook towards material possessions and the means of obtaining them. And perhaps most important, they undermine customs, attitudes and values which obstruct material advance. Again, in poor countries the sectors in contact with richer communities also attract groups and individuals from the local population most responsive to economic opportunities. Such matters obviously greatly affect economic performance in underdeveloped countries, especially in the early stages of development” (pp. 300-301).

Admitting the limitations of my own personal knowledge of economics and how to obtain greater job opportunities, I have to rely on God and His treasures of wisdom. There is a temptation in the carnally minded man, when, after he has obtained a great amount of financial wisdom, in the natural, earthly, and technical sense, to only rely on logic and reason when he steps into the realm of action and financial decision-making. But it is in this area that God exerts controls and even judgments over our lives. It may be easy, for example, to an economically educated person, to just seek to take advantage of profitable job opportunities—without regard to Biblical morals, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, faith in God, etc. So, if we feel that there are better jobs awaiting us in a certain geographical location, we must reason, if we are to be Biblical Christians, in the same way as the apostle James: “Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that’” (James 4:13-15). I will quote Matthew Henry at length on this point, because he was very illuminated:

“II. We are cautioned against a presumptuous confidence of the continuance of our lives, and against forming projects thereupon with assurance of success, James 4:13,14. The apostle, having reproved those who were judges and condemners of the law, now reproves such as were disregardful of PROVIDENCESerious reflection on our words and ways would show us many evils that we are apt, through inadvertency, to run into and continue in. There were some who said of old, as too many say still, We will go to such a city, and do this or that, for such a term of time, while all serious regards to the disposals of Providence were neglected. Observe here, 1. How apt worldly and projecting men are to leave God out of their schemes. Where any are set upon earthly things, these have a strange power of engrossing the thoughts of the heart. We should therefore have a care of growing intent or eager in our pursuits after anything here below. 2. How much of worldly happiness lies in the promises men make to themselves beforehand. Their heads are full of fine visions, as to what they shall do, and be, and enjoy, in some future time, when they can neither be sure of time nor of any of the advantages they promise themselves; therefore observe, 3. How vain a thing it is to look for anything good in futurity, without the concurrence of Providence. We will go to such a city (say they), perhaps to Antioch, or Damascus, or Alexandria, which were then the great places for traffic; but how could they be sure, when they set out, that they should reach any of these cities? Something might possibly stop their way, or call them elsewhere, or cut the thread of life. Many who have set out on a journey have gone to their long home, and never reached their journey’s end. But, suppose they should reach the city they designed, how did they know they should continue there? Something might happen to send them back, or to call them thence, and to shorten their stay. Or suppose they should stay the full time they proposed, yet they could not be certain that they should buy and sell there; perhaps they might lie sick there, or they might not meet with those to trade with them that they expected. Yea, suppose they should go to that city, and continue there a year, and should buy and sell, yet they might not get gain; getting of gain in this world is at best but an uncertain thing, and they might probably make more losing bargains than gainful ones. And then, as to all these particulars, the frailty, shortness, and uncertainty of life, ought to check the vanity and presumptuous confidence of such projectors for futurity: What is your life? It is even a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away, James 4:14. God that wisely left us in the dark concerning future events, and even concerning the duration of life itself. We know not what shall be on the morrow; we may know what we intend to do and to be, but a thousand things may happen to prevent us. We are not sure of life itself, since it is but as a vapour, something in appearance, but nothing solid nor certain, easily scattered and gone. We can fix the hour and minute of the sun’s rising and setting tomorrow, but we cannot fix the certain time of a vapour’s being scattered; such is our life: it appears but for a little time, and then vanisheth away; it vanisheth as to this world, but there is a life that will continue in the other world; and, since this life is so uncertain, it concerns us all to prepare and lay up in store for that to come.

III. We are taught to keep up a constant sense of our dependence on the will of God for life, and all the actions and enjoyments of it: You ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that, James 4:15. The apostle, having reproved them for what was amiss, now directs them how to be and do better: “You ought to say it in your hearts at all times, and with your tongues upon proper occasions, especially in your constant PRAYERS and devotions, that if the Lord will give leave, and if He will own and bless you, you have such and such designs to accomplish.” This must be said, not in a slight, formal, and customary way, but so as to think what we say, and so as to be reverent and serious in what we say. It is good to express ourselves thus when we have to do with others, but it is indispensably requisite that we should say this to ourselves in all that we go about. Syn Theowith the leave and blessing of God, was used by the Greeks in the beginning of every undertaking. 1. If the Lord will, we shall live. We must remember that our times are not in our own hands, but at the disposal of God; we live as long as God appoints, and in the circumstances God appoints, and therefore must be submissive to Him, even as to life itself; and then, 2. If the Lord will, we shall do this or that. All our actions and designs are under the control of Heaven. Our heads may be filled with cares and contrivances. This and the other thing we may propose to do for ourselves, or our families, or our friends; but Providence sometimes breaks all our measures, and throws our schemes into confusion. Therefore both our counsels for action and our conduct in action should be entirely referred to God; all we design and all we do should be with a submissive dependence on God.”

This article was completed on 3/22/15.
6 months after it was started.

—–

[1] Gunnar Myrdal’s An International Economy and Max Millikan and W. W. Rostow’s A Proposal.

[2] See Gary North’s Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs (2007, 2012)—formerly God’s Success Manual.

<http://www.garynorth.com/WisdomAndDominion.pdf>

[3] Book III, ch. 4.

[4] Harrod, Roy F. (1939). “An Essay in Dynamic Theory.” The Economic Journal 49 (193): 14–33.

[5] Domar, Evsey (1946). “Capital Expansion, Rate of Growth, and Employment.” Econometrica 14 (2): 137–147.

—–

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

[2] That is, the ejected Puritans: such as Richard Baxter, etc.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Church Fathers Did Not Teach Entire Sanctification!

The most orthodox and reliable of the early church fathers preached and taught nothing more than a Reformed progressive sanctification (like the Puritan and Reformed tradition). There are, however, some phrases and sentence fragments in the early church fathers which Wesleyan and Holiness scholars have come to see as evidence for entire sanctification. But these expressions don’t persuade me to the Wesleyan view of entire sanctification:–which is supposedly the idea that the love of the Holy Spirit can so flood the heart of a Christian, as to eradicate or exterminate his natural sinful nature! I see no hint of any such teaching in the Bible or the early church fathers. The Fathers go no further than what the New Testament says about the word “perfect,” and such. 1 John type of terminology can be found in the early fathers, which is to be expected. But it would be a stretch of the imagination to say they drew the conclusion that original sin was eradicated by an experience of entire sanctification in the Holy Spirit. Now, for some examples.

CLEMENT OF ROME – d. 99 A.D.

– “doing all things without disorder”–Letter, ch. 48
– “made perfect in love”–Letter, ch. 50
– “delivered from all sin”–Letter, ch. 60

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH – d. 107 A.D.

– “wholly and thoroughly sanctified”–Letter to the Ephesians, ch. 2; cp. 1 Thess. 5:23
– “full of holiness”–Letter to the Ephesians, ch. 9
– “perfect faith and charity…no man professing a true faith sinneth”–Eph., ch. 14
– “be perfect”–Eph., ch. 15
– “as much as ye are perfect”–Letter to the Smyrnaeans
– “perfect love”–Martyrdom

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS – d. 155

– “put on a holy constancy, in which there are no sins”–Bk. 2
– “without spot”–Bk. 3, ch. 6
– “purify thy house…clean house”–Bk. 3, ch. 3

EPISTLE OF BARNABAS – d. 131

– “spiritual, a perfect temple”–sec. 4
– “a heart pure in all things”–sec. 16

IRENAEUS – d. 202

– “abstaining from all avarice”–Against Heresies, Bk. 4, ch. 16
– “those persons perfect who have received the Spirit of God…not because their flesh has been stripped off”–Against Heresies, Bk. 5, ch. 6

Unless you are reading these phrases with John Wesley‘s eyeglasses, it can be easy to see how none of these early church fathers taught holiness in such a way, as to imply that Christians can be totally purged, from all of their natural sinful nature. This teaching was Wesley’s error; and the error of the Methodists and the Holiness Movement. While John Wesley erred when he taught the Bible implies the Holy Spirit can totally exterminate the natural sinfulness of man (getting this idea from Clement of Alexandria)–Charles Finney erred when he taught that no man has any originally sinful nature (like Pelagius). Wesley was much more moderate about original sin than Finney was, but still wrong. Because none of the orthodox church fathers taught that original sin could be annihilated by the Holy Spirit.

Wesley supposed, without any clear, plain, or long passage of Scripture–that original sin could be exterminated by entire sanctification in the Holy Spirit just prior to death. I’ve heard it argued that because the prophet Elijah experienced entire sanctification, he was thus privileged not to see death, and this is why he was taken up into Heaven in a whirlwind. Hmm…But the Bible doesn’t say Elijah experienced entire sanctification. In John Wesley’s A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, he states that he thinks the Apostle John is the only apostle that experienced entire sanctification. But that argument also fails to persuade me.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, like 1 John, are obviously referring to the process of completing divine love and virtue in our lives through improving ourselves or “perfecting” holiness by degrees of prayer, being Spirit-filled, energized, being fully obedient to the Bible, so that there will be NO ON-PURPOSE SINNING, no voluntary transgressions of God’s law in our lives. They say nothing about the Holy Spirit exterminating our sinful nature! No entire sanctification doctrine.

Irenaeus commands us to give up all greed…of course. He even goes so far to clarify 1 John‘s teaching on the word “perfect”:–people in the Bible were called “perfect,” because they had the Holy Spirit in them, but it wasn’t to be seen as such a level of perfection that their flesh had been stripped off! Romans 7, which teaches that the flesh of the body has a sinful nature, is obviously balancing out his thought. No entire sanctification doctrine.

The Shepherd of Hermas exhorts Christians to continual obedience to God, to avoid willful disobedience (on-purpose, intentional sinning), maintaining an innocent life, and to be cleansed inwardly even as one cleans a house (but note: nobody’s house is perfectly clean). No entire sanctification doctrine.

The Epistle of Barnabas exhorts Christians to be righteous and spiritual temples of the Holy Spirit, and have pure hearts, but nothing is clearly or plainly said about the sinful nature of man being eradicated, exterminated, or annihilated by the Holy Spirit. No entire sanctification doctrine.

 —–

Clement of AlexandriaThings change, however, when we come to the early church HERETIC Clement of Alexandria (d. 215). He came just after Irenaeus, the church father. Although Clement of Alexandria and Origen (d. 254) are often put together in Philip Schaff’s collections on the church fathers–it is common knowledge in the world of theology that both of these men were anathematized by church councils as heretics for their Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, universalism, and heresies. Clement of Alexandria went off the deep end with expressions that sound just like entire sanctification (if not worse).

– “perfect pureness of mind”–The Instructor, Bk. 4, ch. 22
– “those who have become perfect”–Stromateis, Bk. 7, ch. 10
– “pure from sins…ALREADY OF ANGELIC RANK”–Stromateis, Bk. 7, ch. 12
– “falling in none of the passions in any way”–Stromateis, Bk. 7, ch. 12
– “already grown holy WITHOUT THIS EARTH”–Stromateis, Bk. 7, ch. 12

Perfect pureness of mind! He speaks of men reaching a point in their lives when they are said to “become perfect.” This implies all spiritual growing has stopped. It has reached the ceiling of spiritual and moral perfection. He goes off the deep end and states that men can become so “pure from sins” that they are “already of angelic rank!” And, “Grown holy without this earth”–that is, without the sinful nature of this body of flesh; without original sin anymore. This is the doctrine of entire sanctification in seed form.

Sadly, John Wesley was influenced John Wesleyby Clement of Alexandrias entire sanctification teaching. Then, by eisegesis, he went back to the Bible to look for evidence of it, which produced Wesley’s version of the doctrine. Wesley said, “Five- or six-and-thirty years ago [1729] I much admired the character of the perfect Christian drawn by Clemens Alexandrinus. Five- or six-and-twenty years ago [1739] a thought came into my mind of drawing such a character myself, only in a more Scriptural manner, and mostly in the very words of Scripture; this I entitled The Character of a Methodist.”[1] This was WESLEY’S ERROR. He allowed a heretical writing (Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis) lead him to IMAGINE pictures in his mind of a perfect Christian, which went further than the realistic bounds of the Bible; while at the same time, he tried all he could to find evidence for it in the Bible, as a model for Christians to strive for, expect, and experience in their lives. (Rather than just doing what had traditionally been done: the IMITATION OF CHRIST, and not entertaining an imaginary idea of attaining to the state of a perfect Christian.) Better to imitate the perfect Jesus than to falsely hope to become the perfect Christian, as was imaginatively fantasized by Clement of Alexandria and John Wesley.

Wesley tried to find support for his IMAGININGS OF THE PERFECT CHRISTIAN by quoting many, many Bible verses. Yet for all of this hermeneutical error, I have to admit, I still love Wesley’s writings, because they draw me to Biblical holiness and charismatic spirituality like no other Christian writer I know.

I am still a five-point Reformed Arminian; and “Wesleyan” in basically every other way.

This puts me more in line with the Free Will Baptist Church, Assemblies of God, and the Christian & Missionary Alliance.

That means at least 69,633,778 see God’s saving grace in a similar way. Over 69 million!

But I’m still non-denominational.

You might be able to see here why it is that I’ve adopted Creeds like the 39 Articles and parts of the 1689 Baptist Confession; and sections of William J. Seymour’s “The Apostolic Faith: An Overview.” While seeking to maintain orthodoxy through Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, I seek out the first two Creeds through which the first two denominations sprouted. The last denomination, the CMA, sprouted from the Westminster Confession, which is very similar to the 1689 confession. While seeking to maintain orthodoxy through Experience, I look to William J. Seymour (and pre-1950s books by Gospel Publishing House/Assemblies of God).

One final reason to never build your theology off of Clement of Alexandria–Wesley should have known better–this Clement wrote: “It is now time to show the Greeks that the Gnostic alone is truly pious; so that the philosophers, learning of what description the true Christian is, may condemn their own stupidity in rashly and inconsiderately persecuting the [Christian] name, and without reason calling those impious who know the true God” (Stromateis, Bk. 7, ch. 1). This heretic was a Gnostic; and he believed that only Gnostics were true Christians. Hence, the Gnostics created not only the doctrine of entire sanctification, but as has been demonstrated by a quote from Origen in another article, the doctrine of eternal security (or “once saved, always saved”). Martin Luther was wise to condemn both of these heresies in the Augsburg Confession: “They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin” (XII: Of Repentance).

But wait a minute. It says in the NIV, 1 Corinthians 5:5: “that the sinful nature may be destroyed.” Don’t get excited. Both John Wesley and Adam Clarke, reading the KJV, “the destruction of the flesh,” saw this as the death of the body, and not entire sanctification. NIV mistranslates “flesh” into “sinful nature.” Whew. That was a close one.

Further Reading

Galloway, J. B. A Study of Holiness from the Early Church Fathers. EnterHisRest.org. Originally this was published as a small book by Beacon Hill Press in 1951, the publishing house of Church of the Nazarene. It is an overview of quotations from the church fathers (as well as the heretics Clement of Alexandria and Origen), which appear to support entire sanctification in the Wesleyan and Holiness tradition. I obviously disagree with the author’s conclusions and interpretations of these texts; but it is a rare and useful study of the issue.

Gundry, Stanley, ed. Five Views on Sanctification. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987. I would probably lean mainly or entirely toward “The Reformed Perspective” by Anthony Hoekema. While I adopt many of the things in Wesley’s view of sanctification, such as the use of the moral law, the means of grace, works of charity and piety, etc., I think you will also find all of these aspects in most Reformed views of sanctification. Where I disagree with “The Wesleyan Perspective” is when it implies original sin can by annihilated by entire sanctification in the Holy Spirit:–to me, that idea is imaginary and heretical.

—–

[1] Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 319.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment