| EDITORIAL | ||
|---|---|---|
|
TWO soldiers were arguing heatedly and it looked like coming to blows, when an army captain passed by. Pointing across the trenches he shouted to the soldiers, 1. PENTECOSTALISMThe misinformation in respect of this first issue relates to two areas:Firstly, the selective quotes of historic data, even to the point of deliberately or ignorantly omitting important parts of the source documents that they quote. In this connection we draw your attention to a separate article written by Edward Barclay and published on pages 20-23 of this magazine. While I have made it clear that I personally do not trace the source of classic-Pentecostalism to Charles Parham or to W.J. Seymour I have to agree with Ed Barclay that TA and MC are guilty of character assassination. Secondly we allege that TA and MC are guilty of careless reading or very poor comprehension of what we have published with consequential misquoting and ill expressed ideas contained in their publications *1 Personally I have no problem with those who differ with me in respect of the Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism or Filling of the Holy Spirit or with my understanding of the Calvinism vis a vis Armenian interpretation of Scripture. (George Whitfield was a good Calvinist and John Wesley his compatriot was an equally good Arminian.) Open and public debate on these subjects is healthy and something that I welcome, though it is clear to me that the matter will never be resolved in this life. What I do object to is the spreading of misinformation and in this connection we now make public what we originally suggested privately to MC & TA viz. that Jacob Prasch and I are willing and eager to openly debate them on either or both of the subjects that this editorial addresses, providing we can organise a suitable time. God willing Jacob will be ministering at CWMFellowship, Brisbane in August 2004. In DIAKRISIS Jan/Feb 2004 under the heading SOME MYTHS DISPELLED — Pentecostal Revivals (p.3) the two editors (TA & MC) purport to quote me. Although it is a very short quote they couldn’t even get that word perfect. I did not use the expression “19th Centuries”. I do happen to know that there was only one 19th Century and I did use the singular battle lines term. Obviously their mistake could be put down to what we call in the trade “typos”, but the point is words are important and care should be taken. If they are that careless with a quote, which is current then what about their other more obscure quotes, many of which are alluded to or cited in the article which contains the above with no valid documentation? *2 This carelessness with words and expressions is typical of DIAKRISIS. In the current issue for example on page 1 we read: “The latest new fad to rise in our midst is that of attacking the Reformers, and by intimation the Reformation itself.” I think the better word would be “implication”, but either way how can any sensible person suggest that to attack a particular “Reformer” is the same as attacking the Reformation? It is beyond historic dispute that John Calvin supported or superintended the burning of his theological opponent Michael Servetus at the stake, an act which “has placed Calvin’s historical image among the persecutors of religious dissent” 1 . There is justification for “attacking” Martin Luther over his attitude to the biblical book of James, which he called an epistle of straw that should not be part of the canon of scripture, and over his well-known antiSemitism. Martin Luther also never renounced the doctrine of transubstantiation; he simply modified it. He refused to remove the statues and icons in Church buildings. Do such exposures imply an attack on the Reformation? Of course not: that is an absurd conclusion and the one that TA and MC use against classic- Pentecostalism. Another careless or ridiculous sentence is related to their dissection of the statement where they misquote me —( DIAKRISIS p.3 col 1). Even a schoolboy would wonder at their English construction or at what they are really trying to impugn me with: “To attempt to tie the roots of the Pentecostal movement with the Great Awakenings is to attempt to add credibility to a Pentecostal movement that never existed at the time.” Well I ask you, how can anyone attempt to add credibility to something that did not exist? That aside, Claydon and Arnold have totally missed the point. I said that the Pentecostal revival of the 20th Century developed largely out of the previous revivals, “notably the great evangelical awakenings of the mid 19th century and the 1904-1906 Welsh revival.” I did not say that the Great Awakenings were Pentecostal. Nor did I refer to the time period of Jonathan Edwards (1703 to 1758). Perhaps someone should tell TA & MC that was part of the 18th not the 19th Century. I rest my case and again I repeat the challenge to open debate. I am quite sure that Jacob Prasch will demonstrate that TA’s Greek, in which he often seeks refuge, when he fails to correctly understand and express English, is just as suspect as TA’s English (see End Note 3). Meanwhile I will again state my case and my position, albeit very briefly as it is well documented in a number of articles in our magazine and journal and also in our book *2 and on our CWM website. The doctrine and correct biblical practice of classic Pentecostalism can be traced to the New Testament Church of the 1st Century and to many periods of Church history including the Methodist Revival under John Wesley. The biblical doctrine of the baptism into the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to regeneration is clearly set forth in Scripture. The modern Pentecostal movement predates Azusa Street and Topeka and the Welsh Revival and finds its roots in New Testament Christianity. Corruption has taken place at various stages and on various fronts. One of the major depar tures is associated with the so called Charismatic movement, which was initially resisted by classic-Pentecostals, because the core doctrine that regeneration is a pre-requisite to the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is taught by classic-Pentecostals was not taught by Charismatics or neo- Pentecostals. The false doctrine and wrong practices introduced at this and previous times have spread like leaven to the point that now there are many warning voices being raised, including those of DIAKRISIS, CWM, MORIEL, CETF, BEREAN CALL, VANGUARD etc. We can be friends but the devil would try to make us enemies. For the record as I understand things Terry Arnold and Mike Claydon were both formerly either Pentecostal or Charismatic in persuasion and practice. I cannot speak for them. May be they did have a false experience which if they are not very careful could result in their being influenced by a lying spirit. As for me and my house I know that what I received in regeneration and in the baptism into the Holy Spirit was genuine and I am not prepared to deny the faith. In respect of their challenge to submit tongues-speaking for some carnal test, of course I would refuse simply because one can speak with tongues legitimately only “as the Spirit gives utterance” and the Holy Spirit would not give utterance for such a purpose, which is beyond biblical precedent and procedure. For the record I agree with those who affirm that much of today’s “tongues speaking” in so called Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is phoney and false. For it to be legitimate it must be within biblical boundaries. The fact that so many “tongues speakers” came into the experience under the hands of so called “specialists” such as Frank Houston gives a great deal of room for concern. But I am not prepared to deny the valid on account of the phoney and false. 2. CALVINISMMike Claydon’s Apostasy Alert of 19 January 2004 refers to the alleged action of the publishers of Dave Hunt’s book WHAT LOVE IS THIS? As soon as I received it I sent the statement to Dave Hunt who replied to me on January 21, 2004.What MC wrote was so clearly suspect. All I did was pick up my copy of WLIT and saw that MC didn’t even know the name of the publisher, which makes me wonder whether he has ever read the book — so much for his so called “review”, which he wrote some months ago, and which looked like a regurgitation of James White. Anyway you be the judge. Here is what MC wrote followed by Dave Hunt’s rebuff followed by my brief summation: Apostasy Alert of 19 January 2004 Multnomah Press Refuse to Reprint Dave Hunt’s “What Love is This?” The Editorial Team at Multnomah Press have declined a second printing of Dave Hunt’s WHAT LOVE IS THIS? While they invested many months attempting to get Mr. Hunt to agree to change some of the more egregious errors in his book, no headway could be made. The editors ultimately decided that the book was “damaged goods” — preferring to let Mr. Hunt find another publisher. It is doubtful that he will — at least, one of repute. The new book from Dave Hunt & James White, DEBATING CALVINISM, will be available in mid-February. James White is a Greek scholar *3 and this debate could well destroy Dave’s effort to denigrate Calvin, the Reformers, and such great divines as Spurgeon in his quest to show the heresy of Arminianism as Biblical. Dave Hunt’s “The Berean Call” newsletter and his previous books are mostly Biblical and well researched. He was implored by many of his peers not to publish the book “What Love is This?” and James White read the initial draft and informed Dave of the many errors it contained. All to no avail. The new book by Hunt and White can be (discounted) purchased from www.discerningreader.com Apparently, “What Love is This?” is still available from Philip Powell’s Christian Witness Ministries, who endorse and distribute it in Australia. (Editorial Note: Apostasy Alert is an electronic newsletter that is issued by Mike Claydon.) Email From Dave Hunt January 21, 2004: Dear Philip: Your latest just received requires an immediate reply to correct the many untruths. How could so much false information be invented and spread? Here are the facts: The original publisher was Loyal Publishing. They have not “refused to reprint WLIT,” much less “until what they term some of the more egregious errors in the book are removed.” Loyal did two printings, was happy with WLIT and would have continued, but they were literally put out of business by Calvinist pressure causing so many bookstores, chains and distributors to refuse to carry the book — and then to refuse anything else the publisher printed as a penalty for publishing WLIT! Loyal sold out to Multnomah, who also was happy with the book. It had gone through the editorial process, they had a good cover and good promotional material, I had spoken to their sales staff from across the country, the book was scheduled to come off the press Dec. 2 — but the head copy editor (setting up for printing) was a 5-point Calvinist who persuaded top management at the last moment that the book would offend so many Calvinists that they should cancel it. Multnomah never pointed out any errors, much less “invested many months” trying to get me to change anything! That is blatantly false! I am in final stages of updating and revising WLIT. TBC will, God willing, put out the next printing in February (2004). Multnomah never did a printing, so they did not refuse to reprint. Multnomah has gone ahead with the debate book, which is scheduled for release Feb 2. That it “could well destroy Dave’s effort to denigrate Calvin...” will be decided by readers. I don’t think so. Nor apparently does White, who seems unhappy with the book, and got no endorsers. We were each to have three. I had 3, he got none, so Multnomah watered down two of my endorsers (Chuck Smith and Tim LaHaye — the third, Zane Hodges, former Dallas Theological professor, refused to let them change what he said) to generic statements about the value of the debate showing both sides, etc. because it would not look right for the only endorsers to be praising me, since White had none speaking up for him. So there are only 2 endorsements on a book that was supposed to have 6! James White never even saw the first draft or any draft of WLIT, much less did he inform me of the supposed errors in it. Apostasy Alert is spreading false information! I would be interested to learn from whom they obtained it. Much love and appreciation in our Lord, Dave. SUMMATION BY PHILIP POWELL:I am really at a loss to know why exactly all the rancour, animosity and ill will, on the part of Mike Claydon and Terry Arnold, arose. For several years MC had been exceptionally friendly towards me. Then right out of the blue he went public against me and CWM in respect of our book GATHERING THE FAITHFUL REMNANT and our promotion of Dave Hunt’s WHAT LOVE IS THIS? At first I ignored his public attack but after a while I wrote an email expressing concern and surprise that MC had not contacted me before going public. I claimed that if the shoe had been on the other foot I would most certainly have at least told him what I planned to do seeing we had been so friendly. I also pointed out that he was incorrect in stating that CWM was the sole distributor of Dave Hunt’s books in Australia. I suggested that had he made prior contact with me I would have pointed out this inaccuracy. We are of course delighted to have the confidence of the Berean Call to act as their agent in Australia.Unfortunately the standard of communications between MC and myself deteriorated so I decided to opt out and have done nothing since, except that by mistake I copied MC in on an innocuous New Year message that I sent to friends and relatives and close associates of CWM. MC was still on that list and took great exception with a vitriolic attack on CWM and me. I decided to hold my peace though some others did take up the issue with MC. I have no problem with being associated with Five Point Calvinists or non- Pentecostals and have happily received articles written by those of differing view points, many of whom I respect and admire. As humans we will always differ on some points. If we are committed to the true Gospel and to the real Lord Jesus Christ let us by all means engage in wholesome debate on the other doctrinal points of difference and let us remain friends. We have a common enemy, whom we MUST resist lest he should get an advantage of us. 3. FINANCETA & MC have been outspoken in their criticism of CWM regarding our financial position and policy. This is strange seeing we have been open in publishing Statements of Accounts. I have never seen anything similar from DIAKRISIS.In saying that I am not implying that there is anything wrong with their finances or their accountability. It’s just that the whole thing looks and sounds strange. I have noted that practically every DIAKRISIS lists an opportunity for readers to make a financial donation. They even list the name, address and account number of their bank for “transfer deposits”. They also ask for prayer and even go as far as to indicate how much it costs to produce a year’s supply of the paper for each subscriber. CWM so far has avoided making these very up front intimations for financial support, though we do not and would not criticise the practice. We have chosen to publish Statements of Accounts, which show the true position including internal loans in respect of the ministry in each country – Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. In the light of the practice adopted by DIAKRISIS I find the opening paragraph in their Vol 2, No 26 edition strange to say the least. I found it distasteful and uncalled for that MC should write something to the effect that he would welcome CWM having to close down due to lack of funds. I find a statement to that effect quite extraordinary and irreconcilable with the Spirit of Christ, which should motivate us all and should influence our basis of examination and judgment of all things. We commend this CETF, which once more has been sectionalised by a leading BANNER at the top of each page. God bless you.  *1 A quote from the Encyclopaedia Brittannica © 1964 vol 4, p 672 – CALVIN John (1509-1564). *2 GATHERING THE FAITHFUL REMNANT – CWM. $28 plus post. Phone +61 3 5146 0280; fax 61 3 5146 0270. *3 Editorial Note: For the record there has arisen a doubt about the bona fides of James White’s doctorate in respect of scholastic recognition. END NOTES: 4 They also misquote Dave Hunt as a comparison of DIAKRISIS Vol 2, No 26 page 11 with What Love Is This? pages 54 & 210, to which they refer, will prove. Their bracketed page reference — (P.211 Hunt) — is wrong and should read (P.210 Hunt). Arnold’s attempt at Greek is confused and confusing and we, like the letter writer who sparked the editorial response, ( DIAKRISIS page 11) can’t find the quote that they allege was made by Dave Hunt. The editorial, like their other writing, is shoddy and arrogant in the light of their denigrating Dave Hunt for “unscholarly errors.” 5 TA & MC do this often in their writings. DIAKRISIS Vol 2, No 26 page 11 contains a number of examples. 6 DIAKRISIS (Jan-Feb 2004) page 11, where the editors denigrate Dave Hunt, is a good example of TA’s (or MC’s) confused and confusing appeal to Greek and the way he skirts DH’s points and those of the authorities that Dave quotes. [ TOP ] ... [ BACK ] Appeared in CETF 282004 |
Details HERE...  Order HERE.. |
|
-Last revised-