Orthodox Prosperity Preachers?

Dr. Carl Trueman makes the case that one can vehemently trumpet confessionalism and still be a cultic, money-hungry, devourer of the sheep.

He writes:

So just because somebody preaches the gospel, uses the name of Jesus every other sentence and cries when they talk about the lost does not guarantee that they are not a cult leader or simply in it for what they can get out of it.

The key is the culture. One must ask cultural questions of such men, not simply doctrinal ones. Is the culture of their church or organisation transparent? Are there clear lines of accountability which flow both ways, from the leadership to the grassroots and from the grassroots to the leadership? Is opposition to leadership decisions addressed in an open fashion or via thuggish backroom manoeuvres and public derision and isolation of critics? And one interesting question which I remember a pastor once asking in a pulpit when I was college student: how far above the average economic level of the congregation or funding constituency does the leadership live? That little old lady putting her ten dollars in the plate each Sunday or sending in her pledge -- is she funding a lifestyle for functionally unaccountable leaders which is lavish beyond words and built on gospel rhetoric, on not-for-profit tax breaks and on an overwheening sense of entitlement? That can be quite an interesting gauge of whether the church or ministry takes seriously its role as steward of the money it receives. It is, after all, easy to prostitute yourself to the prosperity gospel when your own prophecies of material wealth are effectively underwritten by the desperate dreams of the poor and destitute which you yourself have helped to create and upon which you prey with a depraved and insatiable hunger.

Cultists and con-men are identifiable only by their culture, not by their confessions.

This is another reason for the desperate need for more confessionally Reformed churches. Why so? Because the best thing to do if you find yourself in the clutches of such a pastor is to leave.

Triperspectivalism and the Heretical Fringe

I decided to inform myself about John Frame's triperspectivalism using his own primer found here.

The impression that I got is that his method seeks to find a Trinitarian imprint to everything in reality. I would certainly agree with the premise that all of creation is indelibly marked with Trinitarianism in that the One-and-the-Many, evidenced in the universal-particulars relationship found in every created object, is a creaturely analogization of the mystery of God as being One and Three Persons. However, the aspect of Frame's take on this that rubs me wrong is that (based on my understanding of his proposition) if the complete picture view of truth (exhaustive) is only available to God, then the ectypal truth available to the creature (man) must consist in "perspectives" that cannot claim to be the single body of ectypal truth delivered to man, but that the various perspectives contribute to the apprehension of this true ectypal corpus.

In other words, my particular take on truth is always incomplete and necessitates that I engage the truth perspectives of others in order to progressively arrive at complete ectypal veracity. The implications on the Reformed creeds and confessions cannot be missed. Frame states,

"So I think that perspectivalism is an encouragement to the unity of the church. Sometimes our divisions of theology and practice are differences of perspective, of balance, rather than differences over the essentials of faith. So perspectivalism will help us better to appreciate one another, and to appreciate the diversity of God's work among us."

What I hear him saying is that the Reformed consensus is just a perspective among others, and that we would do well perhaps to hearken to the likes of Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Rob Bell, etc. in order to progressively arrive at unified Christian truth. But then how would error be spotted? The determination of heterodoxy must necessarily be predicated on a perspective as being the only perspective. If he claims this as "the essentials," then by what overarching perspectival standard did he arrive at this delimiting conclusion?

His threefold division of normative (God's revelation), situational (objects, the created order), and existential (man in interaction with the former two) is well and good, in my opinion, but then the permutation of this triperspectivalism, as applied by him, into multiperspectives that are each given credence does give rise to a pluralism that is dangerous and precisely what the Reformed creeds and confessions were meant to curb.

The Muller-Meister Asks, "Was Calvin a Calvinist?"

"Abstract: Answering the perennial question, 'Was Calvin a Calvinist?,' is a rather complicated matter, given that the question itself is grounded in a series of modern misconceptions concerning the relationship of the Reformation to post-Reformation orthodoxy. The lecture examines issues lurking behind the question and works through some ways of understanding the continuities, discontinuities, and developments that took place in Reformed thought on such topics as the divine decrees, predestination, and so-called limited atonement, with specific attention to the place of Calvin in the Reformed tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" (Richard A. Muller).

Also available here

Divine Providence and the Confessionalism Vs. Pietism Debate

Michael Horton makes the case that if by pietism it is meant that the supposedly pious are those who seek after immediate incursions of the Holy Spirit apart from the ordinary means of grace, often, if not always, marked by private, individual exercises and methods, then it is a piety that finds no ground in the Reformed consensus. Adjacently, if by confessionalism it is meant that the inward working of the Spirit is downplayed in favor of external and mechanical "going through the motions," as it were, with a concomitant minimization of the seeking after of godliness and growth in Christlikeness, then it similarly finds no ground in catholic Reformed thought and practice.

I find this reference particularly helpful:

"Writers like Iain Murray who speak of revival as the Spirit's extraordinary blessing on his ordinary means of grace stand in a long line of 'experimental Calvinism.' If revivalism is antithetical to 'the system of the Catechism' (and I agree that it is), it is nevertheless true also that confessional Protestants have often prayed for special periods of awakening and revival. Pro-revival Calvinists include the Puritans and the great Princetonians (Alexander, Hodge, and Warfield), not just Edwards and Whitefield. So the debate over the meaning and legitimacy of 'revival' is in-house. There is no historical justification for pro-revival or anti-revival Calvinists to write each other out of this heritage."

One may dare to ask, "Does this mean that the Holy Spirit does not always attend the partaking of the means of grace with His blessing, which then is the warrant for revivalistic clamor?" The answer lies in the humble posture that the creature must always have before the Creator. The Lord has promised to provide all our needs, and yet we are admonished in the Lord's Prayer to unceasingly pray for our Benefactor's supplies. Scripture assures us that the Kingdom of God will be unalterably consummated, and yet in the same pattern of prayer set before us, we are commanded to pray for its coming. The certainty of providence never precludes humble, heartfelt prayer.

Perhaps this debacle over "confessionalism vs. pietism" can best be resolved by keeping ever before us the doctrine of providence, in that God works through ordinary means and that the Creator-creature distinction will never permit the outmoding of prayer.