I was recently sent a link to a message, from a sister in the Lord, to a sermon from one Mr. Jacob Prasch- a messianic Jew. His message was "What the Reformers Forgot." Fair enough the Reformers were not perfect. But not even one minute and 30 seconds into his message, you find that it is really an all out assault on Calvinism. What was asserted is that a "Calvinistic philosophy that comes from a Calvinistic theology that permeates the social fabric and with that inevitably comes a gross history of injustice." Here we go folks, part of the worlds problems are caused by Calvinism. William Carey was guilty of social injustice when he started the "modern missions" movement, when he went to India to share the Gospel with those people? It seems as if Mr.Prasch thinks he can re-write history and is not at all concerned with honesty. And this is only his introduction, so it can only get worse.
Then comes this statement "In the American south there were Calvinists trying to theologically legitimize slavery." I'm sure some Calvinists may have thought slavery was justifed as some Arminians did. It would have been nice for Mr. Prasch to document some of these "Calvinists" that were legitimizing slavery. Then we could look into his allegations fairly and accurately. However, it appears that he is not at all concerned with historical honesty but "refuting" Calvinism by making it look bad which is also known as "painting the well." This is often done so that a person will reject the view that has been "painted" negatively and by default accept the other position presented implicitly or explicitly. Let me help Mr. Prasch out. George Whitfield was a very well known Calvinist in his day (and ours) and he certainly did advocate the use of slavery. However, not from a theological standpoint but from a practical one. His view was that to abolish slavery would mean that their territory's would not prosper. In other words they needed slaves to keep the farms which was their lively hood. What is also known is that Whitefield treated his slaves very well. They were known to be devoted to him. He had a detestation for those that treated slaves improperly.
If Mr. Prasch cared for fairness he would have also mentioned that the abolishment of slavery was driven by- watch this now- William Wilberforce a man who's theology is certainly consistent with Calvinism. And who can forget about his friendship with the Calvinist John Newton the author of the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." At Mr. Newton's encouragment, Wilberforce stayed in politics when he was considering leaving after his conversion to Christianity. Mr. Prasch nelgected to mention that part. The difference here with Wilberforce and Whitefield is that Wilberforce wanted to abolish slavery from a theological perspective. His love for Christ moved him to fight for the end of slavery in his homeland. Fairness is never a priority with those that often attack the doctrines of grace.
Next Mr. Prasch states that "What the Reformers forgot? They had the idea that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Cranmer, the Protestant Reformers began the Gospel as we know it." Uhh what? What magisterial Reformer taught they "began" the Gospel as we know it? None that I know about. They certainly believed that they stood for the Gospel and made it known to people when it was hidden and altered by Rome. That's a big difference than saying they "began" the Gospel as we know it. This claim is just silly and needs no further comments.
Then comes this statement "In the American south there were Calvinists trying to theologically legitimize slavery." I'm sure some Calvinists may have thought slavery was justifed as some Arminians did. It would have been nice for Mr. Prasch to document some of these "Calvinists" that were legitimizing slavery. Then we could look into his allegations fairly and accurately. However, it appears that he is not at all concerned with historical honesty but "refuting" Calvinism by making it look bad which is also known as "painting the well." This is often done so that a person will reject the view that has been "painted" negatively and by default accept the other position presented implicitly or explicitly. Let me help Mr. Prasch out. George Whitfield was a very well known Calvinist in his day (and ours) and he certainly did advocate the use of slavery. However, not from a theological standpoint but from a practical one. His view was that to abolish slavery would mean that their territory's would not prosper. In other words they needed slaves to keep the farms which was their lively hood. What is also known is that Whitefield treated his slaves very well. They were known to be devoted to him. He had a detestation for those that treated slaves improperly.
If Mr. Prasch cared for fairness he would have also mentioned that the abolishment of slavery was driven by- watch this now- William Wilberforce a man who's theology is certainly consistent with Calvinism. And who can forget about his friendship with the Calvinist John Newton the author of the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." At Mr. Newton's encouragment, Wilberforce stayed in politics when he was considering leaving after his conversion to Christianity. Mr. Prasch nelgected to mention that part. The difference here with Wilberforce and Whitefield is that Wilberforce wanted to abolish slavery from a theological perspective. His love for Christ moved him to fight for the end of slavery in his homeland. Fairness is never a priority with those that often attack the doctrines of grace.
Next Mr. Prasch states that "What the Reformers forgot? They had the idea that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Cranmer, the Protestant Reformers began the Gospel as we know it." Uhh what? What magisterial Reformer taught they "began" the Gospel as we know it? None that I know about. They certainly believed that they stood for the Gospel and made it known to people when it was hidden and altered by Rome. That's a big difference than saying they "began" the Gospel as we know it. This claim is just silly and needs no further comments.
I get the idea that these straw-men will continue. I will gather up my nerve and continue to listen to the rest of his message but I'm only 8 mintues into his revision of church history and it's not looking good for his credibility. I will post more as I continue to listen. I just wanted to give some brief thoughts for a sister and friend. If you care to listen go here:
http://www.radiofreechurch.com/topics_display/52?page=2&sort=alpha
For His Glory,
Fernando
No comments:
Post a Comment