The Pneuma Review » Paul King

Discerning Dreams

Paul King — Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:49:54 +0000

Paul King is a pastor, theologian, historian, and educator. In his book, Is It of God, he provided much needed biblical and practical counsel about discernment. This article is a chapter from the second volume of Is It of God, bringing seasoned wisdom to a controversial topic.

It is clear from Scripture that God does speak through dreams, It is also clear from Scripture that not all dreams are from God. It is thus not a question of whether or not they can be genuinely of God, but a question of discernment of their source (God, self, or demonic), as well as discerning their meaning.

John Wesley gives us wise counsel for today: “Do not hastily ascribe things to God. Do not easily suppose dreams, voices, impressions, visions or revelations to be from God. They may be from Him. They may be from Nature. They may be from the devil. Therefore, believe not every spirit, but ‘try the spirits whether they be from God.’”

God’s Purposes for Dreams, Visions, and Voices

In talking with Job, Elihu first of all acknowledges that God does speak through dreams: “Indeed God speaks once, or twice, yet no one notices it. In a dream, a vision of the night, when sound sleep falls on men, while they slumber in their beds…” (Job 33:14-15). Then through poetic Hebrew parallelism he gives three purposes of God for dreams:

Revelation/Instruction: “Then He opens the ears of men and seals their instruction” (v. 16). To “open” is a word of revelation, disclosure, discovery, as to prophets (Amos 3:7; 1 Sam 3:7, 21; 9:15). It is also used of visions and trances (Num 24:4, 16). God gives instruction through dreams and visions, and seals it, meaning that it is authenticated. God sometimes does this through repeated dreams or visions (v. 14).
Correction/Humbling: “That He may turn man aside from his conduct and keep man from pride” ( (v 17). Dreams and visions can lead to repentance as when Isaiah cried out, “I am a man of unclean lips!”
Warning of Spiritual, Emotional, or Physical Danger: “He keeps back his soul from the pit and his life from passing over into Sheol” (v 18). Joseph was warned through a dream to go to Egypt to avoid Jesus being killed by Herod (Matt 2:13).

Additional Purposes of God

Understanding the thoughts of our mind. God may use dreams as an allegory of life to reflect our souls—to reveal inner thoughts, feelings, distress, etc. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that God revealed to Daniel the mystery his dreams “for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind” (Dan 2:30).
Stirring faith in Christ. Saul’s vision and hearing the voice of Jesus on the Damascus road brought him to faith in Christ, Many Muslims are coming to faith in Christ from visions and dreams.
Giving ministry insight and direction. Ananias was given a vision instructing him to go and minister to Saul. God sometimes gives ministry assignments through visions and dreams.
As catalysts for healing. Ananias was given further instructions to minister to the newly converted Saul who had “seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight” (Acts 9:12). God gave to both Ananias and Saul visions about healing.
Encouragement and confirmation. Gideon had received a word from the Lord internally but had some hesitation. So the Lord gave him further confirmation through a dream and interpretation that others had received (Judges 7:12-15).

Dreams, then, can be tools of discernment for insight, revelation, and understanding from God; and for instruction, guidance, and encouragement much the same as the gift of prophecy. The Holy Spirit can use dreams to humble us, convict us of sin. and lead us to repentance and course change in our life.

Discerning Other Sources of Dreams and Visions

From Self

It is clear from Scripture that God does speak through dreams, It is also clear from Scripture that not all dreams are from God.

Many dreams and internal visions come from our own minds, inner psyche, imagination. They are neither from God nor from demonic sources. They may be random thoughts or related to things that we have done or seen or heard that day. Even external visions can occur as hallucinations, especially if someone has been sick or without nourishment.

Meaningless dreams and visions from self. Sometimes I like to call some of these “pizza dreams”—from whatever we ate that night. Scripture indicates that some dreams have no interpretation. Some fly away (Job 20:8) or are swept away (Ps 73:19-20) and cannot be found or recalled. Thus there is no indication that they are from God or that God wants someone to learn something from them. Further, “in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness [or vanity]” (Eccl 5:7).

Meaningful dreams and visions from self. Not all dreams and visions from self are meaningless. Dreams may reveal a person’s inner psyche. This is the common psychological approach and is often speculative, subjective, and very secular—like the dream interpretation theories of Freud and Jung. Although elements of truth may be found in their theories that correspond to Scripture, most elements of their theories are unbiblical and unreliable. (I speak not as a psychologist, but as a theologian and pastor with psychology and counseling training who believes in Christian approaches to the field).

Scripture does show us that dreams can reveal unfulfilled desires. God exposes what we hunger and thirst after (Isa 29:8). God makes clear that some dreams or visions are unsatisfying, leaving a person discontented or disappointed: “… like a dream, a vision of the night. It will be as when a hungry man dreams—and behold, he is eating; But when he awakens, his hunger is not satisfied, or as when a thirsty man dreams—and behold, he is drinking, but when he awakens, behold, he is faint and his thirst is not quenched” (Isa 29:7-8).

Such dreams that leave the soul empty and unfulfilled are from self, not from God, and God does not suggest any possible interpretation or meaning to be found in Him. Although they are not dreams from God and may be due to inner conflicts such as stress or anxiety, God may use such dreams to expose a person’s inner self—and reveal that the person needs to find their fulfillment in God.

Dreams and visions from one’s own imagination. God also exposes visions and dreams that are neither from God nor from Satan, but from one’s own self or imagination: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; they speak a vision of their own imagination, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer 23:16).

Dreams from the deceptions of the heart. Because the unredeemed or unsanctified heart is deceitfully wicked, God says that some dreams and visions come from the deceitfulness of the heart: “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, ‘I had a dream, I had a dream!’ How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart” (Jer 23:25-26). Such false dreams lead people astray, lead to reckless boasting, and do edify (Jer 23:32).

Filthy polluting dreams and visions. Jude writes of filthy dreamers [or polluting dreams] that defile the flesh: “these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties” (Jude 8). Some translations render it “filthy dreamers.” Commentators note that Jude is referring to the false prophets of Jeremiah 23 and the deceitful dreams and visions of their heart.

From Satan or Demonic Sources

Some people have claimed that all dreams are from God. To do so, one must ignore, deny, and wrench Scripture out of its context. The IVP Bible Background Commentary affirms from the biblical context, “Dreams were one of the standard means for receiving messages from a god in the ancient Near East.” It was clearly understood in biblical days that some dreams were supernatural communication from alternatives sources to Yahweh, which were evil spirits. Therefore, the context to the Israelites was clear: Prophetic dreams as supernatural signs and wonders from Yahweh did indeed occur, but such dreams could occur in other religions as well, and even those dreams could well come true. However, their fulfilment did not mean they were from Yahweh, so stay away from them.

Scripture shows that angels sometimes appear in visions and dreams. Most of these mentioned in Scripture are angels from God, but Paul also warns: “though we, or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). And again, “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14). If an angel can appear in a dream or vision (as Scripture affirms), and if an angel can preach a false gospel (as Scripture warns), and if Satan does indeed disguise himself as an angel of light (which Scripture assures) then an angel in a dream or vision can preach a false gospel or be a satanic angel of light. Just because you see a bright angel in your dream or vision, it does not automatically mean it is from God.

Image: Tom Eversley

We read above that in Jeremiah 23 some dreams come not from God but from one’s imagination. However, the case is different a few chapters later in Jeremiah 27, in which God warns even more strongly, “Do not listen to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers … who prophesy a lie to you” (Jer 27:9). Dreamers and prophets are here lumped together with diviners, sorcerers, and enchanters. While it is possible that some of these may have feigned some supernatural encounters, each of these had real demonic occult roots in the supernatural. Therefore, such dreamers and prophets are supernaturally prophesying against Yahweh’s counsel from the same occultic sources. The inference, then, is that the source of the prophecies and revelations of the dreamer and prophets are occultic.

Zechariah gives another example of false supernatural dreams and visions: “For the demons have spoken vanity and the diviners have seen a lying vision and have spoken a revelatory word of false dreams” (Zech 10:2).[i] Such demonically-inspired dreams and visions seduce people to go after other gods and not follow Yahweh (Deut 13:1-5) and lead people astray into the occult (Jer 27:9-10). God takes dreams, visions, and prophecies seriously. He warns not to mess around with them, not to speak from our own imagination or expose ourselves to demonic dreams.

Other Yellow and Red Light Danger Alerts

Even though God sometimes uses dreams, visions, and voices as tools of discernment, we need to exercise discernment of the tools of discernment as well. Some of the danger signals that could indicate a Yellow Light or Red Light,[ii] include the following:

Pride. God’s answer to Paul was “No,” not because he had sinned, not because he lacked faith, not because there was some curse on his life, but as a preventative measure—to keep Paul from pride in his visions and revelations. Madame Guyon, who experienced many supernatural revelations from God, also warned that Satan uses visions and dreams to convey vanity and self-love. She encourages us to die to self in order to insure safe visions and ecstasies.
False guidance. Accepting such guidance without discernment provides a doorway for false supernatural encounters.
Passivity. This will be discussed in Chapter 26, “Dangers of Passivity.”
Seeking experiences or manifestations rather than God Himself. If you desire an experience so strongly that you are seeking after it rather than God Himself, the dark powers would love to provide you with a counterfeit manifestation that looks like the real thing. Visionaries such as Madame Guyon, Hildegard, and Teresa of Avila all emphasized making Christ central.
Lucid dreaming that involves manipulating your dream or vision. Dutch psychiatrist Frederik van Eeden (1860–1932) coined the term “lucid dreaming” to describe the state of being asleep as well as being self-aware and “in control” of your dreams. Lucid dreaming is not of God when it goes beyond interacting within a dream to controlling the dream. This would be more akin to occult means and hypnosis, not an interactive dream from God.
Danger of Accepting All Dream Thoughts Uncritically. Dreams are thoughts in our sleep. Can demons place a thought in our mind when we are awake? Of course. Then they can place a thought in our mind when we are asleep. The mind can be affected, influenced, distorted, controlled, deceived, or demonized (Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35); blinded (2 Cor 3:14; 4:4); and corrupted (2 Cor 11:3) by demonic powers—if when awake, certainly when asleep. Paul exhorts: “We are destroying speculations (“casting down imaginations”—KJV) and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). This involves spiritual warfare against those thoughts, imaginations or speculations (including those in sleep) that rise up against true knowledge of God. We are to bring “every thought captive to obedience of Christ”—not just thoughts in wakening hours, but all thoughts, including those in the sleeping hours.
Cautions in Fasting. Fasting led by the Spirit is biblical, but not all fasting is Spirit-led (Isa 58:3-5; Matt 6:16-17). Fasting in the flesh or prolonged excessive fasting and prayer combined with sleep deprivation, and/or asceticism can actually cause false manifestations—false visions, dreams, or voices. May Mabette Anderson cautioned that “a weakened body often gives the adversary easy access to the spirit.” A.B. Simpson expressed concern: “Good people who shut themselves up in cells and closets in weeks of fasting and prayer without proper exercise, nourishment or sleep, or without any change of mental or spiritual attention, are very apt to see visions and dream dreams that do not always come from above.

Discerning True and False in Dream Interpretation

We have seen from biblical examples that dream interpretation can be valid. However, we can also glean principles from Scripture about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate dream interpretation.

Danger of Jungian Dream Interpretation

While we recognize valid insights from psychological theory in harmony with Scripture, including some from Carl Jung, we must be very careful and eclectic in our acceptance of such theories. Great discernment is needed and they must be sifted through Scripture. Jung himself was influenced and fascinated by supernatural occult phenomena, thus opening up a person for psychic or demonic deception. Paul advises us, “But a natural [psyche—psychic, soulish] man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14).

Danger of Over-Spiritualizing

Don’t strain to get the meaning or attempt to find too much meaning in dreams and visions. As with Jesus’ parables, dreams and visions usually have one main theme, not necessarily spiritual significance with every detail. Paul warned not to go beyond what is written. When we over-allegorize or over-mystify, we are going beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6). The mystical is only given to us by God for direction, awareness, and growth spiritually, not for relishing in the mysterious.

Discerning Dream Interpretation

Dream interpretation must be led by the Spirit of God, not the soul of man. Even a lot of so-called “Christian” dream interpretation is subjective and speculative, not divinely-inspired. Joseph makes clear that he interprets not by his own ability or thoughts, but interpretation of dreams belongs to God (Gen 40:8, 16, 22; 41:12-16). The same term is used of Daniel’s interpretation of dreams (Dan 5:7, 8, 26) and was attributed, not to human or psychic ability but to the fact that “in whom is the spirit of the holy gods” (Dan 5:11, 12, 14).
Record your dreams and visions. God told Habakkuk, “Record the vision, and inscribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run. For the vision is yet for the appointed time …” (Hab 2:2). Keep a notepad or recorder handy, especially by your bed at night.
Rather than seeking a dream interpretation book, seek the Lord and His Word for the interpretation. Many books on dream interpretation go far beyond Scripture. A good book on hermeneutics or biblical interpretation provides a sound guide.
Pray for an interpretation. Sometimes you will not understand the meaning of the dream or vision you or another person has received. As you pray, the Holy Spirit may give you a word of knowledge or wisdom, a prophetic word, or tongues and interpretation to provide supernatural insight.
Take time to reflect on the meaning and receive confirmation. Peter was reflecting on the meaning of the vision he had in a trance, and the Lord gave him the meaning and confirmation through a knock on the door (Acts 10:19). Joseph’s dream confirmed that Mary was indeed pregnant by the Holy Spirit and that he should take Mary as his wife.
Understand that different symbols can signify the same thing (e.g., Gen 41:25—cows and stalks of grain).
Understand that symbols can sometimes have opposite meanings depending upon the context. For example, a lion can be a divine or godly symbol (Jesus is called the Lion of Judah and the righteous are as bold as a lion) or a demonic symbol (Satan roars like a lion).
Inanimate objects may be animated in dreams or visions. For example, in Joseph’s dreams, the sheaves of wheat, the sun, moon and stars bowed down.
The interpretation may come later. Sometimes you may not know what it means or whom it is for at the time. Later, God reveals to you the meaning and the person to whom it applies as in the vision.
Repeated dreams or visions have significant meaning. Hildegarde of Bingen had visions with clarity from God, but dreams were another story. She had terrifying dreams and was not sure what to make of them. She waited until they persisted, then she went to her spiritual director for counsel. She models for us to wait and see if the dreams repeat themselves, then go to a spiritual director for further insight and direction.
Similar themes repeated in dreams or vision have special significance. Sometimes God repeats a dream or vision for emphasis to:
- give greater assurance or certainty, especially when the dream is hard to believe, as with Joseph’s two dreams with the same theme.
- certify the determination and soon action of God, as Joseph explained regarding Pharaoh’s dreams.
- affirm that God has confirmed it, determined it, and will bring it about (Gen 41:25, 32).
- confirm or establish by two or three witnesses. Sometimes we will receive more than one dream, vision, or mental image, or more than one person will receive similar, but related, insights. These multiple images will confirm their reality and reinforce their importance to the one who is receiving prayer.

Excerpted and adapted from the forthcoming second volume of Is It of God? Applying Principles of Discernment, by Dr. Paul L. King. Used by permission.

Further Reading:

Read “Basic Biblical Principles of Discernment,” an excerpt from Paul L. King, Is It Of God? A Biblical Guidebook For Spiritual Discernment Volume 1 (Newberry, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2019).

Notes

[i] This is my expanded literal translation from Hebrew. The NASB reads: “For the idols have spoken vanity and the diviners have seen [chazaha vision, revelation, prophecy] a lie and have told [dabar—used of a revelatory word] false dreams.”

[ii] Editor’s note: For more about Paul King’s helpful categories of Green Light, Yellow Light, and Red Light, see “Basic Biblical Principles of Discernment,” which is an excerpt from his book Is It Of God? A Biblical Guidebook For Spiritual Discernment Volume 1 (Newberry, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2019).

Basic Biblical Principles of Discernment

Paul King — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:41:17 +0000

The biblical principles of discernment are based on the seven foundation blocks of the previous chapter: Discernment is God-given, Christ-centered, Spirit-guided, prayer-saturated, Scripture-based, corporately-confirmed, divinely-balanced. Eight biblical principles of discernment, based on the acronym DISCERNS, include the following:

Image: Bourne Baljit

Discover Biblical Precedent.
Investigate for Scriptural Harmony.
Scrutinize for Sound Doctrine.
Confirm with Experience.
Examine the Fruit.
Receive Supernatural Discernment.
Note Examples and Lessons from the Past.
Sift and Weigh for Divine Equilibrium.

As we look at these principles, to make it simple, spiritual discernment is a bit like driving a car. We need to learn when to press down the accelerator, apply the brakes, or continue to move forward with alertness and caution. The illustration of approaching a traffic light while driving helps to picture the process of discernment: Green Light means Go for discernment. Red Light means Stop; go no farther. Yellow light means slow down and get ready to stop. A blinking yellow light is a modified green light when crossing some busy intersections, meaning continue to proceed with caution, looking both ways in case there are crosswinds or someone else wasn’t paying attention to the lights.[i]

Discernment Principle 1: Discover Biblical Precedent

Is the teaching, practice, or manifestation clearly found in Scripture? “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Biblical precedent may be demonstrated in one of three ways: 1) Commands—a direct command to do or not to do something (for example, the Ten Commandments); 2) Principles—guidelines for common or normal practice (for instance, most of the proverbs are observation of life truth, not commands); 3) Examples—demonstration through something that is said or done or not said or done (illustrations, real life instances, patterns, experiences). Based on these, we then can ask two questions:

Do any biblical commands, principles, or examples clearly question or condemn this teaching, practice, or manifestation? This is an automatic red light.

Do any biblical commands, principles, or examples permit or sanction this teaching, practice, or manifestation? This may be a green light, but it also may be a blinking yellow light that requires looking in all directions for further confirmation.

Wanting What the Lord Wants, an Interview with Paul King

Paul King — Sun, 25 Aug 2019 17:27:35 +0000

Paul King, who is a Bible teacher, evangelist, educator, historian, pastor, and cancer survivor, has distinguished qualifications to talk about what God has done and what God is doing. In this interview with PneumaReview.com, we speak with him about his own story and his recent book, Is It of God? that addresses crucial questions about biblical discernment.

PneumaReview.com: Please tell our readers how you came into the Charismatic Renewal.

Paul King: I grew up in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which believed in the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit on paper, but little in practice because of fear of Pentecostal excesses. I was baptized in the Spirit in my first year of college, out of the ongoing overflow of the Asbury College revival in February 1970. I was attending Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and had returned from a beach evangelism team to Florida, feeling very frustrated that I had no power to witness. A student ministry team from the Asbury Revival came to Beaver Falls in April 1970, sharing their testimonies of the great outpouring of the Spirit upon the students. They had something I didn’t have and I began seeking. A few weeks later, I wandered into an Assemblies of God church and the pastor laid hands on me and prayed for me. I did not speak in tongues, but I went out from there with a power I never had before, and I began doing street witnessing with great power and effects, and kids were getting saved.

Even though my Pentecostal friends said I didn’t get it, I did realize that although I didn’t speak in tongues, Jesus said the evidence of the baptism in the Spirit was power to be a witness (Acts 1:8). My ministry was so powerful and effective that Young Life asked me to join their staff. I prayed for the Lord to give me His better gifts, not tongues. I began to get words of prophecy and supernatural words of knowledge even though I had not spoken in tongues. But the Lord convicted me, saying, “If you are not willing to receive what you consider the least of my gifts, what makes you think you should receive any of my gifts?” I was so humbled and convicted, I repented, and began praying, “Lord, I want what you want. If you want me to speak in tongues, I want to speak in tongues. If you don’t want me to speak in tongues, I don’t want to speak in tongues. I was praying this 10 months after I was baptized in the Spirit while driving to my uncle’s home to paint his house. Strange words came to my mind and I spoke them out. I prayed, “Lord, if this is genuine, give me an interpretation.” Immediately to my mind came the words, “The arm of the Lord is extended to you,” and I knew it was real. I had no emotion like I did when I was baptized in the Spirit, just a calm peace (Good thing while I was driving!)

William Menzies’ Lectures on Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism, reviewed by Paul King

Paul King — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:36:16 +0000

From Pneuma Review Spring 2014

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: ‘The Finished Work,’” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 187-198.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Influence of Fundamentalism,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 199-211.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Keswick and the Higher Life,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 213-225.

In his lectures on Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism, presented at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, William W. Menzies ably surveys the impact of non-Wesleyan traditions upon Pentecostalism, and especially the Assemblies of God. These include Finished Work, Fundamentalism, Keswick, and The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). A review of Menzies’ lecture on the A.B. Simpson and the C&MA appeared in an earlier article.

In his first lecture, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Finished Work,” after a brief biography of William Durham, the prime proponent of Finished Work Pentecostalism, Menzies describes Durham’s departure from the Wesleyan eradication view of sanctification. Early Pentecostal belief, as reflected in Charles Parham and William Seymour, taught that a person needs to be sanctified by a second crisis experience before one can receive the baptism in the Spirit and tongues. Durham viewed sanctification as the believer’s position in the finished work of Christ, with no need for a second blessing crisis of sanctification to root out sin. Thus, one did not need to become sanctified before receiving the baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues. This created an acrimonious division in the Pentecostal movement. As a result, William Seymour, catalyst of the Azusa Street Revival of 1906, locked Durham out of his church in 1911. However, the influence of the finished work teaching became so pervasive that Menzies notes that “virtually all Pentecostal bodies that had origins after 1911 adopted non-Wesleyan sanctification views” (p. 218).

Two significant omissions to this issue include the prophecies of both Seymour and Parham regarding Durham. When Seymour locked Durham out of his church, he prophesied that Durham would die if he turned aside from the will of God.[1] Likewise, in January 1912 Charles Parham claimed that Durham had committed the sin unto death and prophesied Durham’s death within six months, praying, “If this man’s doctrine is true, let my life go out to prove it, but if our teaching on a definite grace of sanctification is true, let his life pay the forfeit.”[2] Durham, in fact, did die in July 1912, and thus in the eyes of some Wesleyan Pentecostals a fulfillment of their prophecies, but his teachings had already gained traction and the prophetic fulfillment was ignored or dismissed.

Menzies then presents the impact of Fundamentalism on the Pentecostal movement in his lecture “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Fundamentalism.” The fundamental doctrines of the faith were at the very foundation of Pentecostalism. These included belief in the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, salvation by faith, the person of the Holy Spirit, the inerrancy of Scripture, and dispensational teaching on the literal second coming of Christ. Menzies notes, however, that fundamentalism did not respond in kind to Pentecostalism. By 1928, fundamentalism had formally adopted cessationist dispensationalism, by rejecting tongues, prophetic revelation, and healing.

Menzies’ next article discusses the “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Keswick/Higher Life.” He is correct in noting the significant influence of Keswick/Higher Life holiness teaching. He holds Steven Barabas and his teaching as representative of Keswick. However, this is not fully accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Barabas’ teaching was the predominant developing expression of sanctification. Barabas wrote a history and theology of Keswick in the 1940s, but he was more representative of later Keswick than turn-of-the-century Keswick. Menzies appears to take most of his information from Barabas rather than from original sources and more recent research. Menzies states, “Keswick leaders often say that God’s method of sanctification is not suppression, but counteraction.” (p. 221). Although this is somewhat true, it is not totally accurate. Actually, earlier Keswick leaders did use the language of suppression, but as time went on, and in response to criticisms, the language of counteraction was used. A.B. Simpson, for instance, spoke at the Keswick convention of 1890, especially opposing the language of suppression. His cautions apparently were heeded, and by a few years later, the language had changed from suppression to counteraction.

William Menzies’ lecture on the Christian and Missionary Alliance, reviewed by Paul King

Paul King — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:50:37 +0000

From Pneuma Review Winter 2014

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Christian and Missionary Alliance and The Assemblies of God,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 226-238.

In his lectures on non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism, presented at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary in 2000, William W. Menzies ably surveyed the impact of non-Wesleyan traditions upon Pentecostalism, and especially the Assemblies of God. These included Finished Work, Fundamentalism, Keswick, and The Christian and Missionary Alliance. This article focuses on reviewing Menzies’ lecture on “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Christian and Missionary Alliance.” In a later article I will review the other three lectures.

In this lecture, Menzies discusses the non-Wesleyan influence of A.B. Simpson and the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) upon Pentecostalism, declaring accurately that “More than any other single institution, the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination profoundly impacted the shaping of the Assemblies of God. … Much of the theology, as well as the polity, of the Assemblies of God, was borrowed directly” from the C&MA (p 226, 227). Although many confuse the C&MA with the Wesleyan holiness movement, Menzies correctly identifies the C&MA as a “higher life” movement.[1] Since I am an ordained minister with the Christian and Missionary Alliance who has prayed in tongues for more than 40 years, I was especially interested in Menzies’ portrayal of Simpson and the C&MA. I found him generally accurate, but with some important misunderstandings. Menzies used primary sources, including Simpson’s Fourfold Gospel and Wholly Sanctified, standard texts for C&MA ministers. He also referenced research and interviews with C&MA historian John Sawin.

Menzies describes the spiritual journey of A. B. Simpson, including his experiences of healing a a sanctifying baptism in the Spirit, as well as his later relationships with Pentecostalism. He mistakenly conflates Simpson’s experience of his sanctifying baptism in the Spirit with his experience of divine healing in 1881. In actuality, Simpson’s sanctifying Spirit baptism occurred in 1874. He accurately describes Simpson’s “Fourfold Gospel” of Jesus Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King , which he stated is borrowed from A.J. Gordon (p. 231). However, he does not give a source for this claim, and in my 20 years of research, I have never seen anything in C&MA writings or Gordon’s writings to support this claim. Rather, George Muller acknowledges Simpson’s originality in the concept, telling Simpson that “his arrangement of truth was most evidently ‘of the Lord’ and suggested that he never change its mold.”

Menzies notes similarities between the C&MA and Keswick views of sanctification, claiming that Simpson “advocated a theology of sanctification that fits into the Keswick pattern rather than the classical Wesleyan Holiness theology. … the alliance view was certainly interchangeable with the Keswick teaching” (p. 233). It is true that Simpson’s view was much closer to Keswick than to Wesleyan; however, it is not accurate to say that Simpson’s view “fits” into the Keswick pattern. A.B. Simpson, for instance, spoke at a Keswick convention (1890), especially opposing the language of suppression held by some in the Keswick camp and he did not use the language of counteraction held by other Keswick leaders.

Simpson’s view, though similar to Keswick, was distinct, calling sanctification “the law of lift.” Christ in you, the hope of glory, lifts the believer above the old nature. He called the baptism in the Spirit “God’s elevator to the higher life.” He viewed it as a sanctifying experience, not in the same way as Wesleyans or Keswick proponents, but as an intensification of the sanctification begun at conversion, or as Richard Lovelace expresses it, “a large leap forward in progressive sanctification.” Menzies’ lack of full understanding of Simpson’s view of sanctification may be due to his referencing only the earlier works of Simpson, not Simpson’s later writings which explain his views more fully and maturely. Menzies also does not seem to be aware of nuances in differences between the Higher Life and Keswick movements.

Supernatural Physical Manifestations in the Evangelical and Holiness Revival Movements, by Paul King

Paul King — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:53:26 +0000

With the phenomena associated with the “Toronto Blessing,” the Pensacola/Brownsville revival, and the ministry of Rodney Howard‑Browne, such as falling under the power of the Spirit, trembling, holy laughter, etc., people have tended to either completely accept or completely reject all such phenomena. However, when we study the history of the church, in particular the evangelical and holiness movements of the eighteenth to early twentieth centuries, we see that many of these manifestations have occurred in these movements, but such phenomena were neither accepted out of hand, nor dismissed summarily. As an ordained minister with the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) who also serves on the faculty of Oral Roberts University, through this study I desire to provide a bridge and a buffer between the evangelical/holiness and the Pentecostal/charismatic camps. This study explores the experiences of evangelical and holiness revivals, and how such manifestations were viewed.

Falling Under the Power of the Spirit

The phenomenon of falling under the power of the Spirit occurred in the revivals of Jonathan Edwards. His assessment was that a person may “fail bodily strength” due to fear of hell and the conviction by the Holy Spirit or due to a “foretaste of heaven.”[1] John Wesley recognized falling to the ground as a manifestation from God, and records many such instances in his ministry. In fact, George Whitefield criticized Wesley for permitting the phenomena until it began happening in his own meetings.[2] The Kentucky revivals of 1800-1801, which involved Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians, was replete with similar demonstrations.[3] In the early 1800s, the revivals led by Methodist circuit riding preacher Peter Cartwright (who was converted in the Kentucky revivals) were often accompanied by people falling under God’s power, including some Baptists.[4] Finney’s ministry also frequently manifested fainting or swooning, what he called “falling under the power of God.”[5] The Welsh revival of 1859 was accompanied by swooning as “waves of power often overwhelmed” people.[6] In the 1860s, Andrew Murray’s church started to speak out against people who began to shout and cry and swoon in a revival in his church, until a visitor from America told him about similar manifestations in American revivals.[7] Decades before holiness evangelist Maria Woodworth-Etter’s involvement in the Pentecostal revival, many people in her meetings fell under the power of the Spirit, including Carrie Judd (Montgomery), an early leader in the C&MA.[8] Moody’s associate R.A. Torrey testified of people falling under the power of God due to conviction of sin.[9] Torrey himself fell under power of the Spirit when baptized with the Holy Spirit.[10] Presbyterian missionary Jonathan Goforth makes reference in his book By My Spirit to the phenomenon occurring in his revivals.[11]

Instances of falling under the power of the Spirit also occurred periodically at C&MA meetings for two decades before Azusa Street. In 1885 A.B. Simpson, the founder of the C&MA, received what we would call today a “word of knowledge” that someone was resisting the Lord. A woman responded, saying it was her. She came forward, and as Simpson anointed her for healing, she was overcome, falling under the power of the Spirit seemingly unconscious for about half an hour, and she received a healing.[12] In 1897 at a joint C&MA/Mennonite camp meeting in Allentown, Pennsylvania, C&MA General Field Supt. Dean Peck preached six services in three days and described: “At service after service . . . I saw people fall as dead under the power of God.” He said it was a genuine revival from God and talked about such things happening among the Methodists 50-60 years ago, but are not frequent now because many revivals are of human manufacture.[13] Manifestations of falling also occurred during the 1907 revival at Simpson’s Gospel Tabernacle, apparently with his approval.[14] Presbyterian Greek professor T. J. McCrossan, who joined C&MA in 1923, while serving as interim president of Simpson Bible Institute, wrote in his book Bodily Healing and the Atonement: “Hundreds are healed, who do not fall under this power, because they simply trust God’s promises; and it is the prayer of faith that heals. Going under this power seems, however, to bring an extra spiritual blessing. . . . This power is not hypnotism. . . . This is not devil power.^”[15]McCrossan spoke out of the experience of his own life, for not only did he frequently assist Charles Price in laying hands on the sick with people falling, but he himself fell under God’s power and was enraptured with visions when he was baptized in the Spirit in 1921 through Price’s ministry.[16]

John MacMillan and the Authority of the Believer

Paul King — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:01:33 +0000

“John A. MacMillan’s Teaching Regarding the Authority of the Believer and its Impact on the Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Charismatic Movements” by Paul L. King

Most people associate teaching on the authority of the believer from a charismatic source, usually Kenneth Hagin or Kenneth Copeland. Some evangelicals, such as Hank Hanegraaff and John MacArthur tend to regard exercise of the believer’s authority, especially binding and loosing, as an excessive teaching of the charismatic movement.¹ However, the original source of teaching on this vital doctrine comes not from the charismatic or Pentecostal movements, but from John A. MacMillan, a former Presbyterian layman who became a missionary, writer, editor, and professor, and from and his classic holiness roots in the Higher Life and Keswick movements. My doctoral dissertation presented a case study of the life, ministry, and impact of John MacMillan, particularly as it relates to the authority of the believer and spiritual warfare.² This paper is a distillation of that dissertation.

Introducing John A. MacMillan

John MacMillan (1873-1956) was a Canadian Presbyterian businessman who became actively involved with ministry to Chinese and Jewish people in Toronto.³ At the age of 41 he married Isabel Robson, who had been a missionary to China with China Inland Mission from 1895 to1906 and a personal nurse to J. Hudson Taylor. Ordained in 1923 at the age of 49, MacMillan and his wife went to China as missionaries with The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). He then became field director of the floundering C&MA mission work in the Philippines. Following the death of his first wife in 1928, he returned to North America to do pastoral and itinerant ministry. Subsequently, he became Associate Editor of The Alliance Weekly magazine, a member of the Board of Managers of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, and a professor at Missionary Training Institute in Nyack, New York, now known as Nyack College. In 1932 after nine years of many dramatic experiences with spiritual warfare, he wrote a series of articles in The Alliance Weekly, the periodical of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, entitled “The Authority of the Believer.”⁴ Eventually they were published in book form, distributed widely and also republished in other periodicals. MacMillan had a remarkable and extensive ministry in the exercise of the authority of the believer and spiritual warfare spanning more than thirty years.

MacMillan’s Exercise of the Authority of the Believer

John MacMillan’s practice of the authority of the believer began when as a businessman, he was informed that the house next to his house caught on fire. Calmly, “he committed the crisis to God in prayer, claiming divine protection according to Psalm 91:10 that ‘no destruction would befall the house.'” He drove home to find out that the fire had miraculously stopped at a wooden fence that separated the two houses.⁵

MacMillan turned his business over to another man when he left for the mission field, designating a portion of the profits to go to his missionary support, but the man reneged on his contract, failing to forward the funds. Speaking with the believer’s authority, MacMillan prophesied, “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” Eventually the business went bankrupt. So through MacMillan’s application of the believer’s authority, he was vindicated and the dishonest contract-breakers suffered the judgment of God.⁶

On the mission field in China an Asiatic cholera epidemic threatened the mission. MacMillan again confessed Psalm 91:3, “Surely he will deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the deadly pestilence.” He prayed, “May we be enabled to keep the Home ‘in the secret place of the Most High and under the shadow of the Almighty.'” They emerged victorious and received divine protection from the plague. ⁷

MacMillan told of how Christian and Missionary Alliance missionaries would claim land from demonic control in China and bind the powers of darkness. On a certain occasion, the missionaries took possession of a piece of land and began moving logs. Evil spirits resisted the takeover by projecting a supernatural voice from a log. The voice in the log threatened, “Don’t you dare move it!” The missionaries were not taken aback, but rebuked the voice. They then removed the log without any further incident and gained the victory over the dark powers.⁸ MacMillan’s most dramatic illustration of exercising the authority of binding and loosing occurred in 1924 when several missionaries were kidnapped. As MacMillan and the remaining missionaries exercised the believer’s authority of binding and loosing, the missionaries were released without harm.⁹

John MacMillan’s exercise of the authority of the believer and engagement with the powers of darkness increased during his ministry in the Philippines. He exercised authority over nature, binding the Enemy as a tree fell toward him and the mission buildings. As a result, the tree fell between the buildings, causing no harm to the buildings or himself. MacMillan perceived in this startling occurrence of divine protection a spiritual message from the Lord, “The way out is blocked—is it not a gracious call to prayer, lest the great adversary block our efforts and shut us up in a small place? We have prayed for the binding of the strongman—we must watch and pray that the strong man does not bind us.”¹⁰ As he took authority over tobacco addictions, many people were set free and in one district in the Philippines, all the believers stopped growing tobacco.¹¹

Another remarkable and dramatic demonstration of MacMillan’s authority as a believer resulted in miraculous healing of his broken leg. Retired pastor Otto Bublat recalls that MacMillan described the incident years later in a class at the Missionary Training Institute: “Once on an emergency mission trip where he was alone on the rainy slippery trail, he slipped and broke his ankle. … His only recourse was the Lord since he was alone and about twenty miles from even a first aid station. In simple faith, he stepped out and began walking those many miles. He got home safely, and shortly thereafter had the ankle X-rayed. There had been a clean break, but it was perfectly healed.”¹²

Claiming God’s Promises Today: Classic and Modern Word of Faith Views Compared and Contrasted, by Paul King

Paul King — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:05:11 +0000

This chapter is from Paul L. King’s book Only Believe: Examining the Origins and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies.

Classic and Modern Word of Faith Views Compared and Contrasted

The classic faith leaders affirmed the reality of the supernatural, not just in the Bible and the early New Testament church, but for the entire church age. The Pentecostal, charismatic and contemporary faith movements embraced this classic faith position, but sometimes went beyond classic faith teaching and practice regarding the supernatural. Classic faith teaching often provides a balance, a moderation, in the practice of faith in relationship to the supernatural that is sometimes lacking today. Some classic faith leaders backed away from Pentecostalism and supernatural manifestations, over-reacting to excesses in the movement, whereas some Pentecostals acknowledged and warned of the problems of excesses and counterfeits, yet maintained the genuineness of the movement as a whole.

Practically speaking, I would conclude that if those in the Pentecostal, charismatic, and contemporary faith movements would exercise more discernment and be more self-critical as did some early Pentecostal leaders, they would be criticized less. While some like MacArthur criticize from a cessationist point of view, Hunt and Hanegraaff are purported not to be cessationists. McConnell comes from a solidly Pentecostal camp, as does Fee. So it should be noted that one can exercise faith in the supernatural realm and believe that God works supernaturally today without embracing all of the teachings, practices, and phenomena often associated with charismatic, Pentecostal, and contemporary faith practice.

The Extent and Limits of the Believer’s Inheritance.

Of prime practical-theological concern is the extent to which a believer can obtain inheritance in this life. One of the criticisms of contemporary faith teaching is that some give the impression that a Christian can receive all of his inheritance now. However, Simpson recognized that believers receive a “sample of the inheritance of glory which Christ has purchased for us and is in due time to convey in all its fullness.”¹ He also indicated that God puts limits on His blessings: “He exercises a loving oversight in His blessings; and while He freely gives to all who ask and trust Him, and the only limitation in the measure of our blessings is our own faith and obedience, yet even when He gives most largely it is in the line which His wisdom and love see most consistent with our highest good and His supreme glory.”²

The classic faith leaders strike a balance between those who claim too little for the believer’s inheritance today and those who claim too much, maintaining the dynamic tension of truth.

Murray viewed reception of inheritance as dependent upon maturity: “The death of the testator gives the heir immediate right to the inheritance. And yet the heir, if he be a minor, does not enter into the possession. A term of years ends the stage of minority on earth, and he is no longer under guardians. In the spiritual life the state of pupilage ends, not with the expiry of years, but the moment the minor proves his fitness for being made free from the law, by accepting the liberty there is in Christ Jesus.”³ In similar fashion, A.J. Gordon aptly put it: “The promises of God are certain, but they do not all mature in ninety days.”⁴

Spurgeon gave fuller explanation, counseling that a believer can rightly claim a promise of inheritance when it is “in due season”:

Often you cannot get at a difficulty so as to deal with it aright and find your way to a happy result. You pray, but have not the liberty in prayer which you desire. A definite promise is what you want. You try one and another of the inspired words, but they do not fit. You try again, and in due season a promise presents itself which seems to have been made for the occasion; it fits exactly as a well-made key fits the lock for which it was prepared. Having found the identical word of the living God you hasten to plead it at the throne of grace, saying, ‘Oh Lord, Thou hast promised this good thing unto Thy servant; be pleased to grant it!’ The matter is ended; sorrow is turned to joy; prayer is heard.”⁵

impart — to share, to give a portion to.
impute — to ascribe, to attribute, to reckon or regard.

Some might recognize the validity of spiritual inheritance but question material and physical inheritance. While classic faith leaders believed that financial prosperity could be included in the believer’s inheritance, Simpson exemplified their attitude regarding material promises, avowing that Christ Himself is the believer’s supreme inheritance.⁶ He illustrated the point from the Old Testament incident of Abraham and Lot, perceiving that it is a matter of motivation and inner attitude: “He [Abraham] allowed Lot to have his choice of the land, and when he, full of his strong self-life, claimed the best, Abraham let him have it. When we believe God, we can let people have many things which really belong to us. If God has them for us, no one can possibly take them from us. So Lot took the rich plain of the Jordan. God had given it all to Abraham, and he knew he could not lose it.”⁷

Paul L. King: Hermeneutics in Modern and Classic Faith Movements

Paul King — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:38:55 +0000

If we want to live our lives according to the Bible, how we approach Scripture means everything. What differences in interpretation can we see between the contemporary Word of Faith movement and the classic Faith movement?

This chapter is from Paul L. King’s book Only Believe: Examining the Origins and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies.

Many, perhaps even most, of the controversies regarding contemporary faith theology and practice have involved the interpretation of various passages of Scripture. Regarding the “health and wealth gospel,” Fee affirms: “The basic problems here are hermeneutical, i.e., they involve questions as to how one interprets Scripture. Even the lay person, who may not know the word “hermeneutics’ and who is not especially trained in interpreting the Bible, senses that this is where the real problem lies. The most distressing thing about their use of Scripture … is the purely subjective and arbitrary way they interpret the biblical text.”¹

Hermeneutics and the Contemporary Faith Movement

James W. Sire, in his book Scripture Twisting, addresses ways in which cults misuse the Scriptures: inaccurate quotation, twisted translation, ignoring the immediate context, collapsing contexts of two or more unrelated texts, speculation and overspecification, mistaking literal language for figurative language (and vice versa), selective citing, confused definitions, ignoring alternative explanations, among others.² Many of these misuses of Scripture in the contemporary faith movement have been pointed out by their critics. However, this does not mean that the contemporary faith leaders are cultic as some have claimed them to be, but it does demonstrate that there is a serious problem with some contemporary faith exegesis.

There is a serious problem with some contemporary faith exegesis.

Copeland appears at first glance to have a concern for proper interpretation of Scripture when he asserts “that we are putting the Word of God first and foremost throughout this study, not what we think it says, but what it actually says!”³ However, Fee responds:

This is nobly said; but what does it mean? Implied is the hint that interpretations that differ from his are based on what people think, not on what the Bible says. But also implied is the truth that good interpretation should begin with the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning of the text, however, is precisely what Copeland and the others do not give us, text after text. … But “plain meaning” has first of all to do with the author’s original intent, it has to do with what would have been plain to those to whom the words were originally addressed. It has not to do with how someone from a suburbanized white American culture of the late 20th century reads his own cultural setting back into the text through the frequently distorted prism of the language of the early 17th century.⁴

To illustrate Fee’s apprehension, a popular saying in the contemporary faith movement proclaims, “God said it; I believe it; and that settles it.” That statement is true as far as it goes. But it leaves something out: what is it that God really said, and what does it mean? Often this is presumed, rather than thought through and studied exegetically. Lovett, formerly a professor at Oral Roberts University, also writes of his concern, explaining, “The problem with exponents of the Rhema [word of faith] interpretation is their biased selection of biblical passages, often without due regard to their context. The self-defined phrase ‘confessing the Word of God’ takes precedence over hermeneutical principles and rules for biblical interpretation. This approach not only does violence to the text but forces the NT linguistic data into artificial categories that the biblical authors themselves could not affirm.”⁵ Simmons concludes that the shaky hermeneutical foundation of the contemporary faith movement stems from its acknowledged founder: “In Kenyon’s hands, even the texts that were a major focus of Keswickeans in general proved to be remarkably elastic. … Kenyon’s tendency was to stretch a term or metaphor to a literal extreme that the original word or figure of speech did not intend.”⁶

Claiming Inheritance or Dying to Self: Theology of Glory or Theology of the Cross?

Paul King — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:55:34 +0000

This chapter is from Paul L. King’s book Only Believe: Examining the Origins and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies.

Several years ago I read St. John of the Cross on mortification of self and at the same time read Robert Schuller on self-esteem. I learned from both, even though the writings of these two authors are poles apart. Both teach elements of truth, but both represent opposite extremes. The dynamic tension of the counter-polarities needs to be kept in balance. If self-esteem is taught without the cross, the believer’s thought and practice are skewed and become egocentric. If death to self is taught without understanding the believer’s exalted position in Christ, the believer’s thought and practice are again skewed and susceptible to self-centered spiritual flagellation. The key to healthy Christian living and faith is to hold these two truths in balance.¹ However, in relation to faith teaching, claiming the believer’s inheritance would seem to be at odds with dying to one’s self. How can the two seemingly contradictory concepts be reconciled?

In reality, healthy faith must maintain a healthy blend of both dying to self and claiming the rights and privileges of the believer. The message of the crucified life is the one element often missing from modern faith teaching and practice, thus breaking down the dynamic tension. Kenneth Hagin does not negate the cross, but believes it has been over-emphasized to the neglect of the abundant life in Christ: “The trouble with us is that we have preached a ‘cross’ religion, and we need a ‘throne’ religion. … The cross is actually a place of defeat, whereas the Resurrection is a place of triumph. When you preach the cross, you are preaching death, and you leave people in death. We died all right, but we’re raised with Christ.”² The classic faith leaders of the Keswick and Higher Life movements would agree that we need a throne religion, but not to the neglect of the cross. Without the cross life the emphasis on obtaining the promised blessings of God is out of balance and susceptible to egocentricism and distortion.

Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Via Wikimedia Commons.

Martin Luther distinguished a theology of glory (theologia gloria) from a theology of the cross (theologia crucis). The theology of glory “is concerned primarily with God and his glory, whereas the other sees God as hidden in his suffering.”³ According to Luther, man prefers the theology of glory or triumphalism because it exalts man: “He prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and in general, good to evil.”⁴ In contrast, the emphasis of the New Testament exalts the humbling of Christ and denial of self: “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:5-8, NASB).

A. B. Simpson (1843-1919), founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
Via Wikimedia Commons.

Luther further declared, in contrast to some modern faith thought, that “God can only be found in suffering and the cross. … Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the old Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his good works unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.”⁵ Other mystics likewise emphasized the life of the cross. Fenelon avowed, “We are nothing without the cross.”⁶ Thomas a Kempis likewise observed centuries ago, “The Lord has many lovers of His crown but few lovers of His cross.”⁷