“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This statement from Deuteronomy 6:4 carries two theological implications: (1) the unity and (2) uniqueness of God. In this article, we will be looking at God’s unity, which is referred to in theology as the simplicity of God.
When we say that God is simple, we are not saying that God is easy to understand. Instead, we are referring to his essence as being simple (one part) versus compound (many parts). Humans are compound beings, in that we are made up of various parts, and these parts can be divided. For example, wisdom is a quality which humans can possess. However, not all humans have wisdom. God, however, is simple. Meaning he is not made up of various parts. He is neither composed nor divided.
Although we may speak of God’s many attributes, his attributes are not parts of him, instead, they are identical with his essence, along with everything that all his attributes reveal.1 For example, Jesus said to the rich young ruler, “No one is good–except God alone.” God in his essence is good, and when God created all things it was good. God is good, and this attribute reveals that all good things come from God. In his persons, in his decrees, in his covenant, in all that he does, he is good.2
In the incarnation, the Son did not give up his divinity, rather, he took to himself a true body and a reasonable soul. As he walked among the people of Israel, there the fullness of God was, in all his glory and all his attributes. Therefore, just as God is light (1 John 1:5), Christ is able to declare, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will have the light of life (John 8:12).”
However, by taking upon himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, he was made like us in every respect. Unlike his divinity, his humanity is composed of a human will, flesh, bones, and blood. He experienced hunger and thirst. In Gethsemane, he anguished in prayer. What a comfort for us that Christ is like us, our federal head who is without sin, mediating between us and God.
Furthermore, at the cross of Christ, the simplicity of God is revealed in the Son, who glorifies all the attributes of God. At the cross, God’s just wrath is poured out upon his Son, and yet forgiveness is poured out to all who look upon him. At the cross, Christ reveals a God who is both just and merciful. Justice and mercy are identical to God’s essence, and so are not opposed to one another, instead, they simultaneously work together to bring about God’s redemptive plan.3
How can we apply the doctrine of divine simplicity? For one, to affirm God’s simplicity is to glorify God. By doing so, we recognize that there is a creator creature distinction. Since God is not made of parts, he is the creator of all things. Additionally, we recognize our limited knowledge of God. We do not know God in his essence as Basil states but by his works.4
Lastly, when we call upon God, we do not receive an attribute of God, but rather the fullness of him—God in his essence, with all his attributes simultaneously present.4 Since God is not made of parts, he is not conflicted like us. He does not change his mind nor is he swayed by emotions or caught off guard. This is why we can run to God as a refuge and a stronghold when we are afflicted, and swayed by circumstances and emotions. When we lack wisdom, we turn to God who is infinite wisdom, love, good, powerful, and just. To think of God being present in his fullness is certainly a daunting thought. Should we not be more cautious in invoking his name? How can we ever expect God to sympathize with us? Take comfort, for at his right hand sits Christ, who is our advocate. He sympathizes with our weaknesses. He is veiled in a body of flesh so that we are not destroyed. Even more, Christ who is the fullness of God is eternally faithful, securing us by his eternal power (Romans 8:38-39).
1 Michael Scott. Horton, “God: The Incommunicable Attributes,” in The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), pp. 227.
2 Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, “God’s Simplicity” in Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p. 625.
3 Ibid, pp. 628.
4 Horton, “God: The Incommunicable Attributes,” in The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), pp. 227.
5 Beeke and Smalley, “God’s Simplicity” in Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p. 634.
Since the Reformed tradition is primarily European, why should we as Hmong people care about the Westminster Confessions of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms? And why am I translating the Shorter Catechism?
The Westminster Standards are a systematic summary of what Scripture teaches. It was drafted by 151 theologians with the hopes of unifying Christians throughout Europe. Although it is secondary to Scripture, it reveals that even during a time of war and chaos, God had been building up his church for a long time. And how remarkable, that the Reformation was a time where God preserved His church through a dark time in history to recover the Gospel.
Yes, the visible Hmong church may only be about 40 years old, but the invisible church spans to the beginning of creation. Therefore, when we confess what we believe, we join with the many men and women who came before us as Christians to glorify God.
There is something deeply rich in worshiping, reading Scripture, and confessing Christian truths in Hmong. I am not a fluent Hmong speaker, but I am translating the Westminster Shorter Catechism into Hmong (with the help of others) for those who are eager to read the confessions in the Hmong language. For those eager to embrace Reformed theology, yet feel as though they do not fit into Presbyterian churches. Furthermore, I’m translating the Shorter Catechism to continue the discussion of Reformed Theology within the Hmong community.
Below are a few translations from the Shorter Catechism. They’re not perfect, and they can probably be phrased better. If so, please let me know how it can be improved in the comments below, or at firstname.lastname@example.org, I’d love to hear from you.
Note: Prooftexts coming soon.
Q. 1. What is the chief end of Man? A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Q. 1. Lub hom phiaj kawg rau tib neeg yog dab tsi? A. Lub hom phiaj kawg rau tib neeg yog qhuas Vajtswv thiab txaus siab rau NWS mus ib txhis.
Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him? A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.
Q. 2. Vajtswv tau muab txojcai twg los qhia peb kom peb thiaj yuav txawj qhuas thiab txaus siab rau nws? A. Vajtswv Txojlus, uas muaj nyob hauv Phau Vajlugkub Qub thiab Phau tshiab,3 thiaj yog tib txojcai uas qhia kom peb txawj los qhua Vajtswv thiab txaus siab rau Nws xwb.4
Q. 3. What do the Scriptures principally teach? A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.
Q. 3. Lub ntsiablug uas Vajtswv Txojlus qhia yog dab tsi? A. Lub ntsiablug uas Vajtswv Txojlus qhia yog kom tibneeg ntseeg Nws, thiab yam dejnum uas Nws xav kom tibneeg ua.
Q. 4. What is God? A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.
Scripture speaks of God as being incomprehensible, meaning that creation is not fully able to understand God. This is because God is ontologically different from creation. God is the Creator and we are the created. However, despite being incomprehensible, Scripture presupposes that God does exist, and gives us knowledge of God. Thus it can proclaim that the one who says “there is no God” is a fool. But how can this be if God is incomprehensible? Romans 1 proclaims that God has revealed his eternal power and deity in creation (Romans 1:19-20, Acts 14:17).1 God too speaks to us in a way that we can understand because it is impossible for us to perceive God apart from God revealing himself through nature and history. Therefore, God is ontologically different, but he can overcome the difference to speak to us in analogies. For example, when I speak to my four-year-old niece, I speak to her in a way that she would understand.
Theodore Beza wrote that the “ignorance of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupt and still corrupt Christianity.”1 It has been roughly four hundred years and this statement clearly identifies some of my past failures as a preacher. And with great concern, this is also a consistent issue within many Hmong churches. Sadly many Hmong pastors (myself included), have blurred the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. By failing to see the relationship between the Law and Gospel, we neglect to preach the whole counsel of God as commanded in Acts 20:27. The Law and the Gospel make up the Holy Scriptures, and to miss how they interact with one another is to neglect the office of the preacher. More importantly, it does harm to God’s people.
The Law and the Gospel work together; they go hand in hand as they serve the purposes of God in administering the one covenant of grace. And so, in order to preach the whole counsel of God, that is, to preach Christ—the Law and Gospel must be on the lips of the minister.
Preaching needs to convey the distinction and harmony of the Law and Gospel.
I. The Law & Gospel Distinction
What is the Law?
Beza states that the Law is the moral law (i.e., Ten Commandments) written by nature in our hearts (Rom 2:14-15).2 In addition, the Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 93 states:
The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul, and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.
The Law is God’s moral decree written in our hearts to lead us to obedience. The Law is a perfect reflection of God’s divine character. It directs all mankind to acknowledge God despite one’s suppression of that truth. It instructs all to walk in the ways of holiness and righteousness. It demands a personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience to it. However, this is a demand that we cannot meet. This isn’t an issue with the Law, but with us. In the Old Covenant, Moses enforced obedience to the law, but time and time again the people couldn’t meet its perfect demands. Only Jesus could fulfill the demands of the Law (Matt 5:17).
By nature, the Law is written within us, but the Gospel is not. It is revealed to us from heaven (John 1:13). The Gospel is supernatural knowledge, whereas the Law is general knowledge.3Only through the Gospel is God present with man, yet in the Law, God is far from man. In this way, the Law and the Gospel are opposed to each other.
Law vs. Gospel
The Law demands righteousness, a pure heart and complete obedience.4 Unfortunately, “no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law (WLC A.94).” As a result of sin, the law not only demands, it also justly condemns us to death. In this way, the Law is distinct from the Gospel.
The Gospel does not demand righteousness, but it gives righteousness. The Gospel doesn’t bring death, neither does it condemn. Instead, it graciously offers life to those who receive it.
Another distinction is that the Law can only show us our excessive evil. It builds up in our heart, and the guilt and shame make us aware of our condemnation.5 On the other hand, the Gospel removes our guilt and shame. Unlike the Gospel, the Law cannot sanctify and justify the believer.
If a preacher fails to see the distinction between the Law and Gospel, “neither of God’s intentions is carried out.”6 For instance, the Law demands that those who disobey God and continue in sin must be held accountable. However, upon repentance, the Gospel urges us to extend mercy. This is possible given the understanding of the distinctions between the Law and Gospel. Through the Law, we know we are accountable to God. He searches our hearts and convicts us of our disobedience through the Law.
Preachers ought to preach as if the Law was staring at us, observing our every thought, word, and deed. Leaving us helpless before Him. Our very desire should be to escape the judgment and wrath of God and cling to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He alone covers us and takes that judgment and wrath upon himself.
II. The Law & Gospel Distinction in Preaching
Dangers in Preaching Only Law
As I have stated above, there is a stark distinction between the Law and the Gospel. If we’re not careful, we could be preaching the Law as if it were the Gospel. The danger in preaching only the Law is that it is capable of bringing and announcing death. Yes, it does come from God, it does restrain sin, but it does not save. By preaching only the Law, the congregation stands condemned before a holy and righteous God. Without the Gospel, the Law cannot direct the hearer to Christ, and so they remain under their guilt and shame. Yet when the Law and Gospel are effectively preached, the Law sets for the people the standard of righteousness and the Gospel offers the righteousness needed to be reconciled to the Father. The Gospel is supernatural revelation and it must be proclaimed.
Intrinsically known, our natural tendency is to suppress the Law of God. For this reason, the Gospel must be preached and not assumed. Just as Christ taught the Law to people who had access to it for years, so we must also labor in that task. We must refrain from assuming our congregation knows the Law or are conscious of it. After preaching the Law, Jesus offered the Gospel. And although Christ fulfilled the Law he still labored in preaching the Law.8
Dangers in Preaching Only Gospel
Similarly, we must also be cautious not to only preach the Gospel. The Gospel is good news only because there is bad news. This bad news is that all have sinned against God. Romans 3:10 states that “None is righteous, no, no one.” These categories of sin and unrighteousness are embedded within the understanding of the Law. The congregation needs to know why they need to be reconciled to God, and why Jesus’ death was necessary.
Without the preaching of the Law, the congregation will not know the standard of righteousness set before them for their obedience. The Westminster Shorter Catechism question 40 asks, “What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?” The answer is stated as such: “The rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience was the moral law.” The law was first provided, and thus it is necessary to be preached distinctively from the Gospel in order that all who hear it may obey. The Law demands righteousness, and if this is not taught or understood, the righteousness that the Gospel provides will have no significance to them. Understanding the distinctions between the Law and Gospel, and preaching with these distinctions in light of the New Covenant prevents us from delivering a sermon that is non-redemptive and burdensome.
Ministers of God’s Word must seek to “present everyone mature in Christ.”9 True maturity in Christ flourishes when ministers and their congregations are able to understand why obedience to the Law brings condemnation instead of salvation. Transformation happens when the Gospel is taught in light of the Law. The congregation is far from perfect and so they need the Law and Gospel preached in a manner that will sanctify them till the return of Christ.
III. The Law & Gospel Harmony
Law Demands Righteousness
Working side by side, The Law and the Gospel cannot be characterized as only being in opposition to each other because they also work side by side. Through their opposition, they harmoniously work together to fulfill God’s will.10 Despite their many differences, both the Law and the Gospel come from the one true God. Although the Law is no longer a taskmaster over the believer, the Gospel does not abolish the Law, nor does it weaken the Law. Rather, through faith in Jesus Christ the Law is upheld (Rom. 3:31).
Beza argued that “the Law establishes the essence of the Gospel.” We see this in Romans 10:2-4 which reads, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Paul is alluding to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Prior to Christ, righteousness was understood through the Law.
Because of our sin, the Law could never offer righteousness. But Christ, being sinless and perfectly obedient took upon our sin. As a result, our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness imputed to us. In this way, the Gospel offers what the Law could not, but the Gospel doesn’t diminish the Law. The Law demands righteousness, and the Gospel has provided for us a righteousness through Jesus Christ. Calvin goes on to say, “The Law and the promise do not contradict each other except in the matter of justification, for the law justifies a man by the merit of works whereas the promise bestows righteousness freely.”11
Gospel Provides Righteousness
Romans 7:12 states, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” The Law and the Gospel work harmoniously because they are both given by a holy and righteous God. AW Pink states, “the Gospel set before us is no less holy and perfect than that of the Law: no indulging of the flesh is permitted, no self-pleasing tolerated.”12 The Law does not lose its sting of death, it still convicts us of sin because sin is still a present reality for us. Therefore when sin takes root in our lives, the Spirit convicts us of our sins through the written Law upon our hearts. The Spirit then enables us to wage war against our sin because the Gospel has assured for us the new life in Christ.
The Gospel presupposes the Law because it brings the believer to repent of their sins and to walk in righteousness.13 The Law shows us the demands for righteousness, and it points us to Christ who is righteous. The Law, which is written in our hearts, is to drive us to Christ in the Gospel.14
Both the Law and the Gospel set before us the justice of God. Similarly, they both send us to live righteously. Although we are already made righteous in Christ, we are still called to live sanctified lives, where we are enabled more and more to die to sin and live unto righteousness.
Furthermore, Law and Gospel are both integrated into the New Covenant. The Covenant symbolizes the relationship that Christians have with God, and the Law serves as the stipulations that are required for this covenant relationship.15 Because Christ is the mediator of the Old and the New Covenant, the Law and Gospel are harmonized in him. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states that Christ was “made under the law.” Christ did not refuse to live under the law, instead, he embraced it. It was his Father’s good and perfect will to have him obey the Law. And he was obedient even unto death.
As God’s instruments of revelation, the Law and the Gospel are perfect. They serve as hermeneutical categories that reveal the righteousness of God. They are both distinct and yet work off one another to bring the whole counsel of God within the New Covenant. Through the Law, people come to see their sinful nature and their need for a savior which is freely offered in the Gospel.
It is good to remember that the Law and the Gospel are not defective, but people are. For this reason, the Law and the Gospel may be perfectly articulated, but it may still fall on deaf ears. Likewise, those whom God has called to minister his Word are not immune to this behavior as well. We may fail at correctly understanding the distinctions and harmony of the Law and Gospel, but this is where the glorious news of Jesus comes in. He is the balance between the Law and the Gospel. VanGemeren states, “He gives a true perspective on the Law by the good news that sin is atoned for and that guilt is removed.”
1 Theodore Beza, Law and the Gospel (The Fig Classic Series, 2013). Kindle Electronic Edition: Location 17.
2 Beza, Law and the Gospel, Kindle: Location 17.
3 Beza, Law and the Gospel, Kindle: Location 19-25.
4 Paul Althaus, “Law and Gospel,” in The Theology of Martin Luther (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1966), 256.
5 Beza, Law and the Gospel, Kindle: Location 56.
6 Rick Ritchie “What is the Law Gospel Thing?, in Modern Reformation: Preaching Christ 2, no. 2, (March/April, 1993): 7-11.
7 “Law and Gospel,” Ligonier, , accessed December 5, 2014, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/law-and-gospel/
8 Ritchie “What is the Law Gospel Thing?, in Modern Reformation: Preaching Christ 2, no. 2, (March/April, 1993): 7-11.
9 Dennis Johnson, “Paul’s Theology of Preaching,” in Him We Proclaim (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007) 64.
10 Paul Althaus, “Law and Gospel,” in The Theology of Martin Luther (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1966), 256.
11 VanGemeren, “The Non-Thenomic Reformed View,” 53.
12 Arthur Pink, An Exposition of First John: (Kindle): Location 2234
13 Althaus, “Law and Gospel,” in The Theology of Martin Luther (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1966), 257.
14 “The Law and Gospel,” Trinity at the Marketplace, accessed December 5, 2014, http://www.trinity-at-the-marketplace.org/printfiles/The%20Law%20and%20The%20Gospel.pdf
15 VanGemeren, “The Non-Thenomic Reformed View,” 46.
16 Beza, Law and the Gospel, Kindle: Location 87.
17 Beza, Law and the Gospel, Kindle: Location 178
18 Sean Norris, “An Introduction to the Law and the Gospel,” Modern Reformation: Rightly Dividing the Word 19, no. 5 (Sept/Oct 2010): 8-11
19 Norris, “An Introduction to the Law and the Gospel,” 8-11
A few have been wondering why I left the Christian & Missionary Alliance, and to be honest, I haven’t been good at providing a defense as I had no desire to offend those who are still in the C&MA. In all honesty, I did not leave the C&MA due to any conflict, but rather due to theological differences. Below are a few of the reasons for my departure.
Reasons why I left the Christian & Missionary Alliance
1) The founder, Albert Benjamin Simpson was an extreme charismatic.
After being healed at one of Charles Cullis’s faith healing conventions, Simpson was convinced that divine healing was a promise for one’s faith in Christ. Simpson believed this so strongly, that he did not condone the use of medicine and physicians as that showed disbelief in Christ. He argued, “God has nowhere prescribed medical means, and we have no right to infer that drugs are ordinarily His means.”1 Simpson held healing services for 38 years; modeling healing faith homes after those of Cullis.2
Although I do believe that God heals today, I do not believe that it is a promise for one’s faith nor specifically through the wounds of Christ that we are healed. Rather, healing may come only through God’s gracious response through our petitions in prayer.
2) A.B. Simpson believed in a second blessing experience.
The second blessing experience (also known as the second baptism) in its extremity teaches that believers can attain sinless perfection. This heresy was taught by John Wesley, and later by Charles Finney.3 In fact, Simpson was highly influenced by the charismatic works of Finney, Dr. Charles Cullis, and William and Phoebe Palmer.4 Although Simpson’s views of the second blessing experience may not have been as extreme as Finney’s, Simpson did believe that faith could bring about a second blessing providing greater experiences from God, such as divine healing and higher sanctification. This second blessing experience can be seen in the C&MA’s view on sanctification. Here the C&MA believes that there are two kinds of Christians: “the filled” and “the unfilled.”5 They make this argument from 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. However, Paul is not making a distinction between two types of believers, instead, Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for their lack of Christian conduct. He still calls the Corinthians Christians, however, their conduct is not in step with the work of the Spirit in sanctification. They have not resisted their fleshly appetite towards divisiveness. This is indeed an issue of sanctification, but the C&MA goes too far in seeing this as a distinction of being filled and unfilled. Sanctification is distinct, but it is not separate from justification.
3) A.B. Simpson’s Four-Fold Gospel has erroneous teachings.
Every licensed pastor in the C&MA has read the fourfold gospel, it is the foundation of the C&MA—teaching Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming Lord. In it, Simpson states: “Salvation gives us a new heart. It brings to us regeneration of the soul, “6 however, Ephesians 2:1-9 clearly states that regeneration precedes faith, as the believer is Spiritually dead, incapable of bringing themselves to a saving knowledge of God. In describing the blessings of salvation, Simpson contends that “Salvation opens the way for all the blessings that follow it. It is the steppingstone to sanctification and healing, and the peace that passeth understanding.”7 Contrary to Simpson, the Bible teaches that salvation brings justification, sanctification, and glorification. Nowhere does Scripture indicate that salvation is a prerequisite for healing. Instead, salvation opens the door for hardships of many kinds as stated in 2 Cor 6:1-11 (also see 1 Peter 4:12-19).
Simpson also denies the teachings of predestination, stating: “Because of the fact that every man’s salvation is hinged upon his own choice and free will. It is an awful thing to have the power to take salvation and to throw it away. And yet it is left to our choice. We are not forced to take it. We must voluntarily choose it or reject it.”8 Human beings do have free will, however, one’s free will is limited to one’s nature. For instance, I cannot will myself to live under the sea, or in space, likewise, we cannot will ourselves from spiritual death to spiritual life. That is left to God’s sovereign choosing as indicated in Romans 9. Furthermore, John 6:44 states that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. The word “draw” in the Greek does not mean to entice, but rather “drag;” as in “to drag a statue.”
Simpson also contends that “Sanctification is to be received as one of the free gifts God desires to bestow upon us.”9 I do believe that sanctification is a free gift, but it is one in which is accompanied by faith. Believers are sanctified immediately as a result of their faith in Christ and do not obtain it later on by choice. Therefore, I also believe that Simpson has spoken falsely when he states that not all believers who are regenerated will be sanctified.10 In reality, all who are regenerated will be sanctified by the Holy Spirit, for Romans 8:32 states: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?”
4) Weak theological distinctions
Some enjoy the minimal theological distinctions within the C&MA, as its purpose is to not divide over secondary theological issues. This allows for other denominations to partner with the C&MA. Although these benefits are admirable, I do have a few concerns. First, theology must naturally divide, for if something is true, the opposite must be false. This is not to say that theology is incapable of uniting, for there will always be unity and joy in embracing the truths of God. Secondly, a minimal theological distinction implies that God has not revealed himself clearly in the Scriptures. However, if God has revealed himself in the world (general revelation), how much more should believers be revealing what the Scriptures proclaim? Lastly, as ministers of God’s Word, as ambassadors of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how can we not make known the truth of God? I contend that ministers cannot simply be neutral or idle on a certain theological position. I think it’s appropriate to say that one doesn’t know, but ministers should strive to do the hard work of allowing scripture to interpret scripture to come to a conclusion on a theological position.
5) Divine Healing
Simpson states in his book, Gospel of Healing: “Jesus Christ has SURELY BORNE AWAY and CARRIED OFF our sicknesses; yes, and even our PAINS, so that abiding in Him, we may be fully delivered from both sickness and pain. Thus ‘by His stripes we are healed.’ Blessed and glorious Gospel! Blessed and glorious Burden Bearer.”11 In holding to divine healing Simpson actually limits the work of Christ in the believer. For instance, if a Christian is not healed through the means that Simpson prescribes, then is Christ’s work not sufficient? Is Christ too weak to heal a blind man in this present age after confessing Christ? Sure one may blame the believer’s lack of faith, but even in Scripture, there are accounts of healing prior to faith. Simpson is belittling the power of Christ by usurping what Christ has not intended for the Church today. He neglects God’s providential work within the believer to persevere through trials and suffering. He creates a divide between those who have been “healed” and those who have not experienced this healing because of their “lack of faith.”
But what of James 5:14? Simpson offers an interesting interpretation. He states: “…observe to whom this power is committed. Not the Apostles, who are now passing away, not men and women of rare gifts and difficult of access, but the elders, the ordinary officers of every single church, the men who are within reach of every sufferer, the men who are to continue till the end of the age.”12 Granted, healing does occur in the present age in the context prescribed by James, however, not through the means of any gifted person. The concern with Simpson’s position here is his statement that the power of healing is committed to the elders of the church.13 The elders do not possess healing power, rather those in the office of the care of the Church naturally should pray for the people. James prescribing a means to receive God’s grace in the midst of their suffering. It may come to pass that God is gracious to provide healing, but it may be withheld for a time. Regardless, the believer is called to persevere.
In closing, I believe that B.B. Warfield offers wonderful insight. He states, “The seeds of a consequent Perfectionism are sown, indeed, wherever the Higher Life doctrine is preached…”14
1 A. B. Simpson, The Gospel of Healing, (Harrisburg: Christian Publications, Inc., 1915), 5. The C&MA resources page also has a PDF of “The Gospel of Healing.” You can find this quote on page 21 and point 9 of the PDF.
3 Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 466. “The “fury” which pursued Finney was B.B. Warfield. Of course, Finney had other Princeton theologians opposing him in his own lifetime and many other Calvinist as well. His definitive Princetonian opponent, however, was Warfield whose Studies in Perfectionism traced perfectionism from the Arminian root in John Wesley to its full Pelagian fruit in Charles Grandison Finney.” cf. The Works of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, 8:61,67. As stated in their beliefs, the C&MA contends that the New Testament teaches two kinds of Christians, those self propelled (unfilled) and those Spirit-driven (filled).
4 Rev. G. P. Pardington, Twenty-Five Wonderful Years: A Popular Sketch of the Christian and Missionary Alliance(New York: Christian Alliance Pub. Co., 1914), 13-17. Quote from page 15: “In this country Charles G. Finney stood quite as much for the entire sanctification of believers as the for the full salvation of sinners. Indeed, in many ways Mr. Finney’s wide ministry seems to have been a forerunner of the work of the Alliance.” Pardington contends that the Christian and Missionary Alliance in its teaching and testimony embodies and exemplifies the spirit and purpose of five spiritual movements of the nineteenth century. First is Gospel Evangelism with Charles G. Finney; Second the Holiness movement also with Finney, George Muller, and Walter and Pheobe Palmer; Third, Divine healing with Dr. Charles Cullis, Carrie Judd Montgomery, and Mrs. Mix; Fourth, Foreign missions (great missionary awakening) with William Carey; and fifth Pre-millennialism with Dr. James H. Brooks and Dr. A. J. Gordon.
5 This distinction finds its origin in Oberlin perfectionism. The second leading feature of Oberlin perfectionism: “that there are accordingly “two kinds of Christians, a lower kind who had received only justification, and a higher kind who had received also sanctification…”(Zaspel, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary, 466.)
8 Simpson, The Fourfold Gospel, 9.1. Simpson continues by stating: “Because of the tremendous responsibility to which we are held accountable for the salvation of our soul (9.2)… God has provided all the resources, even the grace, repentance and faith, if man will take them. God has provided all the resources, even the grace, repentance and faith, if man will take them (10.6).
10 Simpson, The Fourfold Gospel, 12.1. Simpson states, “Regeneration is the be-ginning. It is the germ of the seed, but it is not the summer fullness of the plant. The heart has not yet gained entire victory over the old elements of sin. It is sometimes overcome by them. Regeneration is like building a house and having the work done well. Sanctification is having the owner come and dwell in it and fill it with gladness, and life, and beauty. Many Christians are converted and stop there. They do not go on to the fullness of their life in Christ, and so are in danger of losing what they already possess.”
13 Simpson, The Gospel of Healing, 7.10. Simpson states, “Again, observe to whom this power is committed. Not the Apostles, who are now passing away, not men and women of rare gifts and difficult of access, but the elders, the ordinary officers of every single church, the men who are within reach of every sufferer, the men who are to continue till the end of the age.” I at least appreciate that Simpson’s Presbyterian background in valuing the local church and the authority of the elders.