Rev. Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries has written a really good article about Richard Foster and how he is connected with the Emergent Church movement and the Contemplative/Centering Prayer that is now being taught to future pastors in many seminars and Bible colleges. Below are a few excerpts from this article but read the entire article there is much good information here. But while your at it don’t stop at this article on Richard Foster. Apprising Ministries www.apprising.org has many well documented articles on the emergent/emerging church heresies which are leading institutional “Christianity” into latter day apostasy. It is this emerging harlot woman that will ride the Beast Antichrist into power in these last days.
All leaders in Christianity need to be able to discuss these issues because people in your congregations are buying their popular books and they are being heavily influenced by these emerging Gnostic teachers. In the final analysis, these doctrines are repackaged “New Age” thinking. They all dance around a pluralist all-ways to God paganism even if they happen to mention the name of Jesus.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
WHO IS RICHARD FOSTER?
WHO IS RICHARD FOSTER?
Due to the importance of this topic of Contemplative/Centering Prayer, which is the primary source for a reemergence of Gnostic neo-pagan “Christian” mysticism in new evangelicalism, I began this series as quickly as I could. I am asking the interested reader to please keep an eye out for this work to be ongoing to cover various mystics who are influential in the new spirituality that is now infecting the evangelical community of our Lord’s Church. Let me also point out that each of these pieces will continue to be expanded as well when new information is forthcoming.
We will begin now with Richard Foster who is arguably the leading proponent of this so-called contemplative spirituality rooted in Rome. Undoubtedly however, he is certainly its most recognized teacher. Foster is also very highly respected in the marred and mystical Emergent Church as evidenced in an article in Christianity Today called “The Emergent Mystique.” None other than Brian McLaren, the prominent theologian in “Emergent, the emerging church network that he and several other church planters and pastors lead,” points to “Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, with their emphasis on spiritual disciplines, as key mentors for the emerging church.”
I cover Teresa of Avila in more depth elsewhere, but here you can clearly see that her mystic musings have undoubtedly impacted Foster. In fact in COD he includes this troubled Roman Catholic nun among “the great writers of the devotional life,” which he says goes “from St. Augustine to St. Francis, from John Calvin to John Wesley, from Teresa of Avila to Juliana of Norwich” (5, emphasis mine). You might make note here that the highly ecumenical Foster is undoubtedly influenced in his own aberrant mystic views by the apostate Church of Rome and in opposition to the theology of the Reformers the Guru of Contemplation obviously considers the Roman Catholic Church a part of the true Body of Christ.
This now brings us to another critical issue that has not been thoroughly explored in the study of this invasion of contemplative spirituality into the evangelical camp. The fact is that Guru Foster is himself a Quaker, or a member of The Religious Society of Friends, as they are also known. Therefore if someone wants to better understand how Foster’s own teachings about this supposed “inward life” were themselves shaped then it becomes necessary to have a working background of the theology inherent in this group he has been raised within. As a matter of fact Quakerinfo.com enlightens us that Richard Foster is “[p]erhaps the best known Quaker in the world today.”
This idea in Quaker theology that every man has this alleged “Inner Light” is further corroborated in GREAT RELIGIONS of the World which tells us that Fox “insisted that the ‘light of Christ’ glimmered in all men” (375, emphasis mine) We’ll be coming back to this “inner light” that is supposed to glimmer “in every human heart,” but first, in his classic two volume set A History Of Christianity (AHOC) the great historian Kenneth Scott Latourette adds a bit more background information about the person through whom the Quakers originated:
And here we have uncovered the reason why so many professing Christians today can believe that all religions should be friends now and seek our common ground as we work together to usher in “the kingdom” of God’s Global Peace. Take an honest look at the warped and toxic theology of men like Richard Foster, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Alan Jones, Steve Chalke and even the Pied Piper of Purpose Driven Rick Warren–all men involved to one degree or another in the practice of contemplative spirituality. You see no bold stance on their part that the only way any human being anywhere upon God’s planet can ever be saved from an eternity of conscious torment in a literal place our Creator called Hell is personal faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His vicarious penal substitutionary atonement on the Cross. In fact, you will see quite the contrary.
Hello Don,
The Lord be praised. Thank you for picking this up and for the kind words. It means much my brother.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
HI Ken,
Thanks for all the work you do keeping us informed on these issues.
I just noticed that you are not on my blogroll links. I thought you were. I will be adding your site shortly
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Don,
I’d appreciate that and I also want you to know that your picking this piece up was motivation for me to update it with even more current information.
This whole “Emergent Church movement” is based upon ignorance of Scripture, church history, true doctrine, and gospel preaching. It is no wonder, because the church denominations have for years quit requiring men to live up to the standards developed by leadership, handed down from the apostles, and well documented in the Scriptures. It began long ago. Two easily investigated examples are John Wesley and Charles Finney. Both of these men regarded their own words lightly, in that they stooped to misrepresenting even their own vows. Their wake left, in both cases, so called Christians earning their final salvation through their own works of the flesh. Since all of us are prone to do things that are right in our own eyes, the fellowships filled with these people have no foundation upon which new believers may rest. That foundation, of course, is Jesus Christ. But also the foundation of the church is the apostles teaching, which they received from Christ. Without this, new Christians have no comprehension of Christianity. And perhaps very few of them are even Christians to begin with in consideration that one needs to be regenerated – born again – by god’s Holy spirit.
I very much agree. I admit I don’t know much about Wesley as a person, but I’ve read on Finney. He despised authority and disregarded the importance of church history. He debunked hyper-calvinism but in his criticism he actually pretty much dismissed calvinism altoghether which means he didn’t have much knowledge of calvinism to begin with – in fact, he didn’t really want to be taught much at all. His methods for conversion or evangelization remind me of some of those modern televangelists. It was very much based around the concept of having some sort of divine “experience” upon conversion, which has lead to emotions being overemphasized (emotions have their place but should never serve as a foundation for faith or it won’t endure the wordly wind and rain) in the church. Some criticized him for being manipulative. Now I don’t want to demonize Finney but I also think he surely paved the way for some serious future heresy within the Evangelical movement. This Emergent Church movement is surely one of them though I guess man’s fascination with mysticism also plays a role. Whatever the case, Christ told us to be separate from the world. Ideas like contemplative prayer are inspired by worldy thinking and man-made religion rather than the Bible. Prayer is how you communicate with God rather than some way to enlighten yourself. Mysticism or esoteric knowledge are unbiblical and [should] have no place in Christianity. God manifested Himself through Christ – the Bible is God’s revelation to us and contains all we need to know. Christ even taught us how to pray so why on earth should we be paying attention to men like Foster and incorporating unbiblical beliefs into our faith? There is nothing that justifies doing so.
el-nasrani,
I can read the history of John Wesley and know what he taught. I can do the same with Finney. I can read the works of Arminius, and I can read the accounts of the proceedings and decision of the Synod of Dordt. I can read John Calvin’s works – almost all of them are now available on the web. So I can find the points of doctrine concerning Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Augustinianism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. I can study the consistent points of doctrine concerning historical premillennialism, post-millennialism, and amillennialism. I can even follow the trail of variations historically in the more recent dispensationalism and I can find stated bliefs in pre, mid, and post rapture positions. So I can determine to some degree of certainty, what each of these systems or persons represent. I am not able to find any real documents defining “hyper-Calvinism” from a “hyper-Calvinist’s” perspective. I am beginning to suspect that hyper-Calvinism is a nothing more than a stawman designed by many different people to avoid the painful study it takes to argue effectively for their understanding of Scripture. (I did, however, find one web site in which an author explained that he was a hyper-Calvinist. But then he just described Calvinism, so I think he was being sarcastic, having been labelled that by those that do not understand much of any doctrine.) If you or anyone know of a document in which a hyper-Calvinist descrbes hyper-Calvinism, please post it. “Replacement theology” is also a similar strawman, for I have not found anyone that professes it either. Again, if you find a document in which a supporter writes of it, please post it.
On the other hand, the “Emergent Church movement” is real and really “greasy” or “slippery” when it comes to determining the “emerging doctrine” that goes with it. As I said before it is based upon ignorance of Scripture, church history, true doctrine, and gospel preaching. It is man-centered as is Arminianism and Pelagianism. It appeals to the unregenerate. Take note of all the self proclaiming experts on the web. I consider them part of the “Emergent Church” as well. All the old heresies are being “preached” as I sit here at the keyboard.
“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 17:6
This is the apostasy.
If you guys don’t mind I will put my two cent in here.
Paul said he thinks hyper-Calvinism and replacement theology are straw men arguments and he is starting to believe that no one teaches them.
I do not know why most hyper-Calvinists would not say they were a hyper-Calvinist at all. They would just say they were a Calvinist. The difference between a hyper-Calvinist and a orthodox five point Calvinist is in their commision. A hyper-Calvinist basically thinks no one has any choice, everyone’s destiny is set in stone from birth so they see no point in evangelizing?
No doubt that you are going to have a hard time finding this taught unless you go to the backwoods where people and pastors are still self taught in the Bible but nevertheless certain people and churches do live out a hyper-Calvinist belief.
Granted, that true hyper-Calvinism in not a big problem in the Church become the whole concept for anyone that has proper biblical understanding is totally ridiculous..
Replacement theology has to be defined because people will almost always say they do not believe in it. Many that do believe in replacement theology will say they are not replacing Israel because they think believers in ancient Israel are also part of the Church. I won’t argue that point here but they do away with all literal promises to the literal natural descendants of Jacob saying the natural was cut off or divorced and there is now only the spiritual.
They say the promises are to the spiritual church and they have no regard for what God said through the prophets about natural literal fulfillments to natural descendants of Jacob. I do not know how this could be a straw man argument when it is obvious that a huge amount of people believe the Church is Israel. They do not just believe the Gentiles are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel like Roman’s declares but they believe all believers actually make up Israel. That is replacement theology because it replaces physical Israel and the unconditional promises that God made to a natural people with allegorical presumptions to a spiritual people.
No need to argue the different points of the theology here but there is no doubt that replacement theology is taught in some of the Church.
I really don’t have the time to write a very long reply here but okay, here’s two articles:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
I don’t like to rely too much on Wikipedia but since I’m short on time, I’ll link to the article anyway. You will find more links on the bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism
If you interpret “hyper-Calvinism” simply as adhering to Calvinist theology in all its aspects, fine. But hyper-Calvinism is generally not used in that sense but to refer to a deviation of Calvin’s teachings. Of course the hyper-Calvinists would probably say they simply represent true Calvinism and therefore reject the label of “hyper-Calvinism” but I don’t agree. The five points of Calvinism were not even formulated by Calvin himself. I don’t mean to say that the five points of “Calvinism” are not in lign with Calvin’s theology for that reason, but I do think that some have drawn the wrong conclusions from it leading to misinterpretations of what “Calvinism” really is. I think some of these views not only distort Calvin’s views but especially the Bible. After all, we’re not supposed to be good Calvinists or Arminians or whatever and know the ins and outs of all theology; our focus should be on what the Bible tells us and judge the various theological views that have been developed over the centuries not by their logic or soudness but by the Bible itself.
Regardless of whether one agrees with all the five points of Calvinism or not, I don’t believe the hyper-Calvinist view represents what John Calvin truly stood for. No mortal man can tell whether a person is among the elect or not – only God knows that. As far as I know Calvin never stated that anyone of us are able to figure out just who might or might not be elected? The Presbyterians were actively involved in missions, e.g. in Korea during the 19th century. To this day I know there are many Reformed Christians who are still actively engaging in evangelization or supporting it.
I think Westboro Baptist Church might serve as an example of hyper-Calvinism. They like to walk around yelling at everyone that “God hates fags”, “God hates America” and everyone’s going to hell but not they of course, they’re the “elect.” I reckon Calvin must be turning in his grave when he hears that, not to mention what Christ must be thinking of this sect.
OK, looks like I wrote a long reply after all… Probably rather messy but I hope you stil get my point. I really got to go now because I have lots to do. I might not be able to reply very soon if you answer to this but I’ll try to get back as soon as I’m able to.
I just deleted Paul’s last comment and I will tell you why. Paul look at the title of this post it is about Richard Foster and not about why you believe Covenant theology. I told you in my last post that there was no need to argue points of these theologies but you did just that.
You just posted a one sided humongous argument telling me why Israel is the Church. Anyone can have a one sided debate and make it look like they are biblical and the other view is not. I certain could refute your every point but I have no intention of doing that. If you want to debate your replacement theology views go to a website that does that. In addition, I do not expect anyone to take the time to refute your views here and even if they did I certainly do not want them posted in the comments on Richard Foster.
Paul if you are going to continue to comment on my blogs stay on topic or you will get banned from commenting at all. This is not the first time you have tried to divert my blog topics to a Covenant versus Dispensational theology debate.
<< I’m having a deja vu…
I don’t mind some discussion but I agree with Don that this is not the best place to discuss theology. None of us commenters should be here just to promote our own theological views on all occassions.
If you allow me, I would still like to add these last thoughts but I promise I’ll shut up myself after that.
I’m aware of the position taken on the state of Israel by the largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S. [PCUSA] so perhaps that explains Paul’s views (I didn’t read his comment that got deleted though so I’m sorry if I’m wrong). However, what I really wanted to add here is that many in the Dutch Reformed [calvinist] churches actually agree with a premillenial view or at least some form of futurist interpretation of Revelation. Whether they hold on to traditional covenant theology, dispensationalism or a modified version of covenant theology – I don’t know for sure. In fact, I have rarely heard of any such discussions because they virtually all agree on Christ’s second coming in a premillenial sense and God still having a purpose for physical Israel. Spurgeon, for instance, was Calvinistic yet he didn’t hold on to some sort of replacement theology. So these theological debates on here are getting very confusing, frankly.
For the record, I’m not settled in all aspects of “my” theological views but as I think I said before elsewhere, I tend towards the Calvinist view – I agree with four out of the five points since I have my reservations on the doctrine of Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement. As I asserted in my reply I believe that hyper-calvinism is real but I do not agree with it. The articles on hyper-calvinism that I linked to are written by a 5-point Calvinist. It’s true that some Arminians would call any Calvinist a “hyper-calvinist” but the fact that 5-point Calvinists are criticizing hyper-calvinism is rather telling, wouldn’t you agree? [rhetorical question]
Anyways, hope that we’re not going to have to turn all discussions into theological debates from now on.
God bless.
/logout
Unfortunately Paul has now been blacklisted from this blog because he is one of those individuals who cannot understand that this blog is not about his theology. You cannot argue with him because he interprets the scriptures how he wants and then belittles those that do not agree with his conclusions of his selection of scriptures ripped out of context.
After two years wasting my time debating with these types of people on the newsgroups I have come to the concussion that for the sake of the blog it is just best to blacklist divisive people who at every opportunity must try to divert any topic to an argument and insult people.
When their views are not received they always end up attacking your character and Christianity because you do not see their selection of scriptures their way or will not post their rants. Could it be the problem is that they never received understanding to go along with those scriptures they quote?
Hello all
Thankyou for having a great site here. I just want to address the issue of predestination and election.
(note from Don – Tim, that issue is not going to be resolved on a comment section of a post about Richard Foster and the emergent church so your discussions on the above issue has been deleted and all such comments in the future will be edited out or not posted at all – I really want people to try to keep comments on topic rather than go down thelogical rabbit trails)
As to the other issues I have read in this post….John Piper’s book “Finally Alive” revealed to me that he does not understand salvation and is probably not Born Again. The two examples Piper uses are Augustine and CS Lewis. In both of these testimonies, there is NOTHING about the Cross or sin. It is all works and intellectualism…Just like Piper. Warren and Foster fit right into Piper’s model of salvation because in all likelyhodd, they too are lost. And their teachings are bearing witness to this!!
A steward of God’s Word,
Tim
Brothers-
I am a premillenial dispensationalist…and yes I will say it…because this is what the Bible teaches. This is another halmark of the Emerging Church…their total rejection of prophetic Scripture! They completely dismiss huge chunks of scripture in order to diminish Israel and God’s future plan for that nation. Reading the Bible cover to cover, as I just said in my previous post, one can come to no other conclusion than the future events of the Tribulation, anti-christ and return of Messiah to destroy the natural and spiritual enemies of the physical, literal nation of Israel and the establishment of His 1000 year Kingdom on earth. You know what’s great? ALL nations will come to Jerusalem to make sacrifices in the Millenial temple to Jehovah!! Now the entire Muslim world goes to Mecca. What remains of them after the Great Day of the Lord, will go once a year to Jerusalem to worship the KING OF KINGS.
Zach 12,13,and 14 hits right to this point.
I have come to the conclusion that the free will/ elective grace issues is not as big a deal as the end time world view that a church holds. The Pharisees and Saducees did not take literally the scriptures of Jesus’ first coming. That is why they rejected Him. Interestingly, the woman at the well knew what the OT sciptures were saying about the Messiah, because she recognized the possibility that Jesus was the Christ…to which He replied that He was. She recognized this simply on the basis that He did only what God could do…know here heart and tell her what was in her heart.
STAY AWAY FROM CHURCHES THAT ARE NOT EXPECTING THE RAPTURE AND THAT ARE NOT TEACHING THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE ANTI-CHRIST, AND THE LITERAL VISIBLE KINGDOM OF CHRIST IN THE FUTURE.
Tim
@ don
it’s sorry to hear about Paul. but don’t you believe in the freedom of expressing your self?
People on this blog need to express themselves within the comment rules of this blog and that is why I have posted comment rules.
I couldn’t agree more. I think that the whole argument about free will and striving for the grace of God is not as important as education about Scripture and true doctrine. This new Emergent Church movement is disturbing because it comes cloaked in authority and to many appears real.