Maybe I could help by translating Jeff’s points into Reformed categories. On the Puritan view of sanctification, there is not only mortification connected to the death of Christ, but vivification connected to the resurrection. So, it is a balance between crucifying the old and putting on the new. Check out the way William Ames balances these two in Marrow of Theology.

Also, under the category of adoption as part of union with Christ (the central motif of Reformed thought in my view), Puritans like John Owen will talk about receiving all of the benefits of sons and daughters of God because of the covenant given to us “in Christ.” I am thinking here of Owen’s Communion with God.

Thus putting on the new image of God “in Christ” also involves receiving all the benefits conveyed by the promises of God embodied in the covenant. To focus on suffering is to focus on mortification to the exclusion of adoption and vivification.

This is another reason why forensic categories alone cannot get at union with Christ, and why more Reformed folks like you David need to re-assert the fully Reformed understanding of union with Christ and all this spiritual union (= through the Spirit) conveys.

There is a fruitful conversation to be had on these points in which both can contribute to and learn from one another.

There has never been agreement in the Church as to exactly what Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was, not even in the early Church.

The reason we should not take “messenger” (Greek, angelos, which is often translated as “angel”) as a sickness is because the Bible nowhere else speaks of messengers or angels as sickness. Indeed, the Bible has a number of other words it uses to refer to sickness and disease, but “angel” is not one of them.

Nor does the Bible elsewhere use “thorn” to denote a sickness or disease. But it does speak use “thorn” to speak of persons, for example, in Numbers 33:55, of the inhabitants of the Promised Land, saying that if Israel did not drive them out, they would become “thorns in your flesh.” Joshua reiterates this in Joshua 23:13, “They shall be snares and traps to you, and scourges on your sides and thorns in your eyes.” And in Judges 2:3 we find, “They shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

Since the Bible nowhere else uses “thorn” as a metaphor for sickness, and since it does use “thorn” to speak of other beings, when I see Paul speak of his “thorn in the flesh,” and he expressly describes it as “messenger” or “angel of satan,” I do not think he is talking about a sickness but about a personal being, a demonically motivated human being, or maybe a demon. But I find no basis in the text to suppose that he is actually talking about a sickness.

There is suffering in the Christian life. Jesus promised there would be tribulation, or persecution. But the Christian life is not all about suffering. There is the resurrection as well as the cross. There is victory in Jesus, who makes us more than conquerors. And there is overcoming by faith. And there is the abundant grace that we may always have all sufficiency in all things, but plenty more besides for every good work (2 Corinthians 9:8). God did not promise lack, but quite the opposite, provision for every need.

WOF takes both persecution and provision into account. There is suffering for the sake of Jesus and the cross and the Gospel, but there is also the resurrection power of God at work in and for and through us. There is the priority of seeking the kingdom, but there is also “and all these things shall be added unto you.” And it makes sense of the many Scriptures that speak of healing and provision, where the theology that focuses on being sick and broke does not.

Still, while glad to hear that WOF doesn’t leave out the call to deny oneself and take up the cross, is this central to the WOF definition of a Christian life. Jesus seems to indicate that this is the definition, or as Calvin would say, the sum total of the Christian life.

Secondly, I’m willing to allow for some ambiguity on the thorn in the flesh. I looked up Hughes commentary on 2 Cor today and he wisely pointed out that Paul didn’t define it precisely and there is wisdom in that – we shouldn’t be too dogmatically precise on that. Actually, I would be happy with your words on weakness – as a lack of strength in body or soul. This would include all illnesses or injuries of body, and would also include insults and persecutions. But it seems to me you are ruling out bodily weakness here, unless you want a sharp distinction between bodily illness and bodily weakness, because this is a messenger of Satan. But why couldn’t a messenger of Satan (sent by God of course) be a bodily illness as it was with Job and his boils?

But this discussion on the particulars of the role of bodily weakness and illness and the thorn in the flesh gets us a bit off track from my overall concern about WOF (a trek off-track that I admittedly started). It seems to me that the WOF errs badly if it does not make suffering (in whatever form it takes), self-denial and cross-carrying the heart of the Christian faith.

The word for “weakness” in 2 Corinthians 12:9 refers, first of all to lack of strength, whether in body or in soul. It can refer to sickness, but here it does not. Paul’s thorn was not an illness ~ he expressly calls it a messenger of satan, which is not used of illness. Also, the weakness he speaks of is contrasted with power (Greek, dynamis) not health.

–the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error and the authority on which we base our faith, conduct and doctrine.
–in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth as Savior of the world.
–Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. We believe that salvation is found by placing our faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross. We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again.
–water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
–in the regular taking of Communion as an act of remembering what the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross.
–every believer should be in a growing relationship with Jesus by obeying God’s Word, yielding to the Holy Spirit and by being conformed to the image of Christ.
–as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.

I didn’t see anything shocking or pagan in that. Am I missing something? I’ve never heard him speak nor have I read his books, so it’s definitely possible I’m missing something…

If you’ll email me a mailing address I’ll send you a copy of the pretty much definitive book on the “prosperity gospel” Kenneth Hagin’s, The Midas Touch, and then you can tell us what he says that you disagree with. I’m pretty sure it will be much less than you suppose. Here’s the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Midas-Touch-Balanced-Approach-Prosperity/dp/0892765305/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282241225&sr=1-1.

Based on what you said about Joel Osteen, and if given the hypothetical scenario that I wrote above about having to pick between Osteen and Wallis, ….

I’d probably pick Osteen.

You do me a disservice to suggest that I care more about a snarky tone than I do about the Gospel.

Having something of an affinity with the Word of Faith, I have seen and experienced that what has often been derided as “Prosperity Gospel” and “Health and Wealth Gospel” is nothing more than believing the promises of God and taking God at His Word ~ about salvation from sin, about deliverance from demonic oppression, about being made whole from sickness and disease, about “always having all sufficiency in all things, and abundance for every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:8). See, Joe, the Gospel and salvation are not just about going to heaven when we die ~ it is deeper and broader than that.

I’m not a big fan of Osteen, and I don’t always agree with what he says and does, but I see that God is using him to encourage many and bring many to salvation. He is no pagan; his message is not New Age but the Word of God. So I object to seeing him disparaged as a pagan.

Suppose there were only two preachers in two churches in a small town. Jim Wallis and Joel Osteen. Which church would you go to?

Jim Wallis or Joel Osteen? Joel Osteen or Jim Wallis? To go to church or not to go to church?

Osteen or Wallis? Osteen or Wallis?

Who would you pick?

Osteen has been preaching a pagan, New Age gospel for years. He is leading people to hell. Now maybe that doesn’t bother you. Maybe you’re the type that gets more worked up by a snarky tone on a small blog than by Gospel-less preaching in one of the biggest churches in America. I hope not. And I assure you that’s not the stand I take.

I’m not going to turn a blind eye to paganism in the pulpit simply because some people might get upset when you point out that people who proclaim to follow Christ are preaching a message that is antithetical to orthodox Christianity.

You might have noticed that the name of this blog is “Evangel.” That was intentional. We intend to take a stand for the Gospel, which means standing against anti-gospel messages like “Health and Wealth” and the “Prosperity Gospel.”