About Alpha:
January 1999

By: K. B. Napier

As I expected would happen some time ago, Alpha is now everywhere! It is so widespread it seems to ooze out of the very pores of churches. As far as its exponents are concerned, the Alpha course is the best adjunct to the Gospel (if not the Gospel itself) there has ever been, and it reflects the growing spiritual hunger of the people of this lost world. But to people like myself, who watch such movements very carefully, what oozes out of the churches is poison. Even the ‘good bits’ contain seeds of spiritual death.

Alpha does not reflect spiritual desire, but spiritual poverty. It does not reflect the spiritual maturity of its leaders, but their spiritual immaturity, if not spiritual defiance. It does not reflect Biblical truth or the Gospel of Jesus Christ – it reflects the lies of charismatic and ecumenical deception, and a false gospel rooted in Arminian heresy. As Alpha marches on, so its deception increases.

This Article was written in January 1999. BTM fought tooth and nail against the Toronto Blessing. Now we fight just as hard against the Alpha course. What makes it very difficult is the glaring lack of understanding, even in ‘sound’ churches. Some, with good intentions but a flawed sense of discernment, think that there is something good somewhere in Alpha. It seems that very few are challenging Alpha. Many are too afraid to lock horns with the ‘big guns’ of charismaticism, or to appear to be confrontational in the eyes of their reformed peers.

Many pastors will not enter into any kind of challenge because of their reformed background, which teaches a pastor to remain stoically silent, even in the face of gross heresy and sin! Or, that is how it looks to me (see later section on allowing sin to ‘peter out’). They were silent when the Toronto Blessing ravaged the churches and misled thousands. They did not give true information to newspapers, Christian or not. Now they remain silent as Alpha claims to teach the true Gospel. Is such silence honourable? We do not think so.

There are writers who, without a distinct task for the job given by the Holy Spirit, nevertheless write about Alpha from an observational point of view. From past experience I can say that such articles, though well-meaning, have limited value, for they can only bring out facts readily available to all, and not the spiritual dangers that only the Holy Spirit can highlight. This is because such writers have no prompting of the Spirit. Their articles are the product only of a theological viewpoint. In itself this is superficially helpful, but I would prefer the work of one called by the Spirit to do a task, than one whose Christian character is true, but whose writing is not weighing heavily upon him because it is a burden placed there by God Himself. Sadly, I read far more of this kind of article than of the spirit-led type.

My Intention

In this Article I will give examples of why we must stand publicly against Alpha, and why reformed men can no longer remain silent (though our 34 page critique, Ref. A-0061, provides sufficient information for this).  However, I know very well that most will remain silent! As one rejected by reformed circles and by charismatics alike, I have nothing to lose by fighting error. But, even if I had something to lose, I would have no excuse to remain silent. If reformed men are so sure of their ground, perhaps they would tell me why they remain silent...convince me of the Biblicality of their stance, and I will myself enter into silence. This, though, is rhetorical, for I know there is no such excuse for their silence. Apart from that, reformed men prefer to isolate me! The attitude seems to be “One day he’ll just leave this earth and we’ll get some peace from his rantings.” One day, of course, they will get their wish. Until that time, if necessary, BTM will stand alone in its opposition to an evil that pretends to be holy.

Meanwhile I would again advise my reformed brethren that whilst they shun me and BTM, I do not shun them. I repeat – I was once caught in the trap of ‘reformationism’, so I am aware of its lure and its hold. I know what it is like to try to maintain a party line, even though I recognised it to be flawed, creating an inward tension. I also warn the brethren – they can shun me and BTM, but they cannot shrug off the demands of scripture. Ironically, we can still hear the strains of  that well-known verse ‘Stand up, stand up, for Jesus’ coming from the very reformed churches whose standing-up consists of pastors and members standing-up for truth only within the walls of their own church building...if they stand up for it at all.

Stir Yourselves!

The ignorance about Alpha and about the basic evils of charismaticism and ecumenism in reformed circles proves my point. Stir yourselves, friends! Come to life! See the enemy at the gates! Start the fight – not particularly for immediate victory, but to testify (as you ought) to the verity of God’s word. By doing so you might win back those (thousands) who have strayed into the wrong camp. You would also thereby pin your colours to the mast at a time when all and sundry claim (with justification) that the Church no longer has a clear message. This is partly what is meant by Jesus’ call for us to ‘take up (our) cross’...this interprets as ‘cast aside your self-interest’. Or, give all to the Lord, without reservation, so that He can use us as He will.

Until we reach that point, friends, all our best Christian intentions are worthless! I know very few who have cast aside their own self-interest. Will YOU be one of the minority? In the coming days of mass apostasy (and Alpha is one sign of it), such dedicated selflessness is vital. It is the only way we can stand firm in growing darkness. To remove the bucket that we use to cover our light, is the only way people will see God’s truth in us. The bucket of ‘reformationism’ presently covers what ought to be a full and vibrant witness to the world.

That is how Alpha is able to deceive so many. In the absence of our light, it can easily parade itself as that light. Its leaders know reformed men will not expose its deception! They are free to roam this earth, as demons roam, devouring those whom they deceive. This does not seem to move reformed men one little bit! I ask such men to read the material we have written on Alpha, and on charismaticism in general. See what is going on. Read beyond the fine semantics of Alpha leaders, and discover the darkness this course really spreads.

On this issue, I would point readers in the direction of Spurgeon. He recognised the spiritual dangers and heresies within the Baptist Union of his day (referred to as the ‘Downgrade Controversy’ and which continues to our own era) and stood alone against them. Some say that this fight caused damage to his health. This I do not doubt, as one who has himself received great condemnation for fighting against charismaticism and reformationism alike. I feel the same pressures.

The following notes are random. Their aim is to show the ‘flavour’ of Alpha. For a detailed analysis of the course aims and teachings, see Article A-0061.

Gumbel’s Idea of the Gospel

Like so many people, Nicky Gumbel (writer of the course) has the best of intentions. He wants everyone saved. The trouble is, his gospel is not the authentic gospel of the Bible. It is typically charismatic/ecumenical, and so it is ‘no gospel’. We are not just playing with words here, or ‘splitting hairs’ for the sake of it – though this is how some reformed men see it. I base my conclusions on what scripture says. They are conclusions that follow from knowing what the gospel is, as taught by God’s word. Reformed men must ask the question, “If scripture is God’s word – how much of it can we allow to be taught in error before we must oppose it?”

The answer is starkly obvious – scripture itself is all God’s word and contains no error at all. How much error can we accept in the messages of others? NONE AT ALL! I do not care who you are, my friend. I do not care if you are a luminary of the reformed churches. We have no mandate or right to accept ANY level of error! Yes, as men, we all make mistakes, or even deliberate errors. But that does not mean we must accept the errors themselves. Yet, such acceptance is what I hear coming from many reformed men! God help them in their self-deception. Bear in mind the New Testament warning – even if an angel comes to us preaching a false gospel, we are to reject it wholly and fully, because it is not the true gospel at all.

If we know something is an error, then we must immediately stop it or expose it. The way this is tackled depends very much on the ‘how and why’ factor...Was the error private or public? Are others being taught it? How significant is the error? A teaching on the supposed ‘meaning behind’ the colours of Christ’s clothing is useless but harmless. But when something claiming to be ‘Biblical’ is moving at the pace of an invading army, sweeping away all truth in its path, and it is making its claims very public, this is not harmless! It is a spiritual war! Where are the soldiers of the King? Sadly, they are cowering behind the baggage, or busy chatting amongst those who already agree with them!

Their excuse for not fighting as men of valour is that Alpha will just ‘peter out’ of its own accord. How many just, honourable and needful fights have they steered clear of by offering this feeble excuse?

Nicky Gumbel has been, and is presently, misrepresenting the Gospel. Not only that, but in recent months we have witnessed a nation-wide coverage of Alpha in the media. Because few oppose it, there is no witness to the truth in the same media. What, then, is Gumbel’s idea of the Gospel? It can be summed up in his blatantly Arminian gospel cry: “Let’s offer the people’s Saviour’ (NCH, 13^th Sept. 1997).

Behind this call is the notion that we can choose to be saved - a lie of Satan, filling churches with the unsaved who are convinced that mere acceptance of a set of teachings is sufficient to save them. If reformed men cannot see such deception for what it is, then I feel very sorry for them in their lack of Biblical understanding, and for their lack of spiritual discernment.

That call by Gumbel was made after the death of Princess Diana. Gumbel, like so many in our churches, completely misinterpreted the reason why people were so hooked on her death, as his other statements prove (also quoted in the same NCH article)....

After the death of Diana, Gumbel said what others might agree with: “the Church must now respond with the good news about the people’s Saviour.” Sounds good? Yes, it does. But it does not mean what you think it means, for Gumbel is an Arminian charismatic and what he meant by his words is found in what follows. He was speaking to his own church gathering at Holy Trinity, Brompton, (HTB) and went on to say, “Diana’s death has broken open people’s hearts. That’s why people are still slowly milling around Kensington Palace, even after the funeral – they are like sheep without a shepherd. And they are looking for Diana.” So, by ‘people’s Saviour’ Gumbel means, a Saviour Who is ‘accessible’ to everyone.

But even if he was right (which he isn’t!) about what the Gospel is, he was very wrong about the reasons why people were flocking to London. Most of them were there because they were curious. They wanted to be where the action was, a part of an historical event, so they could say in years to come “I was there”. Basically, there was nothing more to it than that. They certainly were not experiencing some kind of spiritual crunch-point. Far from it! They just had a gory and completely distasteful desire to take part in an unnatural and extreme form of mass hysteria. They played their parts well!

But Gumbel, because of his inability to discern what is truly of God, put a different slant on the story. He thought the crowds were showing “society’s need for a Saviour” as there was “clear evidence of spiritual hunger”. My oh my – what a sad reflection on Gumbel’s own spiritual state. And yet thousands follow his Alpha course as though it were the authentic Gospel!

Gumbel called on ‘the Church’ to ‘respond’ to this ‘clear evidence’ by ‘offering Jesus’. Arminianistic through and through. He talked about people being polite to each other. ‘Obviously’, he said, this was somehow connected with a ‘clear’ case of spiritual hunger. Readers are reminded that NO MAN OR WOMAN CAN HAVE A SPIRITUAL HUNGER OF THE BIBLICAL KIND UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST ELECT AND FOREORDAINED BY GOD. They might have an occult hunger, but that is satanic, not of God.

He said that the death had ‘affected the whole of society’. Yes, most people who heard the news, as I did, were saddened by a tragedy that hit such a young woman and her children. But that was fleeting. We cannot be truly sad about someone we do not know. And Christians cannot have a proper sense of sadness over someone who was publicly sinful, as was Diana. Gumbel talked of her work and linked it perversely with Christian virtues: “Diana left us with a fine example of love for the unlovely. She communicated with minority groups right across the age spectrum....(just like Jesus). This is what the Church should be doing!”

Gumbel was referring here to Diana’s ill-conceived attention paid to homosexuals with AIDS. These people are spoken of in Romans chapter one in scathing words of judgement. Such people have sunk to a horrendous level of depravity and, as I know from bitter experience, they loathe and detest God’s word, especially as it pertains to sodomites. Jesus would not have simply ‘loved’ such men and women – He would have condemned what they did and then demanded that they stop their sin immediately! But Gumbel makes Jesus out to be as effete as these ‘minority groups’ are!!

Because such men and women have reached the bottom of their particular barrel, and because God condemns them outright, very few are saved. That is a blunt fact. God condemns sodomy with a special vehemence, so Christians who suggest that all sin is equal are only partly right. It is true that no sin is small, and any sin is sufficient to earn God’s wrath, but He has Himself spoken in extra-terrible terms of those who live a sexually perverted lifestyle. The whole of Romans One applies to sodomites, not just a few short verses!

Gumbel says that the Church can learn a lot about Diana’s approach to people. God help the Church if it takes unbelievers as its bench-mark! He said the Church must no longer be formal and ‘stuffy’. That’s true, but not because of Diana. Churches are formal and stuffy because of their own sinful concepts of what Christianity is. They are like it because they have a poor view of scripture and of their own selves.

You might remember that Gumbel was instrumental, with a few others, in bringing the vile Toronto Blessing to the UK. That shows his spiritual pedigree – it is mongrel. Don’t believe me? Well, believe his words on what he thinks is ‘revival’: “What does revival look like? It is thousands of people quietly saying the Lord’s Prayer in front of a television screen in Hyde Park. Let us pray for revival, now that we have lost two of the world’s best known and very contrasting people; Diana and Mother Teresa.” To think that thousands of people hang on to every word of Gumbel’s makes me sick to the stomach. He equates Teresa and Diana – and somehow suggests by inference that they are Christian or at least have Christian virtues to be followed.

To him, ‘revival’ is the crowd who ogled at the funeral! That mass of unsaved humanity whose one aim was to display all the marks of group dynamics gone wrong! The crowd who had no interest whatever in God, but whose interest was passing and fickle. And to lump Teresa, arch-enemy of souls, with ‘revival’, is abominable. Gumbel’s spiritual paucity was very clear in a statement he made about Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, another unsaved adulterer. “If Earl Spencer had called for forgiveness from the nation for the Royal Family and the press (for the way they treated Diana), he would not only have received a standing ovation on earth, but in heaven also.”!

Can you see why Gumbel is in no position to write and offer the Alpha course, and why it should not be used by churches? If his words here do not convince you, I don’t know what will. Read A-0061, if you have not already done so, and Gumbel’s wrongness jumps out of every page.

‘Friendly Help to Find God’

Alpha’s best friend and promoter of ecumenism/charismaticism, the New Christian Herald, published the results of a survey on Alpha (24^th October 1998). Headed ‘Friendly Help to Find God’ it confirms what BTM has been saying – but BTM did not need to go to the expense of a survey...the conclusions are obvious.

The opening lines of the article show the Arminianism of Alpha and of those who use it. The ‘key’ to the success of Alpha has been described as ‘friendship evangelism’. Given the type of people who are leaders and their inability to discern the true source of Alpha, ‘friendship evangelism’ actually means ‘buying people for Christ with a cup of tea and calling it evangelism’.

The article tells us exactly why Alpha works: “...the Alpha course works because friendship evangelism is successful in getting new people to respond to the claims of Christ.”  This is psychology at work, not the Holy Spirit. Even many reformed preachers cannot seem to grasp this fact. If anyone is saved at an Alpha course it is not through Alpha, but in spite of it.

Friendship evangelism is almost a contradiction in terms. Evangelism is an activity undertaken by men called by the Holy Spirit to the office of evangelist. The so-called ‘evangelism’ undertaken by Alpha proponents is nothing but mistaken witnessing. Evangelism is telling the people they are sinners and that they must be born again – and that the only answer is repentance and salvation by God alone.

Alpha, on the other hand, is a carefully constructed psychological package, designed to lead men and women along a humanly-devised path. On too many occasions to count, Alpha leaders describe Alpha as the gospel, or as the means to salvation. Am I wrong to say this is blasphemous? It places salvation in the hands of HTB and Alpha leaders, and not directly in the hands of God. It is not a mistaken attempt at true evangelism – it is part of Satan’s strategy to bring flawed theology into churches, disguised as genuine preaching.

The fact that Alpha is a psychological invention is found in the summing up of the report’s author, which says: “...it appears that there are a number of priorities for the Church since men and women appear to respond differently to the Alpha course. When considering further courses, the Church should consider maximising its efforts towards relational evangelism by inviting: those aged 20-40, those who live nearest the location of the Alpha course, those who are introduced to it at Church or by a friend or relative and those who  want to learn about Jesus rather than the Bible.”

Those who think Alpha is just another course, think again! Read the above words and tell me where you find the Holy Spirit and God’s will described! It is nothing but marketing and psychology. It is humanly-devised just like a successful sales drive. It looks at past ‘successes’ and targets segments of society. Did Jesus do this? No, He did not. He said that everyone is a sinner and so all need preaching.

Where in scripture is the idea of targeting this or that segment only, based on previous results? Or, of reducing evangelism to the making of friendly overtures to a small number of people? But note the most ominous feature? It is the presentation of ‘Jesus rather than the Bible’. The name of Jesus is found throughout charismatic teaching and preaching, but not in the way reformed men understand. It is used like a magical charm or mantra. This was discovered during several years of intensive study into charismatic teaching, and in watching the Toronto Blessing do its awful work. Note, too, how ‘Jesus’ is carefully separated from the Bible; another charismatic teaching – that we are now in ‘post, extra-Biblical’ times.

Other writers have also noted this emphasis on ‘Jesus’. Charismatics pray only to Jesus, instead of to God the Father. This is significant and unbiblical. The main problem, though, is that there is a shift away from scripture to the name of Jesus (as a name). Jesus is presented in a folk-hero way, by removing Him from the word. This is a vital fact to understand, for it represents the evil behind the whole thing.

Once ‘Jesus’ is taught rather than the Bible in its wholeness, the movement’s leaders can then say whatever they wish, just as they did during the Toronto Blessing period. In that period, it was claimed that we are now in extra- and post-Biblical times. All of the Toronto leaders subscribed to that dictate.... and the main leaders of the TB in the UK are the same leaders of Alpha. What a coincidence!

‘Not Against Anything’

Sadly, some within reformed circles think that HTB can possibly come out with something good. I stand amazed at such a thought. HTB was the bringer of the Toronto evil to our shores. One of its leaders barked like a dog and crawled on all fours. He became unconscious under the hand of Satan. He taught that we are now in extra-Biblical days. Yet, some of our reformed leaders think this man and other HTB leaders are capable of ‘good’ in the godly sense? God forbid! If such men had repented and retracted what they did and taught, then we could look at it differently. But, they remain staunch ecumenical charismatics, teaching a lie.

One of  the Alpha staff working at HTB said: “...I don’t suppose we are liberals. But we are not anti-anything because it sounds very negative and unwelcoming when we look to welcome everyone to Christianity.” (This and following quotes in this section, are taken from an interview in The Journal, Newcastle on Tyne, October 22^nd 1998). Please, if you can, show me what is scriptural about such a statement? This statement is at the core of Alpha. It does not speak properly of sin or of our total depravity. It does not come out ‘against anything’ for fear of losing popularity! And it tries to welcome people to ‘Christianity’, not to Christ. And how can it possibly do it anyway, when it is God, by His elective mercy, Who brings people to Christ?

No, Alpha does not preach the truth – it teaches easy-believism. “We want to give an opportunity to explore the Christian faith in as easy a way as possible.” The aim is to ‘keep the pressure low’. HTB do not follow-up Alpha attendees to see if they are saved, but they say that “...many more than half become churchgoers.” In charismatic circles, that is what counts. It is the newcomers to churches who are termed as ‘Christians’ by many Alpha leaders, not those who are genuinely saved.

One Alpha leader said that “It’s popular because it works...And it’s fun...We had two groups running in our hall the other night and for most of it, all you could hear were hoots and howls of laughter. In terms of Christian courses it’s the brand leader. Nobody really knows why, but through Alpha, people’s lives are changed.” Can’t you see the evil in this course yet? Can such statements be counted as ‘good’?

Note that it is Alpha that changes lives, not God? Notice the howls of laughter? These people are not, then, being convicted of their sin before Almighty God. Rather, they are under the same conviction as those drawn to the notorious Toronto Blessing. It is just Satan working in a slightly modified form!

ALPHA? The name is an acronym. Know what it stands for? ‘Anyone can come for Learning and Laughter, Pasta and pudding, to Help one another, and Ask anything’!! (I did not make this up!) Now compare that with the teaching of scripture. How can death, sin and hell possibly result in laughter?

Reformed Men Mistaken

The December 1998/January 1999 edition of the Evangelical Movement of Wales magazine contained an editorial by Stephen Clarke, its chairman. Its heading was ‘Alpha: friend or foe of true evangelism?’. I was glad to see that the EMW, a body of fellow Believers, at last broke the traditional reformed silence. But the very first paragraph set the tone for me and I knew what would be said about those of us who fight against Alpha.

I do no think Mr Clarke intended the attitude he conveyed. On the other hand, the article suggests a man who was impatient with people like myself...perhaps he ought to feel fortunate, for I have felt the same impatience with reformed men for nearly thirty years!!

Mr Clarke obliquely made fun of Christians like myself (as will be shown) in a reformationist manner, and implied that we are nothing but ‘stirrers’. If I am wrong in this assumption, then Mr Clarke has the opportunity to reply at the end of this section, if he so chooses.

Strangely for a Calvinistic magazine, the article begins with a quote by Moody, an Arminian, who was reacting against armchair critics who had never themselves evangelised: “Quite frankly, I prefer the way I do it to the way you don’t.” An excellent comment on the spiritually impoverished men of the time, but not applicable to the present situation, and containing Arminianistic reasoning.

Some will certainly criticise gratuitously, even if a preacher’s tie clashes with his shirt. But others of us, who warn hotly about Alpha, do so from a position of preaching, evangelising and witnessing, some of us to the point of being outcasts. I have personally lost much and suffered much because of my fight against error, and I know others have too. So a trite rejoinder is not appreciated.

Mr Clarke does not distinguish true and erroneous evangelism in this opening mistake. So a casual reader would think that any old preaching that went under the name of ‘evangelism’ was okay. After all, as the writer implies – any evangelism/preaching is better than none! This is where I immediately differ from Mr Clarke...it is not better to have Alpha in the absence of anything else. No, it is better to cast Alpha aside, even if there was nothing else on earth to replace it. I can see no Biblical support for his suggestion (though I should say, thankfully, that he ends his article by refusing to commend the course).

My position is very plain and scriptural – a man who preaches or evangelises must do so only if he has been called specifically to do so, and only at times when the Spirit moves him to speak. To speak without either of these vital criteria is to flaunt ones’ sin before Almighty God. It is also to admit to being Arminian in thought and heart....something very odd indeed for those who claim a Calvinistic background.

There is an irony in Mr Clarke’s opening statement, because later he suggests that we can fall into traps if we quote ‘so-and-so’...something he himself does in this article. I point this out, and other of his mistakes, in order for him to see why I differ from him and why his position, to my mind, is not tenable. (I refer to his argument and not to him personally - he is my brother in Christ).

Mr Clarke carries on the theme of criticism by saying that frequently those who criticise the most are those who do the least. This is certainly a fact, but he applies it to men he probably has not even met. For example, does he know my ministry (I mean fully, not just from one or two articles he might have been passed on)? It might sound strange – but not even some in my own wider family know of the full extent of my ministry, or of my pastoral role and what it means to me. So I would not like anyone to base their conclusions about me on anything said by my kinsfolk! Why don’t they know? Because they never ask!  Even so, his own criticism is irrelevant to the present issue, which is why I wonder if the article was a mark of impatience.

To him, people like me love nothing better than a ‘theological dog-fight’. On many occasions this has been the view of some – that I oppose things because I enjoy it, or because I am ‘bitter’, etc. Oh how little they know me!! They also think that we ‘fight over minor issues’ or that we ‘split hairs’. I often wonder where the discernment of such folk is. Whenever I enter into a theological ‘dog-fight’, it is only after much heartache and prayer – and because it is necessary.  Such fights make me sick to my stomach.

Mr Clarke used sarcasm in order to belittle Christian critics, with well-aimed words and phrases. He does not separate genuine critics from those who merely love to argue. For example, those who, to him, so enjoy their ‘dog-fights’, have ‘magazines... that probably sell quite well’. He then says that he hopes readers will notice how he does not wish to ‘swell the numbers of such journals’. The implications are very obvious – people like us are over the top and our views are (of course) without value, and not as well-intentioned as are those based on his own beliefs!

He says that Christians are best built up by an exposition of the truth and not by ‘reading side-swipes and broadsides fired at those with whom one might disagree’.  In saying this he does exactly what he does not like in others!! He is also quoting an argument we have seen so many times before – but which cannot be supported by scripture. Nowhere in scripture do we find the idea of always saying ‘positive’ things to people. This is more to do with the theory of self-worth and self-esteem than with scripture. I respectfully point Mr Clarke to the ministry of someone like Isaiah, Micah or even Jesus Christ.

It has been rightly researched (by others) that the majority of scripture is, humanly-speaking, ‘negative’ in tone rather than positive.  So where does Mr Clarke find support for what are essentially Arminianistic conclusions? (Note: though I address these questions to Mr Clarke, they are rightly asked of all reformed men, because they have very similar views). Even if he is right, I seriously question what he thinks is ‘negative’ and ‘positive’. Does he suggest that God’s own judgements on sinners are ‘negative’ when everything God says and does is, by definition, always true and just? No – the ‘positive’ argument is a theory of men; it is not from scripture. I propose that much of what reformed men think is ‘positive’ is nothing more than human attempts to produce a feel-good factor. For myself, much of what others call ‘negative’ I see as positive...it all depends on ones’ perspective.

We are NOT called to preach what is ‘balanced’ or what is ‘positive’. We are called to preach the whole truth, as prompted to do so by the Holy Spirit, whether or not hearers feel good afterward, and whether or not they are ‘built up’ by it. It is God Who tells a true preacher what to say, and it is He Who produces the results. But, I know from past experience and from observation, that many reformed preachers only preach ‘positive’ things. In this they are lax and untrue to God. We live in darkening days that are filled with evil and very subtle lies. That is why I, and others like me, sometimes oppose them and openly criticise error. We do so because it is a burden given to us by the Lord...whereas reformed men speak against us, because we are a burden to them!

Furthermore, I do not fight against Alpha because I happen to ‘disagree’ with it. To ‘disagree’ suggests that we have a different viewpoint and nothing more. Mr Clarke would be right if this is what prompted me to speak out. But he is not right! (I use my own case as an example, because what he says about critics in general also apply to myself). I oppose Alpha (and those who support it) because it is part of Satan’s heinous plan to rob the churches of the truth. It is an unbiblical deception being offered as scriptural truth, and it is rooted in Arminian heresy. Do I need any other reason to oppose it? As for reformed men – I will continue to be the fly tickling their back, because they are deliberately allowing their traditions to thwart the genuine ministries of others. Also, they seem to be insensitive to what is true and what is false. How else can they explain sticking to their ‘party line’ in the face of scripture?

Mr Clarke continues in his opposition by referring to bold anti-Alpha teaching as ‘theological exocets’ which have more ‘sparkle’ than real nourishment, rather like fizzy water! (It does not seem to enter his head that the ‘sparkle’ is genuine spiritual anger and passion caused by watching evil masquerading as good). To suggest that such criticism does not have a theological framework is very wrong and mean-minded. Though Mr Clarke says a theological framework prevents readers relying on what ‘so-and-so says’, he himself quotes several preachers on whom he no doubt wishes readers to rely!!

He unwittingly makes the fatal mistake of giving ground to the Alpha course, by the prejudiced way reformed men try always to be ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’. I do not read of God being ‘fair’ to sinners! He tells us to repent and turn away from our evil, because we are dead in our sins and are bound for hell. That is not ‘balanced’ – it is an arrow straight to the heart! No feel-good factor or ‘nutrition’ – just plain, hard-nosed facts.

There is the idea (the real crux of the matter and the cause of the mistake) that Alpha will die out if left to its own devices. In the same way reformed men openly said that the Toronto Blessing would just die out if left alone. How wrong they were and still are!! People like myself did not ’fuel the fire’ of the TB – that was done by Satan, by charismatics and by reformed men, whose very silence condoned the vile movement! In the case of both the TB and the Alpha course, reformed men have been found wanting, in that their spiritual understanding has been dulled. They simply do not know what the TB was and still is, or what the Alpha course really is.

By reading a book or two they think they know the answers. It took myself (and others) several years of close scrutiny of the charismatic movement to come to our conclusions. (This does not prove we are right, of course – but at least we deserve some credibility). The TB and Alpha are not just ‘fads’ that will ‘peter out’. They are movements created by Satan for his own ends. So far he has been mightily successful, as reformed men stand by tut-tutting over those who ‘criticise’. I am tempted to rewrite Moody’s words by saying, “Far better to be critical my way than to be uncritical your way!” ...especially when the reformed way has no Biblical support. I say this with a combination of respect and insistence.

Mr Clarke admits that at times there is a need for a ‘ministry of warning’ and for ‘negative things...to be said’. For myself, I do not have a ‘ministry of warning’. Rather, I see warning others as part of my total ministry, as God sees fit to use it. Nor do I see such criticism as being necessarily ‘negative’. Is it a ‘negative’ thing to warn people against error, heresy and evil? Then I have a very different view of scripture from that of reformed men! To me, all of scripture is positive, because it is the directly inspired word of God.

Mr Clarke seems to think that some of us ‘damn’ the Alpha course because it is popular! On what is this generalisation based? Anyone who has read BTM’s 34 page criticism of Alpha will see that the work has taken time, thought and effort, and that it is firmly bound to scripture and on a well-researched understanding of charismatic thought. In itself, the popularity of Alpha has nothing to do with the issue, except that the more popular it becomes the more people it will dupe.

In his own words, we “ought not...dismiss the Alpha phenomenon thus, but examine it a little more closely.”  I take exception to this statement, because it implies that only Mr Clarke has examined the matter carefully, whilst others of us have rejected Alpha because it is popular! Mr Clarke rightly identifies various topics Alpha appears to treat properly (as BTM does in its own assessment). But he fails to identify the charismatic reasoning behind the ‘good’ bits. Often, charismatics do not mean what reformed men mean, even if they happen to use the same words or point to the same doctrinal statements. In this Mr Clarke falls down in his assessment.

Though he properly sees a ‘serious defect’ (let’s call it what it is – heresy) in certain aspects of doctrine in the Alpha course, yet he sticks to being fair. I find this astonishing. Why does he think the Romanists are now applauding Alpha and taking it on board? It is because there is nothing in its teaching to offend their cultic beliefs! Look beyond the mere words of the course book and you will see the heresies in abundance. They are there. Not just ‘fuzziness’ as he calls it – but glaring heresies.

Another astounding statement is that Alpha’s popularity is okay because it gives doctrine in easily managed chunks. (It could be that I have misinterpreted Mr Clarke on this point). I shudder as I think of so many men and women deceived by these easily-managed chunks! This kind of thinking leads to massive error and acceptance of it. It leads to people ingesting ‘manageable chunks’ that contain poison. Even if a course is easily digested it must still be doctrinally right and from scripture. I have thus far read and heard many accounts of attending an Alpha course, first hand. I have challenged Alpha folk and leaders head-on, in different parts of the country. And what they have said does not tally with scripture. So, where does Mr Clarke obtain his ‘better’ knowledge from? I have no wish at all to argue with Mr Clarke or with the EMW, but he has forced the issue by making such basic mistakes in the magazine. (I hope that he notes that I have chosen to make my own comments in this article, which will have a very limited circulation, whereas he has made his own comments in a wider-circulation magazine).

Mr Clarke commends Alpha leaders who use humour and ‘nicely laid out’ talks, because the “Holy Spirit has often worked in the hearts of those whose attention has been gained”. He is, then, commending Arminianism yet again. He is also thereby implying that the Holy Spirit attends each Alpha meeting. Even if they are led by the unsaved? Or by rampant heretics? And if they teach heresy?  

Too many reformed men use ‘style’ and various ‘tried and tested means’ to make people listen. It is a sad fact that Bible colleges teach their students how to grab attention and keep it. This is Arminianism and psychology, not preaching by the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Compare, please, with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit spoke through him and pierced the hearts of thousands of Jews until they cried out in fear and remorse! No style and no easy bits. No trying to grab their attention with carefully choreographed words. Just a man used of God, who spoke as he was directed to speak. As a reformed preacher I tried all kinds of ways to grab attention. That was Arminianism...error, heresy. How dare reformed men even think of comparing the theatrical and mechanical repetition of ‘tried and tested methods’ used in the Alpha course, with God’s direct way with men?

I don’t care if Spurgeon taught his students to gain and keep the attention of their hearers! He might have been a marvellous preacher – but his teaching on this matter is Arminian. It is my task to preach the truth, no matter how hard it is on the ears of listeners. It is up to the Holy Spirit to gain and keep such hearers. The inability of reformed men to understand this fills me with dread and sadness.

(I do not advocate being rude or deliberately offensive. I am saying that if a man is truly called of God to speak, and he only speaks when the Holy Spirit prompts him to, then his own emotions and human failings will be subdued and the Lord will say what He will, in the way He wishes to say it).

Another evidence of lack of discernment on the part of reformed men is the way Mr Clarke thinks criticism of the source of Alpha – Holy Trinity, Brompton – should not enter the equation. I cannot fathom the reasoning here. Like a few others, I have studied HTB over the years and have shuddered at its spiritual poverty and outright, outrageous heresy. He thinks nothing of the fact that HTB was the very church that brought the TB to the UK. He asks “Can anything good come out of Brompton?” in such a way as to admonish those of us who say “No!”.  Such credibility given to one of the world’s leading centres of heresy is extremely dangerous.

 Nothing good can come out of Brompton because its leaders have never repented of their evils and they continue to teach such evils. I know what its leaders teach and have heard them. I am appalled that Mr Clarke, inadvertently or otherwise, vaunts such men, who have crawled in public on all fours, barked like dogs and attributed to the Holy Spirit what comes from Satan, and yet he derides and degrades men like myself whose only crime is to criticise such evil!  I must say, Mr Clarke has used a stinging barb!

To top it all, Mr Clarke says that the reason EMW has not tackled the topic in public before is that the TB etc., “is a fire best left to peter out”. No doubt reformed men will repeat this awful admission of spiritual incredulity and error of judgement even when the fire laps around their ankles and devours their spiritual legs! If all members of the EMW believe this single piece of misinterpretation, then I fear for them all. The fire of sin is NOT best left to its own devices to peter out...James 1:15 tells us that “...sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death”!  It can’t be more damaging than that!

We are called to “...exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” (Hebrews 3:13). Notice the various warnings? We must deal with sin as and when it arises...the sin must not go unchallenged but must be cast out immediately, before the day ends! Otherwise, the longer the sin is left, the more hardened to truth and righteousness we get. This is diametrically opposed to the idea of letting it ‘peter out’, whether or not it is a ‘fad’.

In Titus 5:20 we are told “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”  What Biblical command tells us to let sin just ‘peter out’? No, we must rebuke the sinner publicly so that others might be saved from sin’s power.  Friends in the EMW – “Awake to righteousness, and sin not.”! (1 Corinthians 15:34). To let sin slide without comment is to actively condone that sin and be a part of it. And those who commit the sin are servants to it, not having righteousness (Romans 6:20) – so how can we possibly let sin go without public comment and rebuke?

Alpha is far more than a fad. It is not something that will ‘peter out’.  It is a continuing movement of Satan, that apparently began before the TB started and remains now that the TB has done its main work. Its purpose is to destroy proper theological understanding. The TB did not just ‘peter out’ – it ran its designed course and once it had destroyed thousands of lives and churches, it stopped and gave way to the Alpha course. I say this because I have studied and observed it for some years, read charismatic claims, and have talked with ex-charismatics. Also, I have looked in detail at the doctrinal concepts behind the whole thing. That is how I can say with confidence: ‘reformed men – you are mistaken’.  There is no shame upon Believers for being duped...but there is shame in remaining duped when the truth has been shown. This is echoed in James 4:17: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth (it) not, to him it is sin.”

Mr Clarke thinks that Alpha was around before the TB, and so he does not really link it with the movement that swept the UK. In actuality, the TB movement began before Alpha was written, both in the UK and in America. (Confirmed by ex-charismatic leaders who gave me their testimonies in person). This was itself preceded by various movements led by Pentecostalists, whose formal birth is traced to Azusa Street at the start of this century (see BTM article on Azusa Street). But even before that, TB-style phenomena made whole churches spiritually sick. Please, reformed men, do your research in more depth!

Alpha is just one part of a very chilling whole. Its role is to ‘theologise’ the rampant evil of charismaticism and to present a ‘soft’ image of it to the world and the churches. But, Mr Clarke prefers to quote Edwards (who has much good to say) instead of looking at what is actually happening today. Without a shred of doubt I can lay great blame at the feet of HTB. It has worse evils to promote and even now it is devising more advanced forms of ‘Holy Spirit teaching’ that will provide far greater heresies for those who succumb to it. Reformed men play their part well in this charade, as they indirectly commend the leaders of one of the most terrible spiritual counterfeits of the past several centuries.

Mr Clarke says that Alpha contains the ‘Christian basics’. Superficially he is right – but he seems to have no idea as to what charismatics actually mean by the ‘basics’. He speaks of using ‘interesting’ evangelistic materials. For myself I say forget the ‘interesting materials’, and go back to God calling a man to be an evangelist. That man, if he is faithful in his preaching, will draw those who God wishes to draw and will save whom He will. This, friends, is scripture! Resorting to ‘interesting materials’ is Arminian thinking. If a man called by God is faithful the ‘interest’ will automatically be there. Lack of interest, in such a case, is caused by the sin of the hearers, or by Satan, or simply by not being elected to salvation.

On the whole the last one-third of the article makes sense. But it is thoroughly spoiled by the insensitivity and lack of understanding of what Alpha really is, and the lack of discernment when it comes to the TB and charismatic heresy. It is Mr Clarke’s prerogative to present his view, but it is a sad fact that reformed journals rarely give a right of reply to those who think differently.

Mr Clarke hints that maybe HTB will be blessed even though some of its teachings have been ‘defective’, because its leaders spend much time in prayer and want to see souls saved! This is odd thinking, but I do not think Mr Clarke knows it is. HTB’s teachings are not ‘defective’ – they are blatantly wrong. They are heretical. Read scripture and see what is needed to reverse this! It is certainly not reversed by giving credence to those who teach salvation by works! And it invites us to question what is meant by ‘prayer’, if men teaching heresy claim to be praying to God! (As an indirect answer, read BTM’s ‘Are Prayer Meetings Valid?’ Previously commended by Evangelical Times – who did not accept a few of its details - it provides a Biblical framework for examining the whole subject).

Mr Clarke says we must not “query the motives of those who (endorse Alpha)”. Who says so? Where is the scriptural support for such a sweeping and very dangerous statement, when the ‘motives’ are plainly stated in public by the leaders themselves? Would Mr Clarke and other reformed men give such a warm reception to those of us he thinks are over the top, or are we less worthy than HTB leaders? No, they would not receive us so warmly. In this very article Mr Clarke has queried the motives of those of us who are critical, though he says it is wrong to do so! However, I am not really concerned with denouncing motives. Rather, I have criticised actual words and theology. There is no way I can accurately identify motives.

Well, I have made a fairly detailed assessment of Mr Clarke’s article. At first I refrained from doing so, but then I realised I should not let the matter rest without a reply. I wrote the assessment because Mr Clarke’s article contains various elements of reformationism that are based on Arminianism and show other spiritual mistakes. For thirty years I have attempted to talk openly, but to no effect, because reformed men refuse to have communion with those of us who reject ‘reformationism’. To such we are backsliders or worse. It says a great deal, when the leaders of the horrific TB are given more credence than ourselves.

Taken as a whole the article has a lot to commend it, but its use of Arminian ideas leaves one with a heavy heart. I urge all reformed men to leave aside the idea that the TB and Alpha are just fads. They are not. Look hard at what charismatics are doing and you will have no doubt as to their evil.

It is important for me to say, as I have done many times before, that I once thought as Mr Clarke does. I maintained the reformed stance, even though I inwardly knew I was wrong. I know how hard it is to be a ‘Calvinist’, performing the many rituals of belief that are common to a misapplication of the reformed principle. That is why I commend Mr Clarke’s article even though I cannot agree with some of his conclusions. Indeed, I would ask readers to read the article for themselves, so that they can come to their own conclusions.

One day, amidst much tribulation and tears, I had to leave reformed circles behind me and I was roundly condemned and unduly slandered by local reformed pastors. But the Lord is true and He guided me away from my former deceptions. Thousands of folk have been forced to leave reformed churches because of insistence on tradition (often very subtle) rather than on scripture, so I am not alone.

We pray for the EMW, that it will remain a bastion of truth. We applaud its ministers for preaching salvation by grace alone. But we also pray that its eyes will be open to what is happening today. We do not claim infallibility, but we do claim that the Lord has placed a burden on us, to speak against Alpha and other charismatic heresies. We thus hope the EMW will read this response in that light. We wish them only the best, and we would like to think this is what they wish for ourselves.

(Note: As I know from my own writing experience, it is not possible to cover everything one would wish to cover in a short article or editorial. For this reason, I am willing to accept that Mr Clarke’s own article might be misrepresented in part by me. However, all who write articles need to convey essential points. The matters I raised are, to me, essential. All that I ask for from my reformed friends is an open and honest discussion.

A copy of this Article was sent to Mr Clarke and his response was invited. Mr Clarke kindly sent me an E-mail reply, and, as promised to him, the full reply is given below:

“Dear brother Napier,

Thank you for your letter of 2^nd February 1999 and your ‘About Alpha: January 1999’, which was handed to me recently by the staff at Bryntirion. I am grateful to you for having taken the trouble to write to me and for the gracious spirit and tone of your letter. I think that your willingness to print any response from me to your article is indeed a highly commendable way of conducting theological controversy.

My difficulty is chiefly one of time. I note that you need to start issuing your article by the end of this month. I doubt if I shall be in a position to write a piece which deals with all your points within that time-scale. This is not because I am unable to respond to the points which you have made but, rather, because of other demands upon time. I would rather make no reply to the points raised than deal with them inadequately or in a cursory way. You have obviously put in a fair amount of time and effort in what you have written and I would consider it discourteous to reply in a peremptory kind of way.

In view of the fact that your article states that you have given me opportunity to reply, perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate that I have written to explain why, in the foreseeable future, I think it unlikely that I shall be able to reply.

Finally, I was not aware of your journal or of your work when I wrote my editorial and was not therefore aiming my remarks at you.

Again, many thanks for having taken the trouble to write and for the Christian spirit displayed in your letter. May God’s richest blessing rest upon you.

With Christian greetings,

Stephen Clarke” E-Mail dated 17^th February 1999

Perfect for Romanists!

Just as Billy Graham has so seriously compromised the Gospel that even Roman Catholics accept his message, so Alpha is also warmly welcomed by Romanists. This should be a clear warning for reformed men, especially those who call themselves Calvinists. Romanists will not accept Protestant material unless it agrees with their own dogma and teachings. Alpha, then, is not the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, but is a very close deception. At the second Alpha conference for Catholics, held in October 1997, RC Bishop Ambrose Griffiths said Alpha was “Easily the best method of evangelism so far invented.”  (At least he admits it was ‘invented’!).

If he said that, then we can rest assured that Alpha is NOT the true Gospel. How much more proof is needed by reformed friends? The Bishop said, “Alpha doesn’t contain anything that is directly opposed to any Catholic teaching...” Friends, it is impossible to preach the Gospel and not oppose Catholic teachings! Note also, that by saying this, the Bishop is telling us that Alpha is useful for gaining converts to Catholicism not to Christ. So, how can Alpha be teaching the truth?

The Bishop repeated what Nicky Gumbel said following the death of Princess Diana, that everywhere people were yearning after spiritual things. Virtually the same words! He further said that Alpha answered the questions these people were asking...yet, scripture clearly tells us that people who are dead in their sins are NOT CAPABLE of seeking God, because they are dead! So, the only questions being answered by Alpha are those that are founded on sin and disinterest in God and His word!

As the Bishop later said, Alpha helps them to remain in their sin: “They feel affirmed and they enjoy it.” I have come across countless people who love to chat about spiritual things, even though they are unsaved and care nothing for the Gospel. They enjoy it because they get a ‘warm glow’ from chatting and they somehow think they are linked with God just by doing so.

The Bishop says that people who attend Alpha ‘come face to face with Jesus’, and then follow Him. Unless one realises what Catholics and charismatics actually mean by that, they will think Alpha is spiritual food! It is possible – as Catholics show us – to ‘follow Jesus’ in a human sense and yet not know Him at all. That is the essence of Romanism and of countless other Bible-based cults. Don’t be fooled by Alpha.

‘Why Alpha Falls Short’

Though the New Christian Herald endorses the Alpha course, it published letters against it, on 14^th November. (Being cynical I believe NCH did this only because it knows it will publish many more letters in defence. Maybe I am wrong!). The heading, taken from one such letter, makes some points already alluded to in this Article.

  To quote: “...so many churches have become accustomed to a watered-down Gospel. It’s scarcely surprising that Alpha is so widely embraced and defended. I would now cast doubt on my own former conversion experience, reliant in good part (on) an ‘experience of God’ not dissimilar to the kind frequently encountered on the Alpha weekend (editor: the weekend is devoted to Toronto-style experiences) while continuing to embrace a significantly deficient understanding of the Gospel...”  “I, too, am concerned by a number of representative Alpha ‘conversion’ testimonies which, quite simply, fail to point positively to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Could there be anything more tragic than filling our churches with 'converts' who in reality have been sold short?”

The same letter-writer points out that HTB invites speakers whose theology and beliefs are totally unbiblical and even blasphemous (maybe our reformed friends should read a wider selection of books by charismatics before they endorse even parts of Alpha, or when they defend HTB leaders?). Clark Pinnock has been well-received by HTB, yet, as the writer says, “(he) has made it clear...that he embraces such heretical concepts as that of the ‘pagan saint’...those who are saved without hearing the Gospel, or through a (post-death) opportunity to believe, and a God who neither foreordains or foreknows anything?” (Note that Billy Graham also believes in this concept).

As the writer says, what credibility can the course have when it is commended by such a liberal as Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh. Like the Romanists, Holloway would not commend Alpha unless it fitted in with his extreme liberality! “Alpha fudges...vital Gospel truths, or simply ignores them altogether.”

There is no need for me to make further comment on the above, except to say that I find it very hard to understand how any reformed man can even remotely think of commending Alpha or its leaders.

It has been said, time and again (including in follow-up letters in NCH, as predicted!), that we must not get bogged down in arguments about the theology of Alpha, but must instead look at the ‘fruit’ it produces. This is a fine but useless piece of rhetoric. As I have myself shown in articles over the past several years, and particularly in the context of charismaticism, this kind of argument is not worth a jot.

The charismatic description and meaning of ‘fruit’ is alien to the Biblical description and meaning. But if one reads of ‘fruit’ (without explanation) with regard to Alpha, it could easily be concluded that we are all talking about the same thing – which we are definitely not. Those who obviously know very little about the inner workings of charismatic thought will know nothing of these often intricate differences and will therefore tend to make superficial judgements.

It might seem to some that people like myself are just being ‘picky’. This is far from the truth – we are opposing what is a massive fraud, a lie that masquerades as Biblical doctrine and as the Gospel. If that is not important enough to stand and be counted for, then I do not know what is. As for not looking too hard at the theology of Alpha, well, this perplexes me. What else is there to look at, really? All of scripture is ‘theology’. Are we to let doctrine become a mish-mash of rubbish just so as we can concentrate on false ‘fruit’?

After Alpha

The Evangelical Times accepts that Christians must warn against error and must demand that Christian teachers only teach the true gospel. In its January publication, ET contains a review of Michael Green’s book: ‘After Alpha’. The critic, Tony Hutter of Newcastle, sums up his review by saying: “Okay, so I have been deliberately selective (e.g. in his quotes from the book), but perhaps summarising the book this way demonstrates clearly the unbiblical principles of Alpha and those who support it. Well written? Yes. Well read? Let’s hope not."

Hutter dares to say that we may question those who support Alpha (including its leaders and teachers). In this he is correct. Many think it is close to blasphemy to question those who teach the course. This I cannot understand! Alpha is charismatic and ecumenical. Both are unbiblical and do not preach the true gospel. Those who teach Alpha are therefore being unbiblical! I don’t care who they are, or what their heart’s motive is. If they are teaching unscriptural material, they cannot be supported or commended. Their motives are irrelevant to the issue – they are either preaching truth or a lie! If it is lie, then they cannot be commended. Simple as that. As we say in our 34 page critique – those who teach Alpha are against scripture and God. Many do not know it – but even when challenged, they ignore the fact. Reformed men who commend part of Alpha do so without proper regard for the consequences of their commendation...it is a truism of human nature, that guilty men choose what is commended and reject what is not. Thus a reformed commendation of any part of Alpha or its authors is as good as a total acceptance of the whole thing. BTM believes that the parts that are ‘commendable’ should also be rejected, along with the bad parts. This is based on the Biblical principle that one bad apple corrupts the whole barrel.

What does one do after Alpha, according to Michael Green (a charismatic, by the way)? Well, at a loose end, a man can do the course all over again!!  He advises against taking unbelievers to church because it is “against one of the important (Alpha) principles”. Please, reformed men – look beyond the obvious when looking at Alpha.

The book says that some have become “Christians by osmosis through attending church, especially Catholics, who approach God not so much through word as through sacrament.” “You could also mention Jesus in the pub”. “...you, of course, realise that the Father did not punish the Son for our sin...Anyway, you can now experience the kind of joy that Mother Teresa used to have when she received the sacrament and her head tilted on one side”!!!

“You could go to New Wine or Spring Harvest”. “You should also pray, but you must realise that not even God can always bring about what we pray for, because all people have free will.” What a mish-mash of advice! Those who read this kind of rubbish probably have not had any kind of salvation at all. The advice is nonsense scripturally. But, it can be said that anything done in Alpha courses is of ‘free will’ and rarely of God (I say ‘rarely’ because this allows for God to overcome Alpha’s New Age approach and teaching – it is not taken for granted that God works primarily through evil movements.). Note that no man has ‘free will’ – this is an Arminian teaching, not a scriptural one. (See BTM article  A-00157 on the subject).

Green proposes that we should all learn from Catholic and Orthodox churches, and that perhaps we ought to attend a retreat in a monastery. Those with eyes to see will note how Alpha is not just pro-Catholic and ecumenical – it is positive Romanist fodder. No? Greens adds: “Possibly...(you could use) Emmaus material which is produced by a team of evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and charismatic leaders.” “Incidentally, we know that God made human beings, but whether it was by evolution or some other means we do not know”. Friends – the more one learns about charismatic Arminianism, the worse it gets and the greater is the harm in Alpha!

In another part of the book Green gives ‘advice’ on the Holy Spirit, and on using charismatic ‘gifts’, saying:  “The helpful thing about Alpha is that it is not based on authority...rather, it is fun, humorous, social and food centred. Isn’t Alpha wonderful?”  Wake up, reformed friends!!

A reader of the review wrote to ET (February 1999) and said, “...condemning error is a necessary ministry...we need the solid rock of complete Biblical truth...Nothing less will do! It is vital that the many young Christians who will be the church of tomorrow are not misled by the unbiblical principles of Alpha. To be silent in the face of Alpha’s incorrect and misleading teaching is to condone dangerous error.”

BTM has no time for trying to be always ‘positive’ and always ‘fair’. Neither has God! He demands obedience to His truth. He gives no credence at all to the worldly, or to those who teach error, or who preach an Arminian-style gospel. So, why are reformed men giving credence to Alpha, if only in part? Why are they condemning those of us who stand for the truth of the faith they themselves claim to stand for? Their fight is against the wrong men! We are their brethren! We preach truth! Alpha is a lie and a fraud. It will quickly lead men and women down the path of Catholic, ecumenical, New Age error.

We could say a lot more about Alpha, but the above is sufficient as a summary of our current thinking on the subject. I find it sad that I have to address reformed men and advise them of their error. Yet, it must be done, or my conscience will not be clear.

We hope to produce further updates in the future.

It has been said that I “Really am dead against Alpha”. This is true. I am in earnest about it because for the past several years my researches have been mainly about charismatic error and deception. Alpha is a deception and must be fought. If no-one else joins me, that is fine...so long as they show the courtesy of not deriding the work we do at BTM. This ministry has been deliberately low-key thus far, yet thousands have been helped by the ministry, thank God. We hope that the work against Alpha will be taken to heart, especially by pastors and teachers, whose duty it is to warn the people.

Bible Theology Ministries

© January 1999

PO Box 415, SWANSEA  SA5 8YH

Wales

United Kingdom

Make a Donation to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries

info@christiandoctrine.net

www.christiandoctrine.net