Wesley the Heretic

The following paragraphs are a critique of some of the grossest errors taught by John Wesley. I have chosen a few citations from his works and then commented briefly on each citation. For clarity's sake, my words are in yellow. Wesley's are in white. Far more than what I have written could (and maybe, should) be written about the enormities of this man. Augustus Toplady gave him a trouncing on more than one occasion. However, the language of Toplady has frequently been regarded as over-the-top, Besides, Wesley somehow managed to create an image of sanctity which has made it difficult for the uninformed to believe that Toplady's charges were valid. This has created the illusion that much of the back-and-forth that went on between Wesley and Toplady was of a personal nature rather than a doctrinal one.  

Without further ado:

"I have often doubted, whether these were not the very persons whom the rich and honourable Christians, who will always have number as well as power on their side, did not stigmatize, from time to time, with the title of heretics. ... Nay, I have doubted whether that arch-heretic, Montanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century. Yea, I would not affirm, that the arch-heretic of the fifth century, (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for many ages,) was not one of the holiest men of that age, not excepting St. Augustine himself. ... I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more or less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) 'go on to perfection;' or, in other words, 'fulfil the law of Christ.' (6:328)

There are several gross errors these statements of Wesley’s:

First, he clearly disavows doctrinal integrity as having any place in salvation. You would think he had never read the Athanasian Creed, which explicitly denies that there is salvation for those who do not hold the Christian faith (as defined in that Creed). This, of course, is a fountainhead of anti-intellectualism.

Secondly, Wesley makes it clear without a doubt, that in his system, salvation is purely by works. Deny it till you’re blue in the face, but what else is it when a man says that the essence of Christianity is Wesley’s version of “perfectionism.” Moreover, Wesley picks the worst possible candidates if this were not his meaning: Montanus and Pelagius. There are hundreds of characters from the early history of the Church that he could have chosen to demonstrate his belief that doctrine doesn't matter. Yet he chose (A) a man who in practice denied the sufficiency of Scripture by making the Church’s life depend on constant new revelations from God; and (B) a man who denied the sovereignty of God. Notice that he has no qualms about calling Montanus a “arch-heretic,” even while defending him. Further, he is perfectly happy to accuse Augustine of slander against Pelagius. Yet in the same breath, he stiles him one of the holiest men of the 5th Century (second, perhaps, only to Pelagius!). I guess that means Wesley can still consider himself holy, in spite of being blatantly guilty of slander himself!

Thirdly, Wesley as much as asserts that God has no control over His own Church. The prime-mover of the Church in its doctrine and practice is not God, but the people with money. He sees the Kingdom of God working no differently than any banana republic in which the direction of the state is determined by clout and bribery.

Let’s briefly recap the track record of his two heroes. Montanus is an ascetic whose cult thrives in the 2nd Century by appeal to secret revelations from God. Montanus and company are spiritual elites. In keeping with this self-perceived superiority, they practice a very strict ascetic lifestyle. Pelagius, works as if there was no such thing as the Fall. Adam’s sin did nothing more than provide his posterity with a bad example. Sinless perfection is still attainable by anyone who will cowboy up and get to it.

It is little wonder that Wesley’s life epitomized both errors. In the first place, by his own account, his choice of Arminianism or Calvinism was decided by the flip of a coin, a sort of “laying a fleece before God,” or a “casting of lots.” Toplady quite fairly mocks this sort of cavalier behavior. With regard to the latter, what else is Arminianism but a slightly (deceptively) modified Pelagianism? By denying that the righteousness which pleases God is the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ, Wesley does more than lay the groundwork for a universal atonement (which her vigorously defended), but he throws open the door to Universalism.

You may think that that charge is harsh or unfair, but I assure you it is not. I will demonstrate this from his own writings.

First, he writes,

“Whether they embrace this religious opinion or that, is no more concern to me, than whether they embrace this or that system of astronomy. Are they brought to holy tempers and holy lives? This is mine, and should be your inquiry; since on this, both social and personal happiness depend, happiness temporal and eternal." (8:246)

Notice that Wesley says that a person’s choice of religion is no different than any system of astronomy. Writing, as he did, in the 18^th Century, he was thinking of the geocentric versus heliocentric models of the solar system. Secondly, he implicitly assumes that true Gospel holiness is attainable without any reference to the Christian faith. Moreover, he goes so far as to say that a person’s eternal destiny is determined, not by God (or even an adherence to the true form of the Christian faith – with or without grace), but simply by one’s life, i.e., works.

Secondly, he writes to a Roman Catholic:

“My dear friend, consider, I am not persuading you to leave or change your religion, but to follow after that fear and love of God without which all religion is vain. I say not a word to you about your opinions or outward manner of worship…Be your form of worship what it will, but in everything give him thanks; else it is all but lost labour. Use whatever outward observances you please, but put your whole trust in him; but honor his holy name and his word, and serve him truly all the days of your life. Are we not thus far agreed? ... Let the points wherein we differ stand aside; here are enough wherein we agree, enough to be the ground of every Christian temper, and of every Christian action… I hope to see you in heaven.” (10:80-86)

Suffice it to say that herein lies a denial of the whole Reformation. “Protestant or Catholic, who cares, as long as they are living a decent life?” As if a decent life is the entry ticket to heaven. Does Wesley really mean to say that the blasphemous, idolatrous Mass is adiaphora? Does he mean to say that violation of the 2^nd Commandment is a non-issue? Does he mean to assert that worship of a false god does not have any bearing on salvation? You bet, he does.

In recent months there has been a furor over Rick Warren’s statements and actions which were labeled, rightly or wrongly, “Chrislam.” It started with an assertion that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, which, of course, is patently false. Whatever else may be said about the so-called “healing” between Christians and Muslims, Scripture asks, “What communion hath light with darkness?” What saith Wesley?

“[N]or do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation… I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart, rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. ‘Without holiness,’ I own, ‘no man shall see the Lord;’ but I dare not add, ‘or clear ideas.’” (7:353-354)

My assertion has proven true: Wesley’s universal atonement has led directly to Universalism. Not only are Romish idolaters saved by their works. (Newsflash to Wesley: they already believe that), but actual heathens and even Muslims will be saved in the same way that Christians will be – by works! Not only is he is perfectly comfortable inserting his own words into Scripture, but he mocks anyone who places a premium on accurate doctrine. Only one kind of person would do this: a scoundrel who doesn’t believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and who denies the Scriptural teaching of Divine Sovereignty. Much has been said about the vitriolic way in which Toplady wrote to and about Wesley. The above citations (not one of which was specifically address by Toplady), show that Wesley more than deserved the slap-down that he got from Toplady.

All quotes are from The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI (1996). The references as formatted as follows: (Volume: Page). 

This is Biblical?

A few days ago, I overheard a most interesting and troubling conversation. Two ladies were discussing some preacher. At first I had no idea who they meant. The descriptions were glowing. I remember one lady remarking that the man’s sermons were just so chock-full of Scripture and biblical insight. Of course, at this point my curiosity was piqued. The lady went on to relate how she records all his messages and listens to them repeatedly because there is just so much biblical truth in the sermons, which, she added always seemed to speak directly to her current situation. To this the other woman replied, “That’s the way God works. His Word is powerful.”

So imagine my surprise, when I realized that this incessantly Scripture-quoting powerhouse of an exegete to whom they were referring was none other than Joel “Smiles-like-Martin-Short” Osteen!

I must confess, I haven’t listened to very much of his preaching (a rather grandiose term for what he does). But I have heard enough of it to form an adequate idea of the sort of nonsense he hawks from his podium week after week. Nearly everything he says falls into one of these categories: (1). Always smile and be positive because your positivity can make good things happen to you. (2). Never refer to anyone’s behavior, no matter how egregiously corrupt and/or immoral, as “wrong,” because you can’t see that person’s heart. (3). God wants to make your dreams come true, no matter how narcissistic or hedonistic they must seem to the Church Triumphant, not to mention the rest of the world. (4). It is never God’s will for anything unpleasant to happen to you.

Now, granted Joel and I may be reading from different versions of the Bible, but I have yet to encounter a single shred of Scripture that says anything remotely akin to any of that drivel!

Many people, especially his devoted fans, see nothing wrong about his message of “positive thinking.” And indeed, Osteen does exude a certain smiley positivity that seems unfair to critique. But in actuality, his is the deepest, darkest, most despairing and hopelessly negative message imaginable. This is the message of law without grace. It says in essence, “If you want anything good to happen to you, you have to make your own way in the world. You have to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. If you’re not happy with your live, make the omnipotent decision to be happy. You are the master of your own destiny.” There is not a more negative message conceivable! A message like this throws its hearers back onto themselves and their own pitiful efforts at appeasing the fertility god. It is a legalism that leaves you with no grace and merely your own efforts to do the impossible. It is Canaanite religion. By all your own effort at smiling, non-judgmental, undeterred positivity you must make the prosperity gods happy so that they will smile on you in the form of a new car and the best parking space to boot. This is the proverbial 'used car salesman' on HGH: selling you unadulterated rubbish as if it were the crown jewels.

For your perusal, below are several verbatim quotes from the great exegete himself for which I defy anyone, to show me where in the Bible these things are taught.

“Choosing to be positive and having a grateful attitude is going to determine how you're going to live your life.”

“Do all you can to make your dreams come true.”

“Faith activates God - Fear activates the Enemy.”

“God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us.”

“I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know.”

“If Jesus were here today, he wouldn't be riding around on a donkey. He'd be taking a plane; he'd be using the media.”

“If we say it long enough eventually we're going to reap a harvest. We're going to get exactly what we're saying.”

“If you want to rear financial blessings, you have to sow financially.”

“It's God's will for you to live in prosperity instead of poverty.”

“Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church I want to tell them that you can change.”

“To me, we're marketing hope.”

“We were old sinners - but when we came to Christ we are not sinners anymore.”

“You can change your world by changing your words.”

“You may make some mistakes-but that doesn't make you a sinner. You've got the very nature of God on the inside of you.”

I whittled this exhibit down from nearly four pages! Most of what he says, as another blogger humorously pointed out, sounds curiously like something you'd expect to find in a fortune cookie. But, that aside, can you imagine what kind of mind reads the Bible with any sort of regularity and imagines that this is the doctrine of Scripture? And how ignorant must people be of the actual contents of the Bible to hear this sort of tripe and think that Scripture countenances it! 

In truth the prophet proclaimed the judgment of God when he said: 

          “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD,

                   “when I will send a famine on the land—

          not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water,

                   but of hearing the words of the LORD.

          They shall wander from sea to sea,

                   and from north to east;

          they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD,

                   but they shall not find it.

(Amos 8:11-12 ESV)

x

Holy Heresy (Part 3)

Unverifiable claims.

I have already mentioned some of the claims made by some of the leaders of the modern Charismatic Movement.  The burning question in regard to their claims is: “How can I verify them?”  I mean, how can any of us really know that these people are telling the truth?  It is not as if I could place a video camera on Mrs. Walters and tape her angelic visitors.  We all know that this is impossible.  These experiences are either lies, self-induced delusions or undisciplined imaginations run amuck, but whatever they are, they cannot be allowed to be sources of doctrine.  The Bible explicitly forbids it. (1) The Holy Spirit plainly forbids us to give heed even to angels if what they say runs counter to Scripture.  We don’t stone false prophets anymore, but their sin is no less serious.  These men (and women) have the gall to label doctrine “opinion” yet they pass off their unverifiable extra-biblical revelations as beyond questioning.  The second you question the biblicality of barking like a dog or laughing insanely they label you a “Pharisee” who cares more for tradition than for God.

Charismatics are notorious for saying things that are intended to sound fresh or insightful, while being completely ignorant of the downright heretical ramifications of what they say.  After the recording of their big hit worship album, Hillsong music directress, Darlene Zschech, did an interview with Josh Bonnett in which she said, “God has been moving on the hearts of His people, right around the world, and He’s causing just incredible things to happen, in the Spirit and in people’s lives.” (2) The phrase, “in the Spirit,” is blatantly heretical.  It reveals a belief that the Spirit is an influence rather than a Person.  The preposition “in” is used in regard to places; the Holy Spirit is not a place or a realm of experience.

The late John Wimber used to say, “God is bigger than His Word.”  This seems to be saying something true at first blush.  But a moment’s reflection is enough to show its true colors.  This statement was used by Wimber as a defense against those who questioned the heterodox teaching within the Vineyard.  The Vineyard teachers supposedly got fresh revelations from God, who is bigger than His word.  In other words, Scripture cannot be used as a standard by which to test any teaching.  Yet the Psalmist tells us that God has exalted His Word above His name. (3) 

Intimidation of those with opposing views

This is perhaps the greatest weapon of the Charismatic heresy.  They revel in mocking any and every opposing view.  And they do it with such panache - such vehemence and acerbity.  Benny Hinn has repeatedly claimed that God has shown him, by divine revelation that He is going to kill those who oppose Hinn’s ministry.  What are we supposed to say to such asininities?  Hinn is not the only one to resort to such ludicrous tactics.  Countless of these self-proclaimed “prophets” torture 1 Chronicles 16:22 (Touch not my anointed…) into an umbrella to shield themselves from all scrutiny.  Despite the fact that 1 Chronicles 16:22 has no possible application to their cause, they do not extend the same leeway to their opponents.  They speak in the most brutal terms against any who do not subscribe to their “manifestations.”  Perhaps not many have gone as far as Hinn in claiming that God is going to kill his critics, but every single one of his ilk is guilty by association.

Another tactic is to discount the right of those outside their circles to judge their orthodoxy.  One of the arch-heretics of the Third Wave, Roberts Liardon says, “Spectators do not have the qualifications to comment on participators.” (4) This line of reasoning is patently false.  It is begging the question to say that I cannot judge the orthodoxy of their doctrine or practice because I haven’t experienced these things.  Do I have to commit murder or adultery in order to know that they are wrong?  Should I have to experience Buddha worship to analyze its falsity?  If I asked Benny Hinn if he believed that homosexuality is sin, I would like to believe that he would answer in the affirmative.  What would he think if I asserted that he had no right to judge the validity of the gay lifestyle because he had never tried it?  This is pure question begging, but he would use the same line of reasoning against me if I called into question his bizarre practices.

I would affirm that meaningful dialogue with heretics is impossible and that all dialogue in hopes of recovering them to the truth is almost pointless.  Matthew Henry wrote, “Real heretics have seldom been recovered to the true faith: not so much defect of judgment, as perverseness of the will, being in the case, through pride, or ambition, or self-willedness, or covetousness, or such like corruption, which therefore must be taken heed of: ‘Be humble, love the truth and practise it, and damning heresy will be escaped.’" (5) The marginal notes to the famous Puritan Geneva Bible of 1557 remark, “The ministers of the word must at once cast off heretics, that is, those who stubbornly and seditiously disquiet the Church, and will pay no attention to ecclesiastical admonitions.” (6)

Surely this must be the reason for the harshness of the Church’s polemic against heresies.  Irenaeus calls the heretical teaching such things as “imposture,” and “buffoonery.”  The followers of the false teaching he calls, “cracked-brained,” and “senseless.” (7) Tertullian says the heretic, Marcion, has a melon for a heart! (8) Terms such as, “abominable blindness and heresy,” (9) are commonplace in Luther’s works.  John the Baptist spoke with vehement fury against the hypocritical Pharisees who came to see him preach. (10)  And no one can hold a candle to Jesus’ diatribe in Matthew 23!  It is not that we do not care for men’s souls, but rather, “contending for the faith,” (11) outweighs all other considerations, including the feeling of those who cross the line theologically.

In conclusion, we ask, “What should we do?”  This is an incredibly difficult question.  If all the denominations and/or congregations that are not reeling in Rodney Howard-Browne’s drunken stupor and all those who have not been “slain” through Benny Hinn’s mesmerism called an assembly similar to the ancient Councils and excommunicated the entire Charismatic Movement, this would probably be of no effect.  Charismatics recognize no authority outside their own circles because they see themselves as superior to the Body of Christ.  Such a move would probably serve to strengthen them.  They would see themselves as martyrs being persecuted by the spiritually blind.  Perhaps persistent expository preaching and persistent polemic is the only tool we have left.  We can preach the word in truth and expose error when the opportunity presents itself.  May God help us!

1 Galatians 1:8, 9

2 Hillsong Magazine, cited in Praise Music’s Power Pack

3 Psalm 138:2

4 Cited in Walters’ Spirit of False Judgment

5 Matthew Henry on Titus 3:10

6 Geneva Bible Notes on Titus 3:10

7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.13.1

8 Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.40

9 Martin Luther, Table Talk CLXXVIII

10 Matthew 3:7

11 Jude 3

Holy Heresy (Part 2)

Mystical Interpretations of Scripture

Charismatics are infamous for bizarre and far-fetched interpretations of Scripture.  They love to downplay theological education in favor of their being “led by the Spirit.”  Nonetheless, they make weird displays of knowledge for the purpose of making their audiences feel that they are not ignorant. 

I heard a message by Rich Wilkerson, brother of the famous (and equally weird) David Wilkerson.  His sermon on Acts 9:31-34 was entitled, “What To Do When You Lose Your Nerve.”  In his message he explained that after the church was in a time of peace, Peter went to Lydda, which Wilkerson said in the Greek meant “place of conflict.”  By this he meant to say that when there was peace, Peter went looking for a fight.   He then went on to say the Aeneas means noble and Aeneas’ disease, palsy, in the Greek meant “loss of nerves.” 

The only reason why he was able to get away with such stupidity is that Charismatics are naïve.  First of all, Lydda does not mean place of conflict.  Strong’s Concordance tells us that the word is of Hebrew origin and its exact meaning is uncertain.  In other words Lydda does not mean anything in the Greek, because it is Hebrew.  But not only does it not mean anything in Greek; it doesn’t mean anything, period!  Secondly, saying that Peter went to the Lydda looking for a fight because the name means place of conflict is like saying that to find angels we need to go to Los Angeles!  This is not interpretation; it is an undisciplined imagination run amuck!  No doubt, there are people in the world named Philip who do not like horses, despite the fact that Philip in the Greek means lover of horses.  Likewise, just because Aeneas means noble, this does not imply anything about his character.  And on top of it all, whether or not palsy means loss of nerves in the Greek this is not a reliable medical explanation.  I doubt very seriously that Mr. Wilkerson would be satisfied if his doctor still practiced medicine at the level of Hippocrates or Galen.  And never mind ancient medicine.  Neither would he like it if his doctor practiced blood-letting like the physicians of 200 years ago.  Besides, “losing one’s nerve” is an English idiom and everyone knows that idioms do not mean what the individual words mean literally.

Disregard for Scripture

With all their lip service to Scripture, they are no different that the Hegelian relativists outside the Church who deny the existence of objective truth.  Nearly 100 years ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote, “At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, ‘Life is not worth living.’  We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world.  And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head.  Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins.  Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.” (1)  How are we supposed to reason with these people meaningfully regarding the truth of Scripture, when “the truth” is interpreted on the basis of their latest vision or visitation?

On that worldwide source for “Charismatic chaos,” TBN, I heard a young preacher interpret Habakkuk 2:2 (2) as saying that when God gives us a “vision,” (which word was left completely unexplained) we have to write it down so we can go back to it and read it and study it.  What is this but creating one’s own Scriptures?  Yet as he spoke, he was greeted with a continual stream of “Amen’s.”  This shows the level of ignorance that is prevalent through the entire Charismatic movement: A man can get on TV and blaspheme the Holy Scriptures and have the complete assent of the audience.

The famous Charismatic preacher, T.L. Osborne, came to the Philippines with his wife in the early 1990’s to conduct a seminar.  What he really did was promote his and his wife’s literature by the outrageous claim that using their material would “win the world.”  One got the impression that what he really wanted to say was that it was better if everyone used his material rather than their own – or even the Bible.  In the course of his lecture he commented on St. Paul’s prohibition against women preachers (3) by calling Paul a “male chauvinist.”  His exact words were, to the best of my memory, “How dare he tell me what my wife can or cannot do!”  John MacArthur was correct when he said that although the Liberal theologians and the neo-orthodox were unable to sell their theology to the Pentecostals, they succeeded in selling them their exegesis. (4)

1 G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, Introduction

2 And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

3 1 Timothy 2:12

4 John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos

Holy Heresy (Part 1)

At first blush, it seems like a strange statement to say that the true Church needs heresy. But history demonstrates the truth of this assertion.  The great ante-Nicene African theologian, Tertullian, wrote, “We ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being ‘approved’.” 1 This statement is especially poignant when one stops to remember that Tertullian himself fell for Montanism is his later years. St. Paul warned that heresies must occur.  He said, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”2

Perhaps at this point we should define heresy.  In the earliest uses it meant primarily the work of schismatic or divisive teachers within in the Church.  But by the writing of Peter’s second epistle, heresy had come to mean the false teachings of these schismatic or divisive teachers.  This is the meaning which has persisted to the present day.  Peter calls their teaching,”damnable heresies.” 3

But even in the Old Testament, God warned Israel that false teachers would arise and that the whole point was to test Israel’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.  Moses wrote, “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”4 This means that attractive leaders are not always led by God.  New ideas from inspiring people may sound good, but we must judge them by whether or not they are consistent with God’s Word.

Throughout the history of the Church, heresies have forced us to formulate more clearly what we mean to say by the terminology we employ.  In the first four centuries of the Church, the heresies of Marcion, Arius, Paul of Samosata, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sabellius and Pelagius drew forth from the early Fathers the great Creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon.  During the Reformation era, the Remostrants prompted the synod of Dort.  This is perhaps one of the greatest services of heresy for the true Church: it forces us to think clearly.  We are required by the exigencies of the situations to declare the whole counsel of God not in an “uncertain sound.” 5

This method has always been an effective remedy for false teaching.  But since the Enlightenment, men in general have become increasingly relativistic in their view of truth.  Unfortunately, this has trickled down into the church as well.  Therefore, since the onslaught of Liberalism in the late 1890’s the Church has lost her ability to effectively put down heresy.

No plainer example of this fact exists than the Pentecostal movement and the Charismatic Movement in particular.  The Pentecostal movement began exactly 100 years ago in a small church on Asuza Street in downtown Los Angeles.  Many of the key leaders of the “revival,” including its primary leader, William Seymour, were adherents of the “apostolic faith” theology, 6 which is pure Sabellianism.  Apostolics are known by such names as “Oneness,” and “Jesus Only,” because of their denial of the Trinity in three Persons.  They adhere to the Sabellian doctrine that the three are really One Person manifesting Himself in three distinct modes. 

The Pentecostal movement lived under the disapproval of mainstream Christianity until the late 1960’s when Dennis Bennett (1917-1991), an Episcopal priest in Van Nuys, California was “baptized in the Holy Spirit,” and began to speak in “tongues.”  From there, the Charismatic Movement has spread like wildfire throughout the globe.  But surely water cannot rise higher than its source.  And surely God cannot condone error.  But this is what the Pentecostals and Charismatics would have us believe.  If this movement is genuine, then God is in fact endorsing Sabellianism, post-biblical revelations, Buddhistic mind-over-matter “faith,” and even image-worship (the Charismatic movement has spread to the Roman Catholic Church and its equally idolatrous sister, the Greek Orthodox Church). 7

All accounts of heresy and its counterpart polemic since the days of Irenaeus to the present, have given us six main characteristics of heresy, all of which can be seen in the dark from a thousand miles away in the Charismatic Movement.  They are: Novelty, Mystical experiences as a source of post-biblical revelation, mystical interpretations of Scripture, disregard for Scripture, unverifiable claims, and intimidation of those with opposing views.

Marks of Heresy Within the Charismatic Movement

Novelty

New ideas are the part and parcel of heresy.  In theological matters novelty is another name for heresy.  Even a cursory reading of the Reformers will reveal how deeply they believed that they were standing in the stream of historic Christianity.  The sheer number of citations by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli to Augustine and the other Fathers is proof of this assertion.  They knew that novelty is another name for heresy.  Every single Charismatic preacher is guilty of using lines like: “Are you ready for something new?”  They love to entice their audiences with bits of new revelations from God that only they have.  This is Gnosticism.

Mystical experiences as a source of post-biblical revelation

A common feature of heresy, and especially the Charismatic movement, is its appeal to unverifiable spiritual experiences which, in turn, serve as sources for extra-biblical revelation.  Charismatics pay lip-service to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but it is no secret that they rely much more on “words of prophecy,” or words in supposed “tongues.”  And if a “word of prophecy“ ever runs counter to the revealed word of God, the “new” always takes the place of the old.  Tommy Tenney sold millions of copies of his God Chasers, wherein he refers to Scripture as old worn-out love letters. 8 He tells of a mystical experience where the church’s plexiglass pulpit split in two, throwing the speaker to the ground.  He then appeals to this as proof of all the erroneous things he says throughout the book.  Tenney inteprets Hebrew 1:3 (upholding all things by the word of his power) by saying that God not only holds all things together, but that He is the sum of all things! 9 Even the untrained eye can see that this is heresy!  It is not Christianity; it is pantheism – the same pantheism taught by Hindus for centuries.  It would be easy to question the reality of the “split pulpit” story, but that is beside the point.  Even if it were true, it is still not a verification of doctrine.

Kathie Walters has a book entitled The False Spirit of Judgment.  It is the usual Charismatic refusal to submit their theology, rather mythology, to the bar of Scripture.  Walters, who by her own estimation, knows how to live in the supernatural realm of the Holy Spirit, recounts how her four year old daughter was taken up to heaven.  The 4 year-old saw and talked to Jesus.  She came back down saved and speaking in tongues.  The little girl can give you a description of what she saw and heard. 

Of course, the acorn (or should I say ‘nut’) doesn’t fall far from the tree.  Walters has had “several dynamic angelic visitations.” 10  Plus she has had two very special visitations with the Lord.  On the first one, she was “taken up into heaven every day from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.”  On another occasion, she was taken to heaven every day for three and a half weeks.  She promises us that she can describe it all and she is writing a book about it.  The book, she says, will probably surprise many of her evangelical friends.  Of course, none of us can compete with this, so she is above the law.  But what never seems to strike any of these people is, that in Scripture there is not a single description of heaven or hell by any of the people who died and came back to life.  Tertullian refuted this tomfoolery nearly 2000 years ago.  He wrote, “Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being.” 11 If Paul was not permitted to communicate what he saw and heard in heaven, what makes these people believe they are allowed to do so?  Walters explicitly tells us in her book that she has had visions which she believes are prophetic “for the entire Church.” 12  If that is not a claim to inspiration on the level of the Biblical Prophets, nothing is!

The upshot of all these extra-biblical experiences is the professors are thereby impervious to correction.  Someone once said, “A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.”  Granted, this saying has a legitimate use; it is unfortunately true regarding adherents of heretical experiences.  When people like Kathie Walters, Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts claims to have had angelic visitations or personal meetings with the Incarnate Christ, how are ordinary Christians like us supposed to compete?

---

1 Tertullian - The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 1. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3

2 1Corinthians 11:19

3 2 Peter 2:1

4 Deuteronomy 13:1 – 4

5 1 Corinthians 14:8

6 Seymour went to Charles F. Parham’s Bible school.  Parham was the founder of the Apostolic Faith Movement

7 Another feature of Pentecostalism, and its daughter the Charismatic Movement, is the prominence of women in positions of authority.  Both camps speak strongly of interpreting Scripture literally, but they resort to exegetical gymnastics when they interpret Paul’s prohibition against women preaching.  Many of the leaders of the Azusa Street revival were women.  Seymour was actually replaced by a woman, Jennie Evans Moore, as senior pastor of his church when he died.  Moore held this position until 1936.  If we hold to the position that women should not preach, we must assume that theological error is endemic in their teaching, because they are disobedient to Scripture in the first place.  A short survey of Church History confirms this.  In most of the heretical movements from the doctrines of Paul of Samosata, to Arianism, to Montanism, women have been prominent figures.  Surely this is not without significance.

8 Tommy Tenney, God Chasers

9 ibid.

10 Kathie Walters, The False Spirit of Judgment

11 Tertullian - The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 24.  Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3

12 Kathie Walters, The false Spirit of Judgment

Why Trichotomy is Wrong 3 F, The Errors It Spawns

3F Various Other Errors

As if the last 5 posts weren't enough to expose Trichotomy for the false doctrine that it most definitely is, we will conclude this series today by looking at a few other assorted erroneous theological consequences of Trichotomy.

1. Let us consider first what Trichotomy means for the doctrine of regeneration. On the Trichotomist scheme, regeneration is the miracle which occurs when God gives us a new spirit, since we are spiritually dead. Christians are said to have a new life which unbelievers do not possess. God has given us a new spirit, or as some prefer to put it, God has created in us a new spirit. B.B. Warfield clearly saw the inherent theological flaw in the Trichotomist scheme. He writes, "Thus the man is not saved after all; a different newly created man is substituted for him. When the old man is got rid of - and that the old man has to be ultimately got rid of [we do] not doubt - the saved man that is left is not at all the old man that was to be saved, but a new man that has never needed saving." (B.B. Warfield, Review of "He That Is Spiritual," by Lewis Sperry Chafer.) Warfield's point, while apparently philosophically obtuse, is actually a very valid objection. If regeneration means that the "old man" who was me is no more and has been replaced by a "new man" by God's miraculous act of creating a new spirit, then I am no longer me. If I replace an apple tree with a cherry tree, I no longer have the same tree. In other words: I was not saved; I was made into a man that didn't even need to be saved.

2. Trichotomy also allows for the false doctrine of free-will. The body, since it is flesh, we are told tends toward evil - and we are said to be spiritually dead. But the soul remains magically unaffected by the Fall into sin, therefore it is able, when properly induced, to make a decision to accept Christ and savingly believe on Him. Trichotomist anthropology lets its adherents appear to take seriously the passages of Scripture which speak of men as dead in their fallen sinful condition, while at the same time, making full allowances for this Baal of free-will. In the final analysis, this makes man's will, and not God's grace, to be the final arbiter and determining factor of each man's eternal destiny. If we reject Trichotomy, we are left with a man who is composed of two elements, a body and a soul, both of which are ruined by sin. Thus any hope of salvation must reside in God's good pleasure and not in man's pretended abilities to do that which is diametrically opposed to his nature. Fish can't fly; neither can dead sinners resurrect themselves.

3. Trichotomy is responsible also for many of the more flagrant errors of Pentecostalism and Charismaticism. Let's consider the issue of Tongues again for a moment. If I edify myself by speaking in a language which my mind does not understand, why is an interpreter required by Paul when I do this in church? If I can edify myself by hearing my babbling of unintelligible syllables, why can't the rest of the church be edified by hearing the same uninterpreted things which edify me? This alone is sufficient to demolish the whole modern tongues-speaking movement. It is obvious from the text that the speaker understood what he was saying in a language he knew but with which the rest of his hearers were unlearned. This is why his understanding was unfruitful. He knew what he was saying, but no one else did. I speak Tagalog fluently. If I were to stand up in a small country church in rural America and speak in Tagalog, I may edify myself by the wondrous truths I was proclaiming, but my understanding would be unfruitful because no one else in the room would benefit from my understanding without an interpreter.

4. Another potential danger of Trichotomy is dualism. By elevating the "realm of the spirit" over the body, i.e., by understanding the spirit to be higher than the body and soul, one creates an unscriptural dichotomy between the material and immaterial. This is plain old Greek speculative philosophy. It pits spirit against soul and body in a way that is unjustifiable. Matter is not evil. God proved this by (1) creating it in the first place, (2) by the Incarnation, and (3) by the promise of resurrection. If matter is inherently evil, how can we maintain that a good God created it? This is exactly what the ancient dualistic heretics did. If the body, as matter, is inherently bad, how can we maintain that Christ took on human flesh? If Christ did not take on human flesh, we are still in our sins, because a hologram cannot die. If our bodies, as matter, are inherently bad, how can we hope for their resurrection? Killing a flawed inferior thing is a good thing. It does not gain dignity simply by being brought back to life. Let me anticipate a question here, too. Why, you might ask, is the soul considered with the body as part of the lower nature of man and not up with the spirit in the higher nature? It is for this reason. "The most familiar, but also the crudest form of Trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man's nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology).

You might object that no professing Christian holds to such false views of the body. I beg to differ. Even if Trichotomists denied belief in such propositions, this would not make them invalid consequences of their system, mind you. Once you divide man into superior and inferior parts - and you put soul and body down into the inferior category, you have nowhere to go logically but to dualism. If you pit the spirit against the soul as the animal life of the body, soul and body must be viewed, and accordingly treated, as inherently bad. This has been proven repeatedly by Church history. Monasticism is a case in point. Why did men and women deprive themselves of sleep and food? Why did Simon sit on the top of a pole for decades? Why did countless monks sleep on the ground and not in beds? Why did they wear hair shirts? Because they saw their bodies as part of a lower nature with the soul, that was necessary to keep under wraps if one was to nourish and nurture his higher, i.e., spiritual nature. Animals eat, drink, bathe, breed, sleep, etc. If we are higher than animals, and the soul is the animal life of the body, then these impulses must be subdued if one wishes to be spiritual. Why was poverty considered such a noble state? To read some of the medieval mystics, or John Wesley for that matter, you'd think that being poor was already a deeply spiritual accomplishment on its own. If one had to choose between poverty and even sufficient provisions, there was no doubt in these people's minds that poverty was the more spiritual option. This foolishness is also what was behind the whole celibacy movement as well. How could a person who enjoys the bodily pleasures associated with the marriage bed be as spiritual as one who has deprived himself of such? Again, nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests that we should ask this question.

5. There is another potential Trinitarian error inherent in Trichotomy. If you recall when we dealt with the false teaching of the 'carnal Christian,' we quoted Chuck Smith, an advocate of such teaching, as saying, "We meet God in the realm of our spirit." Many people have misunderstood John's phrase "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10) to be describing a different realm or dimension of reality. This is an extremely dangerous idea. It depersonalizes the Holy Spirit into a 'force' or a 'dimension.' Think of Frank Peretti's novels. There is the realm of the physical and a spiritual realm in which is mirrored all the events of the physical realm. This spawned all the strange idea current in our days regarding 'spiritual warfare.' Christians, through mind-denigrating spiritual exercises can somehow influence unseen things in this spiritual realm, which in turn, impact events in the physical realm. There is nothing new under the sun. The Manicheans of old held the same view of reality. By referring to the Spirit as a realm, the Trinity is denied. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that God is one, and that He exists in one divine Essence, yet subsists in three Persons. 'Person' is the operative word. A realm is not a person. This seems to me to be latently pantheistic. Pantheism is the belief that God is the sum total of all existence. In other words, everything is God and God is everything. If my spirit and your spirit and God's Spirit are a realm, then they are all by definition one common realm of common experience for us all - which means that my spirit and God's are essentially the same thing. How can I distinguish my own spirit from God's? This is pantheism. If my spirit is a dimension or realm for experiencing the divine and your spirit is an entirely different realm, then there could be no talk of a "realm of the spirit." We would have to allow for an innumerable multitude of these "realms." But no one speaks this way. Trichotomists constantly and consistently speak of one "realm of the spirit." This has at least a tinge of pantheism in it. Therefore it is no surprise when the spiritual exercises proposed to nurture the spirit are identical, whether they be "Christian" or Pantheist. It also explains why their form of the spiritual gift of a "words of knowledge" looks suspiciously like mind-reading or a Vulcan mind-meld. We reiterate: the Holy Spirit is not a realm, a force, or a dimension of experience. Speaking this way is an implicit denial of the Trinity. Incautiousness in speech begets wrong ideas; wrong ideas beget false doctrine; false doctrine begets more false doctrine; and false doctrine damns, especially when it spawns idolatrous notions about the Godhead. Other doctrines may be negotiable; doctrines about God and His nature are not.

Objections Against the Doctrine of the Trinity

Having asserted the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in our previous post, we would now like to dispatch with the objections heretical sects seek to use against the doctrine. We should perhaps pause here and give the simplest explanation of the Trinity. The commonest way the Church has explained the Trinity is to affirm that God is one in essence, i.e., God is one divine Essence; yet this One divine Essence subsists in Three Persons.

Having put that definition is place we are now prepared to look at the objections frequently made against our doctrine.

1. How can one essence be three persons? One being three is a contradiction, isn’t it? If God is one essence, He can’t be three persons.

Reply: This objection hold true for created, and therefore finite, essences which cannot be one and the same in three persons. However this does not hold true with God who is infinite. God’s essence is not divided among the Persons of the Trinity. Hence the simplicity (meaning that it is not a composition of many different elements) of God’s essence is not impaired by the number and distinction of the Persons. That may sound like an overly intellectual, obtuse answer, but we are not dealing with a pulp fiction deity. This is the infinite, ineffible, inscrutable God if the Bible.

2. Three and one make four distinct things. If, in God there are three persons and one essence, there are then four things in God, which is absurd.

Reply: Where there are three and one really distinct, - yes there are four things. But in God, the Persons are not distinct from the Essence, for the three Persons of the Godhead are one divine Essence. They differ only in the mode of subsisting.

3. Giving three names to one substance is Sabellianism. The doctrine of the Trinity ascribes three name to one substance. Isn’t it therefore the heresy of Sabellius?

Reply:  This syllogism switches the meanings of its terms. If substance means “person” then the objection vanishes. It only holds if by substance one means essence. The former is the orthodox Christian doctrine; the latter is Sabellianism

4. He who is the whole Deity, beside him there is no person, in whom the whole Deity is, in a like manner. If the Father is the whole Deity, then the whole Deity is not in another person.

Reply: We deny the major premise of this objection. The same Deity whichis entire in the Father, is also entire in the Son and Holy Spirit. There is neither more or less of the divine essence in one person than in two or three Persons.

5. Persons to whom distinct operations are ascribed must have different essences. There are affirmed different internal operations in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore their essences are distinct.

Reply: The main gist of this objection holds against finite essences, but it is false when understod of the infinite divine Essence.

6. The divine essence is incarnate. The three persons are the divine essence. But it is absurd to say that the three persons are incarnate.

Reply: The basic premise of this objection has no bearing at all on the divine nature, because the divine Essence is incarnate in the Person of the Son alone.

7. Jehovah, or the true God, is the Trinity. The Father is Jehovah, therefore, He is the Trinity.

Reply: Again we have a premise without any bearing on the divine nature at all. It is not accurate to say that whatever is Jehovah is the Trinity.

8. No abstract term signifies substance. “Trinity” is just such an abstract term. Therefore it signifies no substance.

Reply: The premise of the objection is false. Deity and humanity are abstract terms which most definitely signify substances.

It may be noted that all of the objections made against the Trinity are objections which intend to produce a contradiction. We have not here even considered the various arguments defending the Godhead of the Son and the Spirit; we have simply looked at the objections against the doctrine of the Trinity in general. These are the kind of arguments advanced by modalists like T.D. Jakes, the so-called “Oneness” Pentecostals, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Holy Heresy! Pt 3

Today we conclude our look at the heretical nature of the Charismatic movement. You may have noticed that we have dealt only with the marks, as I have termed them, of a heresy. My objective was to demonstrate that the characteristics which have always distinguished heresies, are indeed extremely characteristic of the Charismatic movement.

We now move on to the last two marks (5) Unverifiable claims, and (6) Intimidation of those with opposing views.

• Unverifiable claims.

I have already mentioned some of the claims made by some of the leaders of the modern Charismatic Movement. The burning question in regard to their claims is: “How can I verify them?” I mean, how can any of us really know that these people are telling the truth? It is not as if I could place a video camera on Mrs. Walters and tape her angelic visitors. We all know that this is impossible. These experiences are either lies, self-induced delusions or undisciplined imaginations run amuck, but whatever they are, they cannot be allowed to be sources of doctrine. The Bible explicitly forbids it. 1 The Holy Spirit plainly forbids us to give heed even to angels if what they say runs counter to Scripture. We don’t stone false prophets anymore, but their sin is no less serious. These men (and women) have the gall to label doctrine “opinion” yet they pass off their unverifiable extra-biblical revelations as beyond questioning. The second you question the biblicality of barking like a dog or laughing insanely they label you a “Pharisee” who cares more for tradition than for God.

Charismatics are notorious for saying things that are intended to sound fresh or insightful, while being completely ignorant of the downright heretical ramifications of what they say. After the recording of their big hit worship album, Hillsong music directress, Darlene Zschech, did an interview with Josh Bonnett in which she said, “God has been moving on the hearts of His people, right around the world, and He’s causing just incredible things to happen, in the Spirit and in people’s lives.” 2 The phrase, “in the Spirit,” is blatantly heretical. It reveals a belief that the Spirit is an influence rather than a Person. The preposition “in” is used in regard to places; the Holy Spirit is not a place or a realm of experience.

The late John Wimber used to say, “God is bigger than His Word.” This seems to be saying something true at first blush. But a moment’s reflection is enough to show its true colors. This statement was used by Wimber as a defense against those who questioned the heterodox teaching within the Vineyard. The Vineyard teachers supposedly got fresh revelations from God, who is bigger than His word. In other words, Scripture cannot be used as a standard by which to test any teaching. Yet the Psalmist tells us that God has exalted His Word above His name. 3

• Intimidation of those with opposing views

This is perhaps the greatest weapon of the Charismatic heresy. They revel in mocking any and every opposing view. And they do it with such panache - such vehemence and acerbity. Benny Hinn has repeatedly claimed that God has shown him, by divine revelation that He is going to kill those who oppose Hinn’s ministry. What are we supposed to say to such asininities? Hinn is not the only one to resort to such ludicrous tactics. Countless of these self-proclaimed “prophets” torture 1 Chronicles 16:22 (Touch not my anointed…) into an umbrella to shield themselves from all scrutiny. Despite the fact that 1 Chronicles 16:22 has no possible application to their cause, they do not extend the same leeway to their opponents. They speak in the most brutal terms against any who do not subscribe to their “manifestations.” Perhaps not many have gone as far as Hinn in claiming that God is going to kill his critics, but every single one of his ilk is guilty by association.

Another tactic is to discount the right of those outside their circles to judge their orthodoxy. One of the arch-heretics of the Third Wave, Roberts Liardon says, “Spectators do not have the qualifications to comment on participators.” 4 This line of reasoning is patently false. It is begging the question to say that I cannot judge the orthodoxy of their doctrine or practice because I haven’t experienced these things. Do I have to commit murder or adultery in order to know that they are wrong? Should I have to experience Buddha worship to analyze its falsity? If I asked Benny Hinn if he believed that homosexuality is sin, I would like to believe that he would answer in the affirmative. What we he think if I asserted that he had no right to judge the validity of the gay lifestyle because he had never tried it? This is pure question begging, but he would use the same line of reasoning against me if I called into question his bizarre practices.

I would affirm that meaningful dialogue with heretics is impossible and that all dialogue in hopes of recovering them to the truth is almost pointless. Matthew Henry wrote, “Real heretics have seldom been recovered to the true faith: not so much defect of judgment, as perverseness of the will, being in the case, through pride, or ambition, or self-willedness, or covetousness, or such like corruption, which therefore must be taken heed of: ‘Be humble, love the truth and practise it, and damning heresy will be escaped.’" 5 The marginal notes to the famous Puritan Geneva Bible of 1557 remark, “The ministers of the word must at once cast off heretics, that is, those who stubbornly and seditiously disquiet the Church, and will pay no attention to ecclesiastical admonitions.” 6

Surely this must be the reason for the harshness of the Church’s polemic against heresies. Irenaeus calls the heretical teaching such things as “imposture,” and “buffoonery.” The followers of the false teaching he calls, “cracked-brained,” and “senseless.” 7 Tertullian says the heretic, Marcion, has a melon for a heart! 8 Terms such as, “abominable blindness and heresy,” 9 are commonplace in Luther’s works. John the Baptist spoke with vehement fury against the hypocritical Pharisees who came to see him preach. 10 And no one can hold a candle to Jesus’ diatribe in Matthew 23! It is not that we do not care for men’s souls, but rather, “contending for the faith,” 11 outweighs all other considerations, including the hurt feelings of those who cross the line theologically.

In conclusion, we ask, “What should we do?” This is an incredibly difficult question. If all the denominations and/or congregations that are not reeling in Rodney Howard-Browne’s drunken stupor and all those who have not been “slain” through Benny Hinn’s mesmerism called an assembly similar to the ancient Councils and excommunicated the entire Charismatic Movement, this would probably be of no effect. Charismatics recognize no authority outside their own circles because they see themselves as superior to the Body of Christ. Such a move would probably serve to strengthen them. They would see themselves as martyrs being persecuted by the spiritually blind. Perhaps persistent expository preaching and persistent polemic are the only tools we have. We can preach the word in truth and expose error when the opportunity presents itself. May God help us!

1. Galatians 1:8, 9
2. Hillsong Magazine, cited in Praise Music’s Power Pack
3. Psalm 138:2
4. Cited in Walters’ Spirit of False Judgment
5. Matthew Henry on Titus 3:10
6. Geneva Bible Notes on Titus 3:10
7. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.13.1
8. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.40
9. Martin Luther, Table Talk CLXXVIII
10. Matthew 3:7
11. Jude 3