Happy Valentine's Day

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13

Let Go Of My Ego

To listen to many pastors and preachers these days, you’d think that every page of the Bible resounded with affirmations of Free-will. The way that term is bandied around from the pulpit, you’d expect to find the Scripture saying things like:
“It is not of God that shows mercy, but of him that wills, and of him that runs.” (cf. Rom 9:16);
“Which were born, not of the will of God, but of the will of man.” (cf. Jn. 1:13);
“For you make yourself to differ from another, and you willed to receive what you have. (cf. 1 Cor. 4:7)

But when I read my Bible, whether in the venerable old King James Version, the ESV, or the NIV, NASB, TEV, (you get the picture), I read assertions to the opposite effect. Just look up the actual wording of the Scriptures cited above.

Before I rush off into my diatribe against Arminian free-willers, let me first clarify that I am referring to free-will in the unregenerate. This is clearly the issue. Many people unquestioningly assume that fallen man has an intact power of free-will by which he can choose to accept Christ and that only once he had done so, will God grant His grace. “God helps those who help themselves.” This is what I flatly deny.

I would never stoop to the stupid argument that the Bible nowhere uses the term “Free-will” (it doesn’t), because the Scripture doesn’t use the terms Trinity, Hypostatic Union, or Eschatology, though it clearly teaches these concepts. So just because a term isn’t used in Scripture, this doesn’t mean that the idea isn’t there. I’m simply saying that the idea of a bound will is to be found in all throughout Scripture, written in black and red (or should say ‘black and blue’?).

The Scripture record is so stacked against the notion of free-will that it is a wonder any thinking Christian could ever broach it with a straight face. The Bible, in fact, says we are in bondage (Rom. 8:15), we are slaves (Rom. 6:16-22). The Bible goes even farther and claims that outside of Christ, a man is dead. (Eph. 2:1). Think about that. Can a dead man will anything? Can he decide that he’d like to be resurrected? Yet this is the very supposition that Arminians make with respect to the unregenerate. The man who Scripture declares to be dead they declare has the ability to will to be resurrected. He can be made alive in Christ if he will only make the decision (read: will and run). Imagine standing in front of the casket of a dead man and saying, “If you’d like to be resurrected, raise your hand.” Yet few have any qualms about saying to sinners who equally dead, “If you want to go to heaven, make a decision for Jesus now.”

I am frequently met by puzzled looks when I say things like this, as if I were making up something that the Church has always known better than to believe. Jaws drop when I introduce them to these very concepts in the writings of the great teachers of the Church’s yesteryear. It is easy to pay lip service to an Augustine, a Luther, an Edwards or an Owen, while being completely ignorant of what they taught. Though their books may dutifully take up space on our shelves, few are ever opened, let alone read.

I said all that to set up a couple of astounding quotes. The first is from Augustine’s Enchiridion, On Faith, Hope and Love. He writes:
“For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his own life--so also sin which arises from the action of the free will turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed. ‘By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave’ (2 Pet. 2:19)… What kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a slave except the liberty that loves to sin? He serves freely who freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin is free to sin.” Enchiridion Ch.9.30

What Augustine is saying is fairly plain, it seems. Adam destroyed his free-will when he fell. Now all his descendants are slaves of sin. They can do nothing freely, but sin – which can hardly be called freedom.

The second quote is from Martin Luther. It comes from his book entitled The Bondage of the Will. In it, he attempts to further assert these Pauline doctrines that we have just read from Augustine. Luther goes to great lengths to show that Scripture everywhere asserts that man’s will is not free, but is in bondage to sin. In driving this point home, Luther shows that the term “free-will” itself is problematic. He writes, “Free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone ‘does, (as the Psalm sings) what He will in Heaven and earth’ (Ps. 135:6). Whereas, if it be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God Himself would be ascribed unto them: which would be the greatest of all sacrilege.” (Section XXVI).

Luther thinks it would be better If theologians dropped the term all together because it so easily lends itself to wrong ideas about man’s innate abilities. Theologians sometimes use the term in an extremely technical sense, which grants men little more that the power to choose between a bowl of cereal or a waffle for breakfast. But when the term is used without caution, people begin to import into the term the false idea that the human will is not subject to anything or anyone.

Now what I have been trying to demonstrate by these quotes, among other things, is that a denial of free-will in the commonly used sense has always been the Church’s teaching. The logic of men like Finney, who argued that it was cruel of God to command things of sinners that they were unable to do, and then to threaten them with Hell for failing to obey – this logic is the same reasoning used by Pelagius, the heretic antagonist of Augustine. In fact, it is the logic of Paul’s opponents (Rom. 9:16-24).

So pastors and preachers, I implore you to stop telling sinners, “God gave you a free-will.” Salvation is not an act of human will. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Sinners are dead in sin and so is their will.

Arminianism's Cosmic Plagiarist

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Romans 8:28-30 NASB

Any one familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian debate knows that the Arminian position regarding predestination is that "God foreknows who will freely believe on Him. These He in turn elects to salvation."

The Calvinist position, (which we hold to be the correct view) states that God elected some to eternal life, through no merit of their own. He has ordained these from eternity past to believe savingly on Christ through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. That statement could, of course, undergo a thousand modifications. In this article we wish however, to merely point out that election precedes faith.

The grand problem with the Arminian position is that it puts the cart before the horse. It makes God's knowledge contingent upon man's actions. It limits the Sovereign of the universe and makes Him dependent upon finite man in order to attain what He wills. More than that, it frustrates the Almighty. He can in no way guarantee that what He wills will indeed come to pass. His will is trumped by man's will.

But there's an even greater problem. The Arminian idea of foreknowledge make election meaningless. If God elects based upon what He knows is going to happen, what is there to elect? Predestination has no content. What could it possibly mean? James M. Harrison puts it like this, "What this view does, in essence, is to make God a cosmic plagiarist - He has read the book, decided He likes it, and then has simply declared Himself to be the author." 1 (Harrison's emphasis)

That is a powerful statement. I think if an Arminian could get his mind around its truth, he'd be forced to reconsider his position. The cart-before-the-horse soteriology of Arminianism makes God out to be a liar. His Word asserts that He "declares the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10), that He has "wrought all our works in us" (Isaiah 26:12), and that no one can thwart His plans (Daniel 4:35, Psalm 115:3).

The Arminian take on foreknowledge is itself suspect. Certainly we may affirm that God knows all things that will happen. However, this is NEVER the sense in which the Bible uses the term foreknow. Scripture consistently uses the word to indicate fore-loving. See Gen. 18:19; Ex. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Amos 3:2, cf. Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:22,23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:19; and 1 John 3:1. The Bible never says that God foreknows events. The word is restricted to persons. Which means that He elects certain people out as objects of His love. These will be saved.

In the article on Divine Foreknowledge in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, J.M. Gundry-Volf writes :

"The Pauline notion of divine foreknowledge is understood by many interpreters as a knowing in the Semitic sense of acknowledging, inclining toward someone, knowledge which expresses a movement of the will reaching out to personal relationship with someone. This kind of knowing is illustrated by the meaning of the Hebrew word 'yada', 'to know' in texts such as Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; and Jeremiah 1:5. The Hebrew verb can come close in meaning to 'elect'. The Greek verb 'ginosko' can also have the sense of acknowledging someone as in Gal. 4:9 and 1 Cor. 8:3 in which the term is used to refer to God's 'knowledge' of human beings which is the basis for their coming to know or love God .... In Rom. 8:29, foreknowledge denotes the exercise of God's will to establish a special relationship with those whom God graciously elects before all time ... Foreknowledge as divine choice is thus the basis of predestination to glorification with Christ." 2

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:3: "if anyone loves God, he is known by Him" (NASB). Taken at face value, this means that God's knowing, i.e., foreknowing, is causative. It is the cause of our love to Him. John says as much when he says, We love Him because He first loved us" 1 John 4:19 (emphasis mine).

The Biblical view then is that God foreknows those who will be saved precisely because He has elected them to salvation.

1. James M. Harrison, Foreknowledge: There's More Than Meets God's Eye

2. J.M. Gundry-Volf, "Foreknowledge, Divine," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 310-11.

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

Holy Heresy Pt 2

We now come to our third installment in this series. We will be looking at the next two marks of heresies - ones that are clearly displayed by the Charismatic movement, i.e., (3), Mystical Interpretations of Scripture, and (4) Disregard for the Bible


• 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.” We’ve all heard the “cemetery, I mean seminary” joke. Despite the fact that Christ commands us to love God with our mind (Mt 22:37), Charismatics insist that we check our brains at the door. Many of their preachers glory, indeed revel, in the fact that they have no formal theological training. They will nonetheless make weird displays of knowledge for the purpose of making their audiences feel that they are not completely ignorant.

Several years ago, I heard a message by Rich Wilkerson, brother of the famous (and equally weird) David Wilkerson. His sermon on was on Acts 9:31-34 and 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.” Wilkerson asserted from this that when the Church experienced peace, Peter went looking for a fight. He then went on to explain that Aeneas in Greek 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 used leeches or practiced blood-letting like medieval physicians. Besides, “losing one’s nerve” is an English idiom and everyone knows that idioms do not mean what the individual words mean literally.

I have a very hard time finding anything nice or charitable about a man who will stand in the Lord's name in the pulpit and spew forth that sort of idiocy! My suspicion is that Jesus would have driven him from the temple with a whip had he tried to preach like this during Jesus' ministry.

• Disregard for the Bible (or at least, belittling Scripture)

With all their lip service to Scripture, Charismatics are no different that the Hegelian relativists outside the Church who deny the existence of objective truth. A little over 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 angelic visitation?

On TBN, that worldwide source for “Charismatic chaos,” 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 “Amens.” 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.

There was a medieval heretic named Joachim of Fiore, who lived and wrote in the 12th Century. He was an esoterist and mystic. He had a teaching – which earned him his excommunication, by the way – that there were three eras of the world: The era of the Father (for which we have the Old Testament), the era of the Son (for which we have the New Testament) and the era of the Spirit, which was yet to come in 1202 when Joachim died. His logic implies that when the era of the Spirit dawns, we will have revelatory additions to God’s Word. The Father has His Testament and the Son has His, so the Spirit will get His too. The heresy of such a position is explicitly apparent. Yet anyone familiar with Charismatic literature will tell you that this sounds like something right out of the Vineyard.

At the invitation of a friend, I visited a church which, it turns out, actually practiced what this man advocated. During his sermon, the minister kept quoting lines from a “prophetic word” given by Brother “Jones” a few years back. The minister did not quote the Bible, mind you, but acted as confident when he quoted Brother Jones, as if he were quoting the Bible! Then to make matters worse, right in the middle of his message, the minister pulled out a mini-cassette player from his coat pocket and played an actual recording of the “prophecy!” In the foyer were printed copies of the prophecies given on the previous few Sundays. So say what they want about the superiority of Scripture, when people believe in continuous revelation, the Bible gets the heave-ho!

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 Paul 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.

Tomorrow, God permitting, we will wrap up this series of posts wherein we will look at the last two heretical marks of the Charismatic movement.


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