LEONARD RAVENHILL TAUGHT THAT THE ETERNAL DESTINATION OF SPECIFIC SOULS IS DEPENDENT ON OUR INTERCESSION

"If we had more sleepless nights in prayer, there would be far fewer souls to have a sleepless eternal night in hell."
(Leonard Ravenhill - "Revival God's Way" - Page 52, [1983])

JOHN WESLEY TAUGHT THE ARMINIAN HERESY OF CONDITIONAL ELECTION

In a word, God, looking on all ages, from the creation to the consummation, as a moment, and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all the children of men, knows every one that does or does not believe, in every age or nation. Yet what he knows, whether faith or unbelief, is in nowise caused by his knowledge.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 6 – See Page 227)

JOHN WESLEY'S HERETICAL DOCTRINE OF PERFECTIONISM

What is then the perfection of which man is capable while he dwells in a corruptible body? It is the complying with that kind command, "My son, give me thy heart." It is the "loving the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind." This is the sum of Christian perfection: It is all comprised in that one word, Love. The first branch of it is the love of God: And as he that loves God loves his brother also, it is inseparably connected with the second: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:" Thou shalt love every man as thy own soul, as Christ loved us. "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets:" These contain the whole of Christian perfection.

Several persons have enjoyed this blessing, without any interruption, for many years. Several enjoy it to this day. And not a few have enjoyed it unto their death, as they have declared with their latest breath; calmly witnessing that God had saved them from all sin till their spirit returned to God.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 6 – See Pages 413-420)


By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God, and our neighbour, ruling our tempers, words, and actions. ... As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently, in an instant. ... I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before. I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 11 – Page 446)

JOHN WESLEY BELIEVED IN AN INEFFICACIOUS ATONEMENT

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died," (Rom. xiv. 15,) - a clear proof that Christ died, not only for those that are saved, but also for them that perish:
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 7 – Pages 380-381)

"What! Can the blood of Christ burn in hell? Or can the purchase by the blood of Christ go thither?" I answer, ... If the oracles of God are true, one who was purchased by the blood of Christ may go thither. For he that was sanctified by the blood of Christ was purchased by the blood of Christ. But one who was sanctified by the blood of Christ may nevertheless go to hell; may fall under that fiery indignation which shall for ever devour the adversaries.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 10 – Page 297)

Clearly, John Wesley was speaking heretical blasphemies, and was as ignorant of the gospel as the most hardened atheist.

AUGUSTUS TOPLADY'S CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF JOHN WESLEY

"It has also been suggested, that 'Mr. Wesley is a very laborious man;' not more laborious, I presume, than a certain active being, who is said to go to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it: nor yet more laborious, I should imagine, than certain ancient Sectarians, concerning whom it was long ago said, 'Woe unto you Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte:' ... Mr. Sellon, moreover, reminds me (p. 128) that, 'while the shepherds are quarrelling, the wolf gets into the sheep fold;' not impossible: but it so happens that the present quarrel is not among 'the shepherds,' but with the 'wolf' himself; which 'quarrel' is warranted by every maxim of pastoral meekness and fidelity."
(Augustus Toplady, Complete Works, p. 54)

THE GOSPEL PREACHER'S DESIRE

My desire is . . .

1. To exalt the grace of God.

2. To proclaim salvation alone through the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

3. To declare the sinfulness, helplessness, and hopelessness of man in a state of nature.

4. To describe, as far as I am able, the living experience of the saints of God in their trials, temptations, and sorrows – and in their consolations and blessings.

By J.C. Philpot

"OUT WITH THE NEW; IN WITH THE OLD"

The Gospel of God’s grace in Christ is an old and eternal message. Man comes up with new ways, but they are false and deadly to the soul.

Our salvation has been accomplished by Christ who died on the cross and arose again for our justification. Our salvation is secured by His shed blood and righteousness imputed, and the Holy Spirit gives life from Christ to all of God’s elect.

Nothing new can replace or rival this.

This statement is also true when it comes to God’s revealed Word. The revelation is complete – “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19).

When men come up with new doctrines and search the Bible to find verses to support these notions, they are not seeking the Lord or His truth, but self-affirmation. You can be sure they will find verses to support their view because they see everything through the cloud of their own invention.

It is sad that they will lead many astray. Many are always looking for new things, and this is deadly. Divine truth is never new. It may be new to us as God is pleased to reveal it anew, but it will never deny, contradict, or challenge the Gospel and the old, eternal truths of God’s Word.

That which God reveals newly to me will only build upon the old, eternal truths of the Gospel of Christ. Also, many people are so enthralled with men (especially preachers) that they will follow them anywhere, even into a cloud of their own making. This causes division among professing believers.

What is the answer?

Stay with the tried and the true – “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:” (Ephesians 4:14-15).

By Bill Parker

THE POWER AND THE FORM

Preached at Providence Chapel, London, on August 30, 1846, by J. C. Philpot

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
(2 Timothy 3:5)

Writing to his beloved son, Timothy, Paul in this Epistle tells him that "in the last days perilous times shall come." But why should "the last days" be so particularly "perilous?" He says, "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy," and so on. But were men not always thus? Was there ever a time known when men were not "lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers?" The root of these evils is so deeply seated in fallen man that these fruits must and do continually appear.

Why, then, should the apostle point out "the last days" as so particularly "perilous," when men always were as he describes them here? The reason is, "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof." It was that which made the last days "perilous;" because men would no longer be such as he describes them in this black catalogue openly and profanely as before, but would be covered over by the mask of profession. It was that which made them perilous, that is, dangerous to the people of God, lest they should be ensnared and deceived thereby.

I shall, with God's blessing, for the sake of communicating my thoughts and feelings on these words more clearly and intelligibly, adopt five leading divisions of the subject.

God alone, I well know, can give the blessing. I shall endeavor to show–
I. What godliness is.
II. What the power of godliness is.
III. What the form is.
IV. What it is to deny the Power.
V. The exhortation, "from such turn away."


I. What godliness is. Godliness in the Scriptures of the New Testament seems to have two distinct meanings. Sometimes it means the whole work of grace upon the heart; all that makes and manifests a man to be a child of God; in a word, that which we call 'experimental religion,' with all the fruits accompanying it. For instance, "godliness with contentment is great gain" 1Ti 6:6. "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come" 1Ti 4:8. "Exercise yourself rather unto godliness" 1Ti 4:7. "According as his divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" 2Pe 1:3. "Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution" 2Ti 3:12.

But there are other passages in which the word godliness seems to have a more limited meaning. For instance, where the apostle exhorts Timothy to pursue after certain Christian graces – "Follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness" 1Ti 6:11; there godliness does not signify the whole of the experimental religion, but one particular branch of it, namely, devotedness of heart to the Lord. So also we find the Apostle Peter saying, "Giving all diligence, add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness" 2Pe 1:5-7. Godliness is here spoken of as a distinct fruit of the Spirit's work upon the heart. Used in this sense, I understand it to signify, that devotedness of heart to the Lord which is the effect of divine teaching in the soul.

It may be asked, then, "In what sense do you understand the term godliness in the text?" I answer, that by it I understand the whole of the Spirit's work upon the soul, the teachings of God in the heart, all that is generally conveyed by the expression, experimental religion, with all the fruits and consequences which flow out of that divine work. Thus godliness in this sense has a very comprehensive signification. It embraces the whole of experimental religion; it includes the whole work of grace from first to last, from the first teachings of the Spirit in the heart of the babe, up to the last hallelujahs of the expiring saint. And not only so, but it comprehends all the external fruits and manifestations of the work of grace upon the soul. Thus, in this sense, godliness has a very extensive signification; and therefore many spiritual branches will be found to grow out from this deep and broad stem.

1. "Godliness," therefore, will comprehend in the first place, that divine work, which is called in the Scriptures repentance. What were the chief features of Paul's ministry? He tells us, he preached "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" Acts 20:21. These were the two leading points that he dwelt upon. Wherever, then, there is godliness in a man's heart, in other words, wherever there is a work of grace in the soul, there must be repentance.

What is repentance? The conviction of sin produced by the operation of the Spirit upon the conscience, piercing and penetrating the soul with the guilt of transgression, and creating self-loathing and self-abhorrence on account of the manifested evils of our hearts, lips, and lives. Honest confessions of our sins at the footstool of mercy; a broken heart and a contrite spirit; a truly penitent soul, melted, dissolved, and laid low in tears of godly sorrow at the feet of Christ, will ever accompany that repentance unto life which is the gift of Jesus.

2. Again – if "godliness" comprehends the whole work of grace upon the heart, it must also include faith in Christ. Whence springs faith in Christ? It is the gift of God; as we read, "For by grace are you saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast" Eph 2:8,9. But when do we begin to believe in Christ? When is there first any real faith in our heart towards his precious name? When there is some spiritual revelation of him to the soul; when there is some divine discovery of his Person, his blood, his righteousness, his love, his grace, his glory – when these are brought with a divine testimony by the Spirit's heavenly unction into the heart, then faith springs up. No sooner does Jesus show his lovely face and unfold himself to the soul, than faith springs up to receive, lay hold of, and embrace him, and brings him into the heart in his atoning blood, dying love, and justifying grace.

3. Love to the brethren is also another feature of "godliness." For by this "we know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren" 1Jo 3:14. If there be faith in Christ, there must be love to Christ; one cannot exist without the other. And if there be love to him who begat, there must be love to those that are begotten of him. If then we have seen Christ by the eye of faith, and that sight has drawn forth the affections of our heart towards him, we must love his image wherever seen; and love, pure love, must needs flow forth out of our heart towards that image, however outward circumstances may differ, or whatever there may be unpleasing or unlovely to the natural eye. We love Christ, though we see him beneath a beggar's rags. The features of Christ are ever lovely to those who know Christ, however defaced and degraded they may be in the eyes of the world; and we cannot but love them, wherever we see them visibly manifested in the heart and life of those who are his.

4. If "godliness" signify the Spirit's work upon the soul, it must also comprehend the spirit of prayer, which is a main branch of divine teaching. That worshiping, therefore, of God "in spirit and in truth," that flowing forth of desire in the bosom, that wrestling with him at the footstool of mercy, that pleading with him that he would be gracious, that longing, that languishing, that hungering, that thirsting, that breathing of the soul after his blessed presence and manifested power which spring from the secret operations of the Spirit upon the heart, all are a part of that "godliness" which is "profitable unto all things."

5. It must also comprehend the fear of the Lord, which is "the beginning of wisdom." For if "godliness" means the whole of the Spirit's work upon the heart, it will embrace the beginning, as well as the end; it will include in its capacious arms all the quickened family of God; and therefore it must needs comprehend the first teachings of the Spirit in raising up godly fear, in making the conscience alive and tender, in impressing upon the soul a godly reverence of Jehovah's holy name, and stamping upon the heart a sense of his dread perfections and dreadful majesty.

6. It will also comprehend all that springs out of the Spirit's work upon the soul; self-denial, mortification of sin, crucifixion of the flesh, separating from the world, deadness to the things of time and sense, a life of devotedness to the Son of God. It will further comprehend the fruits of the Spirit's work upon the heart, such as kindness, liberality to the brethren, an open heart and open hand; walking consistently and becomingly with our profession, avoiding the very appearance of evil; giving no room to the adversaries of Christ to bring a reproach upon the cause through us, but living as in the presence of the Lord, and with a sense of his eye being continually upon us.

In a word, as "godliness" embraces the whole of the Spirit's work upon the heart, from his first teachings and quickenings until the soul finally departs in peace, with all the fruits and graces which flow out of it, it must needs be a most comprehensive expression.


II. What the POWER of godliness is. But, you will observe, the text speaks of the power of godliness. Godliness, and the power of it, then, are two distinct things. For instance, the Lord has in mercy quickened your soul, and made Christ precious to your heart; he has in mercy done that for you which will save you with an everlasting salvation. But are you always, are you often under the "power" of this godliness? Must we not confess, if we would speak honestly, that the seasons and occasions when the power is felt in our hearts are comparatively very rare? If God has indeed implanted the blessed Spirit in your hearts; if your bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit; if Jesus dwells in you, and is formed in you "the hope of glory," you are never destitute of godliness. But you are often destitute of the "power of godliness." For instance–

1. Are you not often destitute of the power to repent, and confess your sin before God? Does not conscience often bring to view a melancholy retrospect of carnal thoughts, wicked desires, vain imaginations, foolish words, frivolous speeches, and all that catalogue of evils, that huge bill which godly fear sometimes files in the court within, as seen in all our departures from the life of God? But are you able to repent? are you able to feel cut to the very heart? are you able to mourn and sigh because conscience brings against you this long indictment? Can you always feel your soul melted down with sorrow on account of it? Are you always able to feel contrition because you are proud, worldly, covetous, everything that is evil, everything that is hateful in God's sight?

But then, there are times and seasons when the Lord is pleased to work upon the conscience, to move and stir the soul, to touch the heart with his gracious finger--then repentance and godly sorrow flow forth. It is with us as with the rock that Moses struck. There was water in the rock; but it required to be struck with the rod before the waters flowed out. So we may have the grace of repentance in our souls; but it requires the divine hand to strike the rock, to cause the waters of godly sorrow to gush forth.

2. So, with respect to faith in Jesus. If the Lord has ever blessed you and me with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we never cease to believe in him. But there is often an apparent suspension of that faith. And it needs the same almighty power which first created it to draw it forth into living act and exercise. He that possesses faith possesses "godliness;" but it is only as faith is drawn out to look to, and live upon the Lord Jesus Christ that we have the "power of godliness."

3. Again, if ever you have loved Jesus with a pure affection; if ever you have felt him near, dear, and precious to your soul, that love can never be lost out of your heart. It may lie dormant; it does lie dormant. It may not be sweetly felt in exercise; but there it is. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema" 1Co 16:22. You would be under this curse if the love of the Lord Jesus Christ were to die out of your hearts.

But this love is often sleeping. When the mother sometimes watches over the cradle, and looks upon her sleeping babe with unutterable affection, the infant knows not that the mother is watching its slumbers; but when it awakes, it is able to feel and return its mother's caresses. It is so with the soul sometimes when love in the heart is like a babe slumbering in the cradle. But the babe opens its eyes, and sees the mother smiling upon it, it returns the smiles, and stretches forth its arms to embrace the bending cheek. So, when we see the face of Jesus stooping to imprint a kiss of love, or drop some sweet word into the heart--there is a flowing forth toward him of love and affection--this is the power of love to Christ.

4. Is it not so with love to the brethren? Are we not often cold and dead toward them, if not a great deal worse, even so as to feel enmity against them? No, perhaps when we have seen them coming down one street, we have turned round the corner of another, to avoid meeting them. Such is the aversion of our carnal mind at times to even the most highly favored of God's people. But let us be brought into their company; let conversation turn upon spiritual things; let them speak of the feelings of their soul; let them tell out a little of what they have known and felt of divine things; and let us have experienced a measure of the same, at once all coldness, iciness, reserve, suspicion, and enmity flow down like the mountains at the Lord's presence--and love, union, kindness, tenderness, and Christian sympathy are sweetly and blessedly experienced. This is the power of Christian love.

5. So it is with prayer. I know not how it is with you; but I know that real prayer is not at my command. I cannot, God forbid that I should, cease to bend no knee before the throne of the divine Majesty. But can I command spiritual and heavenly desires? Can I create feelings of longings and languishings after his manifested presence? Can I produce a mind fixed upon eternal things? Can I raise up hungering and thirsting after his manifested love? Can I command that faith in Jesus whereby alone I can boldly approach him? Can I give myself feeling access into the presence of the King of kings, and a sweet manifestation in my soul that he is hearing and answering me? Can I open a door of utterance to express my desires, or raise up a sure confidence that the Lord will fulfill them? I cannot.

But there are times and seasons when the Lord the Spirit is pleased to breathe upon the believer's heart. The grace of prayer is no more dead in his soul than the grace of repentance, or the grace of faith, or the grace of love. But lively goings forth, spiritual actings, and pourings out of the soul, often lie dormant in the saint's bosom. But when the Lord is pleased to give us a spirit of prayer; when he is pleased to overshadow us in some measure with his felt presence, and draw the desires of our souls after himself, then to pray is indeed a sweet enjoyment to the soul. And we pray, not because it is our duty, nor because it is our privilege; but because it freely flows forth into the bosom of a prayer-hearing and a prayer-answering God. This is the power of prayer.

6. So with respect to the different fruits by which "godliness" is always accompanied. I may go out of the world; I may separate myself from all outward evil; I may not be entangled with the pleasures and amusements which the children of men please their vain minds with; no more, I may do many things that seem to be the result and fruit of the Spirit's work upon my heart; and yet no divine power, whence alone they rightly spring, may have been communicated to my heart.

But when, on the other hand, by the power of God resting upon me, by applying some portion of his word, as "Come out, and be separate," I am enabled to come out of the world; when I am enabled to hate every sin by the workings of a tender conscience; when I am enabled to overcome temptations by the fear of God as a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death; when I am enabled thus by God's grace and teaching, and under the special operation of the Spirit of God upon my heart and conscience to walk as becomes the Christian, then I have the power of godliness.

Thus there is a distinction ever to be borne in mind between "godliness" and the "power of godliness." You that are born of God, who have the teachings of God in your soul, are never destitute of "godliness." If you were, you would be ungodly people. But you are often, very often, destitute of "the power of godliness," and of the sweet manifestations, blessed revivings, and precious discoveries of the Spirit.


III. What the FORM is. But there is also such a thing as the form. Here we come to the distinction between the people of God and mere empty professors, who have nothing of the life and teaching of God in their souls. You that are the people of God may often write bitter things against yourselves because you do not feel the power of godliness; but that does not prove you not to be godly people. If ever you have had repentance unto life; if ever you have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; if ever you have felt him precious to your soul; if ever you have loved the brethren with a pure heart fervently; if ever you have prayed out of a sincere and spiritually taught heart, you are godly people, though you may not often feel the power of the blessed operations and heavenly communications of the Spirit vitally and divinely within.

But then, there are those who have neither "godliness," nor "the power" of it. They have but the "form." And what is the form? Why, a form is an outside appearance, merely the pretense of the thing without the reality. And this is what makes the last days so "perilous"--that there should be such a wide profession; that there should be so many who come near the truth, and yet not be partakers of the truth; who approach so near the borders of godliness, who have never been brought over the line of vital godliness. It is because there are so many that have the form without the power, that renders the last days perilous times for God's people, lest they should be entangled in the same snare, and deceived by false pretensions.

If this be the case, then, this form of godliness must come very near to the genuine. It is not perilous to the child of God to see the Papist worshiping a crucifix; or to see the Puseyite, [A follower of Dr. Pusey, one of the founders of the "Oxford Movement", which was the forerunner of Anglo-Catholicism] with his two wax candles upon the altar. It is not perilous to the child of God to see thousands crowding into a Wesleyan meeting-house; nor perilous to see hundreds approving a motley mixture of freewill and free grace; nor perilous to hear a man preaching the doctrines of grace, and sneering at the felt experience of them. These various degrees of error and delusion are not dangerous to the people of God, because usually they are not deceived by them.

But when two things very nearly resemble each other, there lies the peril; lest the poison should be mistaken for the remedy. Thus peril lies in the wide-spread profession of experimental truth, for it is that alone which deserves the name of "godliness," lest in the wide profession of experimental truth we should deceive ourselves, or others should deceive us, by the form without the power.

It seems to me, that in this day we have a very wide spread of experimental truth. That much-read book that I see upon the table, and its wide extension in all directions, I mean the "Gospel Standard", carries with it a degree of peril lest by its wide diffusion it may raise up a numerous crop of professors who have all the form, and pretension of experimental godliness, yet know nothing of the inward power, teachings, and operations of the Spirit upon the heart. So I have observed of late years a raising up of little causes of experimental truth, and the opening of pulpits in many parts. I believe when I reach home I shall have occupied twenty-seven pulpits within these thirteen weeks. And this is perilous to the people of God lest they should be entangled by the wide-spread profession of experimental truth and the mere exterior of vital godliness, without the heart-felt possession of spiritual knowledge and enjoyment of it.

Not that I am speaking, God forbid, against the extension of experimental works; not that I am speaking, God forbid, against the opening of fresh places where experimental truth is preached. No, I rejoice at it, and would say with Moses, "The Lord God... make them a thousand times as many as they are, and bless them as he has promised" De 1:11. God works by these means. But there is a peril attending them, lest Satan should come in by this door to deceive many to their own downfall, and even entangle God's people in a profession beyond what they know of the vital, experimental power.

But what is the "form?" A form is something that comes very near, and yet is not the thing itself. It is something like what painters call 'a lay figure;' and from which they draw when they have not a living subject to copy. The lay figure represents a man with all the limbs, sinews, and muscles; but life, breath, and motion are wanting. For instance:

1. There is the form of repentance. A person may profess to be very sorry for, and to have great conviction of sin, talk about a law-work, and guilt on account of his transgressions; and yet not have that life-giving power of the Spirit upon his soul producing real contrition and true repentance. It may be only the workings of natural conscience, and not that peculiar teaching of God the Spirit in the heart of a sinner whereby he is broken down into godly sorrow and deep penitence of heart before the Lord.

2. So with respect to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a natural faith in Christ as well as a spiritual faith. A man may have heard so much about Jesus Christ under ministers who extol him highly, speak of his Person, proclaim his blood, and dwell upon his justifying righteousness, that he may fancy he has faith in Christ, because he has heard so much of him with the outward ear; and yet be all the time without living, genuine faith. This special gift and work of God upon the soul may be still fatally lacking.

3. So with respect to love to the Lord Jesus Christ. There may be a natural love toward him. A man may have heard and read so much of his kindness to sinners, and such glowing descriptions of the beauty of his Person, that he may have fallen in love with him. Just as Roman Catholics have their crucifixes and paintings of Christ, and in admiring their crucifixes and adoring their paintings, feel the workings of fleshly love towards him whom they suppose to be there represented; so a man may have heard so much about the love of Christ, that he may have his fleshly affections roused up, and mistake them for that pure love which is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit.

4. So we may have something that draws us towards the Lord's people. We may feel that there is an amiableness about them; we may believe that they are the Lord's living family, and wish to be like them; to talk as they talk, and speak as they speak; and this we may mistake for love to the brethren; while all the time our heart may be completely destitute of that true love to the brethren, the fruit and effect of the Spirit's work upon the soul.

5. So with respect to the gift of prayer. It may seem to ourselves, and those who hear us, so simple, so fervent, so earnest, so humbly expressed, that surely it must be a spiritual prayer. And yet, we may often mistake a mere natural gift for that special grace of God whereby we are enabled to pour out our heart before him.

6. So we may be able by what we have felt under the convictions of natural conscience to live a life of separation from the world, to overcome sin when not very strong, to walk in the commandments and ordinances of God blameless; and yet be destitute of the vital power of the Spirit's teachings and operations, without which all these things are but as the convulsive twitchings of a dead body under the action of an electric battery. Like Herod, a man may do many things, and yet be absolutely devoid of the vital power of godliness brought into the heart by the Spirit of God.


IV. What it is to deny the Power. 'Well,' some may say, 'if this be the case, how may I know that I am not deceived altogether?' 'If a man may go so near, and yet not be a real character, what evidence have I,' says some poor tempted child of God, 'that I am not deceived?' Now what is said of these characters? They deny the power. Have you done that?

But what is it to "deny the power?" The power may be denied in various ways.

1. It is denied by some publicly and openly. There are some preachers professing the doctrines of truth, who cut down all experience, and say, 'it is nothing but frames and feelings.' This is to deny the power of godliness. If we have no frames, if we have no feelings, I am very sure the Spirit of God has not made our bodies his temple. If we have never had frames of sweet meditation, a frame of living faith, a frame of divine love, a frame of spiritual-mindedness, a frame of heavenly affections, I am very sure the Spirit of God has never blessed our soul. Again, if I am without feelings--a feeling of sorrow for sin, a feeling of faith towards Jesus, a feeling of love towards his name, a feeling of love towards the brethren; if we are without these gracious feelings, we are dead as stones as to any possession of the life of God. So that, to cut down experience, and say, 'it is nothing but a parcel of frames and feelings,' is to deny the "power of godliness."

You will observe these men do not deny godliness; they dare not do that; but they deny the power of it in the heart of a saint, under the operation of the Spirit. Every jeer and sneer, every taunting speech thrown out against frames and feelings just manifests what a man's heart is; it is opening a door through which you can look indeed into the secrets of his bosom, and there see the serpent coiled up and hissing enmity against God's truth and against his living people.

2. Others deny it by their life and conversation. If a man walks in the lusts of the flesh; if he wallows in uncleanness or drunkenness; if he be altogether given up to the power of pride and covetousness, he denies the power of godliness by his actions as much as the preceding deny it by their words.

Both these characters deny the power of godliness outwardly the one in word, the other in deed.

3. Others, having more regard to conscience, cannot go that length of outward enmity; yet they too deny it inwardly. For instance, are there not those who secretly think there is no absolute need for the soul to be emptied and stripped, and to have a revelation of Christ; and that they can be saved without such an experience of the bitter and the sweet, the sorrows and the joys that the Lord's people speak of? And are not these secret thoughts much strengthened and fostered by those ministers who profess to preach Christ as distinct from, and far superior to experience? What more common than such language as this from the pulpit – 'I cannot bear to hear people talk of their castings down and liftings up; they dwell and pore so much upon self; why do they not go out of self, and look to a precious Jesus?'

I want to know if this is not inwardly denying the power? They dare not say there is no such thing; but they speak of looking out of self to Christ, as if there were no inward experience of Christ, no visitations of his presence and love; and as if all religion consisted in a dry, speculative knowledge, without one inward grain of life and feeling. Their talk of looking to Christ is very plausible and subtle; but its real aim and drift is to deny the power of vital godliness in the heart of a saint.

4. But there are others who deny it virtually and actually by the non-possession of it. For instance, there are many who say they approve of, and that there is nothing like experimental preaching; they will crowd and cram a chapel to hear the experience of God's people traced out; and yet all the while they virtually and actually deny the power of it by the non-possession of it in their hearts. They have imbibed such a knowledge of the plan of experience from constantly hearing it preached, and they are so certain that it is the truth, that they will hear nothing else, and yet the vital power has never reached their conscience.


V. The exhortation, "from such turn away." But how do we turn away from them? We turn away from them when we feel no union with them. I have thought sometimes that we may divide the quickened family of God into three classes. There are those whose religion is commended to our judgment; there are those whose religion is commended to our conscience; and there are those whose religion is commended to our judgment, conscience, and affections. Have you not felt in conversing with people professing godliness that there are some whose religion you receive in your judgment? You dare not say that they have not the fear of God – nor that what they have told you of the dealings of God upon their soul is not genuine. But still what they say does not much enter into your conscience.

Again; there are others who speak of the dealings of God upon their soul so clearly and plainly, so distinctly and undeniably, that what they say is at once commended to our conscience; but still there is something lacking; it does not kindle a secret flame of love within, nor lay hold of our affections. And then there are others whose religion is not merely commended to our judgment and conscience, but to our very heart and soul. These at once leap into our affections; we love them, and cleave to them, and feel a vital union of soul with them.

Now if we can get hold of people in this threefold way, or in any one of them, we are not to "turn away" from them. None of these deny the power of godliness. If we can receive them into our judgment, it is not so good as receiving them into our conscience; and receiving them into our conscience, is not so good as receiving them into our affections. But if we can get them into our judgment, we must not "turn away" from them. But there are those whom we cannot even get into our judgment; their religion seems to be nothing but deceit and delusion. We cannot trace the hand of God in them; we cannot see any distinct marks of the Spirit upon them. From these we are called upon to "turn away."

But we "turn away" from those who deny the power of godliness in several ways.

1. First, we "turn away" from them as regards conversation with them. If people talk to us about religion, and we speak in an approving tone to them, while there is something in our heart which does not believe they are vitally partakers of grace, we are but playing the hypocrite; we are sanctioning that which we know in our conscience we do not approve of. If therefore any person talks to you about divine things, and you cannot receive him into your judgment – if you drop any word that seems to sanction that man's religion, you are plastering him over with untempered mortar, and sewing pillows under his arm-holes. The word of truth bids you "from such turn away;" that is, have no such conversation with him; give him no false hope; bolster him up with no vain expectations.

2. But secondly, the precept implies that you are to "turn away" from receiving him as a member of the church. If a man or woman comes before you wishing to be received into your church – and you cannot in your conscience believe the work of God with all his profession is begun upon him, you are to "turn away" from receiving him.

3. But you are also commanded to "turn away" from those that deny the power of godliness as regards their company. Unless you are persuaded in your judgment, or your conscience, or your affections, that they are living people of God, you are to "turn away" from them so as not to walk with them in seeming fellowship and union. You cannot indeed as the Apostle says 1Co 5:10 go altogether out of the world; nor would we wish to be otherwise than courteous and civil to those who address us in terms of civility and courtesy. But that is another thing from endorsing their religion, and stamping it with our approval, by freely or frequently associating with them. For myself, if I speak a word whereby I express union to those whom I do not receive in my heart, I feel that I am telling God and man a deliberate lie, going against the conviction of my conscience, and doing what I hope God may ever keep me from.

But then, on the other hand, courtesy, kindness and civility are due to all. And if we "turn away" from any because we are not able to take them into our bosom, and cannot, consistently with a good conscience, foster their vain hopes and bolster up their delusive expectations, that is no reason why we should treat them with contempt. The word of truth commands us to "honor all men," and towards the people of God to "put on affections of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, patience."

Now, what testimony have we who desire to fear God's name that we have anything more than a "form of godliness?" We have a form; that is very clear. But have we any living testimony in our conscience that we have something more than the form? Have we ever felt the power? We have no testimony that we are possessors of godliness unless we have felt its power.

But there are children of God there may be some here present this morning who are now, and have been for weeks, or even months, without the feeling power; and they are perhaps writing bitter things against themselves because they are not under those lively feelings that they once enjoyed. But since you have once felt it, have you ever denied the power, or with all your darkness and deadness, do you deny it now? Is not this rather the feeling of your soul? "O that I were as in months past, as in the days when God preserved me; when his candle shined upon my head, and when by his light I walked through darkness" Job 29:2,3. Is not this rather the language of your heart, 'O that the Lord would bless me indeed! would revive his work upon my heart, and give me life and power, to enable me to believe in his name! O that he would visit my soul with some discovery of his love, and bring me out of that gloomy and dark state in which I am so sadly sunk!'

These are the feelings of a living soul. But those who have but the "form of godliness," deny all these exercises. They want no revivings; they are sighing after no manifestations; they never plead with the Lord to look down upon them and bless them; they are satisfied with an outside religion; they are contented with the mere form. If they can deceive themselves and one another, it is enough. But the living soul, who has the fear of God alive in his bosom, is not so satisfied; he wants living manifestations of God's presence, sweet communications of God's mercy, and the blessed overshadowings of the Spirit upon his heart. If he has not them, he feels he has nothing.

Thus, while this text cuts to a thousand pieces those who have but the form, it does not wound the poor mourning child of God who is sighing and crying after the power. Every sigh, cry, and groan that he has on account of his dark, dead, gloomy state are so many living evidences of that power. Whence arise your sighs? What makes you mourn upon your bed? Whence spring those breathings in your soul as you sit by your fire-side after the Lord's presence--that he would speak to your soul, and manifest himself to you? Why, they spring from this conviction deeply wrought in your heart, that nothing but the power of God can reach your soul. All short of that is stamped upon your conscience as nothing.

Now these are the people we are to receive to our bosom, those who have godliness, and those who have the power of godliness. But those that deny it, be it in word, or in deed; be it virtually by their life and conversation, or inwardly and secretly--from such we are to "turn away." This may bring us a bad name; this may load us with hatred and reproach; this may often prove very cutting to our feelings; but we shall in the end reap the benefit of it, in having the secret testimony of an honest conscience, and the smiles of an approving God.

Mark Driscoll's Heretical View of the Atonement

First, some Christians (e.g., Nazarene, Assemblies of God, Foursquare, Calvary
Chapel, Methodist, Christian Church) believe that Jesus died for the sins of all people.
This position is commonly referred to as Arminianism, after James Arminius,
Wesleyanism, named after John Wesley, or Unlimited Atonement. They appeal to those
Scriptures which speak of Jesus dying for all people (2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:1-6; 4:10; Titus 2:11), the whole world (John 1:29; 3:16-17; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; Rev. 5:9), everyone
(Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9), and not wanting anyone to perish (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
Arminians then teach that to be saved, all someone needs to do is simply choose
Jesus.

But, critics point out that if Jesus died to forgive everyone, then everyone would
be saved, which is the heresy of universalism. Additionally, they state that no one will
ever choose Jesus because sinners are spiritually dead (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1), hostile
to God (Rom. 8:7), never seek God (Rom. 3:11), cannot find God (Luke 19:10), do not
choose God, and are only saved when God chooses them (John 15:16) and draws
them (John 6:44, 65).

Second, some Christians (e.g., Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, some
Independent Bible churches) believe that Jesus dies only for the sins of the elect. This
position is commonly referred to as Calvinism, named after John Calvin, Reformed
Theology, or Limited Atonement. They commonly appeal to those Scriptures which
speak of Jesus dying only for some people but not all people (Matt. 1:21; 20:28; 26:28;
Rom. 5:12-19), His sheep (John 10:11, 15, 26-27), His church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25),
the elect (Rom. 8:32-35), His people (Matt. 1:21), His friends (John 15:3), and all
Christians (2 Cor. 5:15; Titus 2:14).

At first glance, Unlimited and Limited Atonement are in opposition. But, that
dilemma is resolved by noting two things. First, the two categories are not mutually
exclusive; since Jesus died for the sins of everyone that means that He also died for the
sins of the elect. Second, Jesus' death for all people does not accomplish the same
thing as His death for the elect. This point is complicated, but is in fact taught in
Scripture (1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1).

Simply, by dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as His possession
and He then applies His forgiveness to the elect by grace and applies His wrath to the
non-elect. Objectively, Jesus' death was sufficient to save anyone, and, subjectively,
only efficient to save those who repent of their sin and trust in Him. This position is
called Unlimited Limited Atonement or Modified Calvinism.

Therefore, Modified Calvinists like the Mars Hill elders do not believe anything
different than Arminians; we simply believe what they believe and more.

Lastly, perhaps the Old Testament sacrificial system provides the best illustration of this both/and position. The High Priest would offer a sacrifice for the sins of the whole nation on the
Day of Atonement; this is, in effect, unlimited atonement. Then, each worshipper would
repent of their own sins as demonstrated by the giving of their own sacrifices for their
sins; this is, in effect, limited atonement.
(Mark Driscoll - Unlimited, Limited Atonement)

JOHN WESLEY'S HATRED OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION AND REPROBATION

But if this be so, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. … This, then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. … the doctrine itself, - that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, - has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. … This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. … How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings! … This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. … this doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. … For supposing the eternal unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian Revelation were not in being, and the other part of mankind must be damned, notwithstanding that Revelation. And what would an infidel desire more? … it is a doctrine full of blasphemy … this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, “Jesus Christ the righteous, “the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth,” as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people. … You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying one thing, and meaning another; as pretending a love which he had not. … It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. … This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. … This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination … Sing, O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! For God, even the mighty God, hath spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof! Here, O death, is thy sting! They shall not, cannot escape; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, O grave, is thy victory! Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil, are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw on them for ever and ever!
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 7 - Pages 376-384)

Q. 74. What is the direct antidote to Methodism, the doctrine of heart-holiness?

A. Calvinism: All the devices of Satan, for these fifty years, have done far less toward stopping this work of God, than that single doctrine. It strikes at the root of salvation from sin, previous to glory, putting the matter on quite another issue. … Be diligent to prevent them, and to guard these tender minds against the predestinarian poison.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 8 - Page 336)

The observing these melancholy examples day by day, this dreadful havoc which the devil makes of souls, especially of those who had begun to run well, by means of this anti-scriptural doctrine, constrains me to oppose it from the same principle whereon I labour to save souls from destruction. Nor is it sufficient to ask, Are there not also many who wrest the opposite doctrine to their own destruction? If there are, that is nothing to the point in question; for that is not the case here. Here is no wresting at all: The doctrine of absolute predestination naturally leads to the chambers of death.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 10 - Pages 257-258)

I apprehend, then, this is no fallacious objection, but a solid and weighty one; and defy any man living, who asserts the unconditional decree of reprobation or preterition, (just the same in effect,) to reconcile this with the scriptural doctrine of a future judgment. I say again, I defy any man on earth to show, how, on this scheme, God can “judge the world in righteousness.”
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 10 - Page 374)

I do not believe (what is only preterition or reprobation in other words) any such absolute election, as implies that all but the absolutely elect shall inevitably be damned. I do not believe the doctrine of irresistible grace, or of infallible perseverance; because both the one and the other implies that election which cannot stand without preterition or reprobation. I do not believe salvation by works. Yet if any man can prove (what I judge none ever did, or ever will) that there is no medium between this and absolute predestination; I will rather subscribe to this than to that, as far less absurd of the two.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 10 - Page 379)

If the salvation of every man that ever was, is, or shall be, finally saved, depends wholly and solely upon an absolute, irresistible, unchangeable decree of God, without any regard either to faith or works foreseen, then it is not, in any sense, by works.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 11 - Page 494)

But if such a Minister should at any time deliberately, and of set purpose, endeavour to establish absolute predestination, or to confute scriptural perfection; then I advise all the Methodists in the congregation quietly to go away.
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 13 - Page 246)

JOHN WESLEY TAUGHT THE HERESY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

That are the benefits we receive by baptism, is the next point to be considered. And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ’s death. … By baptism, we who were “by nature children of wrath” are made the children of God. And this regeneration which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being “grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.” This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord: “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 5.) By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the Apostle, “the washing of regeneration.” … Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit by long-continued wickedness.

(The Works of John Wesley) (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996); (Volume:10 Page:192)

OCCULT HEALING BUILDS THE WORLD'S LARGEST CHURCH: THE INFLUENCE OF PAUL YONGGI CHO

In the course of reading a veritable pile of recent books on a range of charismatic practices including house groups, prophesying and healing, this writer has noticed that many of the advocates of these things have been powerfully impressed by the work of Paul Yonggi Cho, pastor of the largest church in the world, the Full Gospel Central Church in Seoul, Korea. They simply cannot keep quiet about him. Even as one reads the books the size of the congregation goes up; it is growing that fast! If a book was published at the beginning of the 1980s the author tells us that the largest church in the world has 150,000 members and over 100 assistant pastors. The latest books speak of 500,000 members. The church claims 17,000 new members a month, and many Western evangelicals are so overawed by this information that they just cannot wait to start experimenting with Yonggi Cho methods.

American healer John Wimber is such a case. Before turning to charismatic healing he traveled round churches giving lectures on church growth. As he studied this subject he became increasingly depressed by the seeming ineffectiveness of Western evangelism by comparison with the phenomenal growth experienced by charismatic churches in Third World countries. He was particularly impressed by the claim that an estimated 70% of all church growth worldwide is achieved by charismatics. The extraordinary growth of Paul Yonggi Cho's church caught his attention, and he tells us so. Wimber realized that the growth of this church rested on its ministry of signs and wonders such as the casting out of demons and dramatic healings, and he concluded that Western Christians were experiencing blunted evangelism because they were afraid of living and ministering in such an atmosphere of spiritual power.

He tells us, "Through the reports of signs and wonders from Third World students and missionaries, and through a greater understanding of how Western materialism undermines Christians' acceptance of the supernatural, I had begun to open my heart to the Holy Spirit. I wondered, were signs and wonders and church growth like those experienced in Third World countries possible in the United States? I would have to become a pastor again to find out."

John Wimber's enthusiasm for Dr. Paul Yonggi Cho's work is expressed in the course notes of his Signs and Wonders and Church Growth seminars: "Full Gospel Central Church is growing fast because of an emphasis on healing. When Yonggi Cho prays for the sick in the Sunday service, many people are healed... After they are healed by God, they become Christians and good evangelists... this is the secret of church growth of FGCC."

While Paul Yonggi Cho certainly cannot be regarded as the father of the new healing extreme, the extraordinary expansion of his church has caused numerous impressionable pastors and church leaders to fall at his feet as dead. Because of the influence his "success" has had over so many, and also because his methods broadly typify those employed by other mega-churches in Latin America, it is obviously important to become familiar with these methods. Paul Cho's best-known book The Fourth Dimension reveals his theology, which marks a radical departure from historic Christianity.

Pastor Cho tells us how he learned to pray. When he began to pastor his church in Seoul he was very poor and living in one room. Then he wondered what he was doing trying to work without a bed, a desk and chair, or any means of transport, and he began to pray to God for these things to be supplied. He prayed very much for a desk, chair and bicycle, but after six months he was still lacking all three and became very discouraged.

He tells us:
"Then I sat down and began to cry. Suddenly I felt a serenity, a feeling of tranquility came into my soul. Whenever I have that kind of feeling, a sense of the presence of God, He always speaks: so I waited. Then that still, small voice welled up in my soul, and the Spirit said, 'My son, I heard your prayer a long time ago.'
"Right away I blurted out, 'Then, where are my desk, chair and bicycle?'
"The Spirit then said, 'Yes, that is the trouble with you and with all My children. They beg Me, demanding every kind of request, but they ask in such vague terms that I can't answer. Don't you know that there are dozens of desks, chairs and bicycles? But you've simply asked Me for a desk, chair and bicycle. You never ordered a specific desk, chair and bicycle.'

"That was the turning point in my life... "

Yonggi Cho tells us how he then began to specify the size of the desk (which was to be made of Philippine mahogany), and the kind of chair (one made with an iron frame, with rollers on the tips, so that when he sat on it he could push himself around "like a big shot"). He thought long and hard about the kind of bicycle he wanted before settling for the ideal type and praying, "Father, I want to have a bicycle made in the USA, with gears on the side...."

He then tells us how he prayed for his needs: "I ordered these things in such articulate terms that God could not make a mistake in delivering them. Then I felt faith flowing up... that night I slept like a baby."

Paul Cho says that the Lord never welcomes vague prayers. Taking the incident of the healing of blind Bartimaeus he seizes on the fact that Jesus asked this obviously blind man, "What do you want Me to do for you?" as a proof that God insists on our making very specific requests. Until Bartimaeus was specific, Jesus did not heal him. At first glimpse, this idea of highly specific praying may not seem to be the greatest error in the world, but Paul Cho goes on to teach that the believer gets these specific requests supplied by visualizing them and then bringing them into existence by faith!

It is vital to see this because here is the point at which charismatic development leaves Christianity and crosses into the territory of paganism. Ideas like this are the inspiration of the largest church in the world, imitated by so many Western charismatics. Note the following example given by Paul Yonggi Cho.

While fulfilling a preaching engagement in another church he was asked by the pastor if he would pray for a spinster over thirty years of age who longed to get married but had so far not found a prospective husband. Pastor Cho asked her how long she had been praying for a husband, and she replied that it had been more than ten years. He then said, "Why hasn't God answered your prayer for these more than ten years? What kind of husband have you been asking for?" She shrugged her shoulders and replied, "Well, that is up to God. God knows all."

Cho responded with these words: "That is your mistake. God never works by Himself, but only through you. God is the eternal source, but He only works through your requests. Do you really want me to pray for you?" Calling her to sit down with paper and pencil, he proceeded to ask a series of questions:
"If you write down the answers to my questions then I'll pray for you. Number one, now, you really want a husband, but what kind of husband do you want--Asian, Caucasian, or Black?"
"Caucasian."
"Okay, write it down. Number two: do you want your husband to be as tall as six feet, or as small as five feet?"
"Oh, I want to have a tall husband."
"Write that down. Number three: do you want your husband to be slim and nice looking, or just pleasantly plump?"
"I want to have him skinny."
"Write down skinny. Number four: what kind of hobby do you want your husband to have?"
"Well, musical."
"Okay, write down musical. Number five: what kind of job do you want your husband to have?"
"Schoolteacher."
"Close your eyes. Can you see your husband now?"
"Yes, I can see him clearly."
"Okay. Let's order him now. Until you see your husband clearly in your imagination you can't order, because God will never answer. You must see him clearly before you begin to pray."

Pastor Cho then laid hands on the young woman and prayed, saying, "O God, now she knows her husband. We order him in the name of Jesus Christ." He then instructed her to paste the specifications for a husband on a mirror at home, read them night and morning and praise God for the inevitable answer. He teaches the need for a vivid mental picture coupled with a burning desire and a firm conviction that the goal is already accomplished.

Dr. Cho calls this process: visualizing the goal, then incubating it into reality by strength of faith--or would it be will- power? He teaches that believers may order up wealth and success; anything they want as long as it is moral. The key to getting these things is the art of fantasying them, because God cannot bring them into being unless the individual incubates the image. Certainly, Dr. Cho "tidies up" his teaching by saying that people should first pray to God for what He wants them to have before fantasying and incubating these things into reality. But in most of his many examples (like that of the unmarried woman) he dispenses with the need to refer to God for guidance on the details.

Though he attempts to give some biblical justification for his ideas, he tells us that he obtained them in the first place because God communicated them directly to him.

This is his own explanation of how he arrived at his teaching on incubating prayer answers and healing diseases. He tells us that he was driven to finding an explanation of how Buddhist monks in Korea managed to perform better miracles than those which his own Pentecostalist churches could perform. It worried him greatly that many Koreans got healing through yoga meditation, and through attending meetings of the Soka Gakki, a Japanese Buddhist sect with twenty million members.
According to Cho, many deaf, dumb, and blind people had recovered their faculties through these religious groups.

Cho was very jealous of the success which these other religions had in attracting followers. He wrote: "While Christianity has been in Japan for more than a hundred years, with only half a percent of the population claiming to be Christians, Soka Gakki has millions of followers... Without seeing miracles, people cannot be satisfied that God is powerful. It is you [Christians] who are responsible to supply miracles for these people."

Other Korean Pentecostal pastors were also very troubled by these pagan healings because ordinary church members constantly assailed them for an explanation. So, an anxious Paul Yonggi Cho fasted and prayed, looking to God for an explanation. It is noteworthy that in his account of his quest for a solution he makes no mention of looking in the Bible. "Suddenly," he tells us, "a glorious revelation came to my heart... explanations as clear as a sunny day" [The Fourth Dimension, p. 37]. Dr. Cho claims that God spoke to him describing the material world as belonging to the third dimension. In the beginning this three-dimensional world was chaotic, being without form and void, but the Spirit of the Lord (Who is said to dwell in the fourth dimension) brooded over it, visualizing and incubating into existence a new order containing beauty, cleanliness, abundance and above all--life.

Then God told Dr. Cho that because all human beings are spiritual beings (as well as physical beings) they have the fourth dimension in their hearts, and by developing the art of concentrating visions and dreams in their imaginations, they can influence and change the third dimension (material things) just as the Holy Spirit did when He brooded over the primeval earth. According to Cho, God told him that Buddhist and yoga adherents worked "miracle" cures because they explored and developed their human four-dimensional power, imagining mental pictures of health and willing then into their bodies. God told him that all human beings had the power to exercise legitimate dominion over the material world through this fourth-dimensional activity.

Cho claims that the Holy Spirit said to him, "Look at the Soka Gakkai. They belong to Satan... and with the evil fourth dimension they carry out dominion over their bodies and circumstances." Then God told him that Christians should link their fourth-dimensional spiritual power to God the Creator to have even greater control over circumstances than the Soka Gakkai. He concluded: "Soka Gakkai has applied the law of the fourth dimension and has performed miracles; but in Christianity there is only talk about theology and faith!"

Dr. Cho says that when Paul spoke of the "inner man," he was actually referring to his fourth-dimensional power to visualize things and incubate them into life. (He does not explain why Paul fails to say one word about this himself, nor why Christendom has had to wait 2,000 years before this should be revealed through a personal revelation from God to Dr. Cho.) Paul Yonggi Cho's teaching is a system of mind over matter (or rather, imagination over matter).

He frankly admits that it is a "Christianized" version of precisely the same methods practiced by Buddhists, exponents of yoga, and the followers of other pagan, mystical and occult systems. The only difference is that their fourth-dimensional power receives co-operation from the devil, while that of Christians supposedly receives help from the Holy Spirit. He says that so long as we keep our minds from foolish and wrong ideas, we shall keep the canvas of our imagination clean for the Holy Spirit to paint on it the things we are to have. In other words, direct guidance from God will come right into our minds.

Once we receive this direct communication--which is literally God's will for what we may have and do--then we must activate it by the power of our fantasying and dreaming. Dr. Cho sums it up saying--"Your success or failure depends upon your fourth-dimensional thinking: visions and dreams. We see this principle in operation from the very beginning of Scripture."

Abraham is claimed as an example of this process. "How did a one-hundred-year-old man become the father of so many?" asks Paul Cho. "He used fourth-dimensional thinking. He was full of visions and dreams. He learned to incubate in faith... By looking out in every direction, he filled his imagination in a concrete way with God's promise. He was not told to close his eyes when God spoke to him. He was to look at something concrete and substantive... So God expects us also to be active in the incubation of our faith by visualizing the final results of His promise."

Dr. Cho makes the astonishing assertion that God showed this visualization and incubation technique to Jacob in order that he could get enrichment from his uncle, Laban. When Jacob caused the vigorous sheep to pass between the "speckled" rods of poplar, hazel and chestnut, he would stand staring at them, visualizing spotted and speckled offspring. By visualizing the desired objective, Jacob activated the Holy Spirit, Who--"punched the proper keys for the necessary genes" (Dr. Cho's words), so that Jacob's cattle began to give birth to spotted and speckled offspring.

Dr. Cho says that his massive church grew to its present size and continues to grow because he follows this principle of visualization. He first imagines his church growing to a certain figure, and he then visualizes all the faces and incubates the vision into reality. Similarly, when he seeks the expansion of his television ministry, he imagines it being aired throughout Korea, Japan, the United States, and Canada. He pins up maps of these countries in his office and he the develops a mental vision of the transmitters beaming the programs.

He informs us that Sarah, like Abraham, had to visualize he child into existence. Yonggi Cho notes that at first she laughed at the idea that God would make her a mother at the age of ninety, but soon, he asserts, she got down to visualizing the return of her youth. Where do we read in the Bible that she began to visualize the return of her youth? The answer is--nowhere, but as every other assertion of extreme charismatic writers like Paul Yonggi Cho, the most amazing things are "read into" the Scripture. Thoughts and actions are constantly attributed to biblical characters about which the sacred narrative says nothing.

Dr. Cho has his own version of events when he tells us that as Sarah dwelt upon the promise of God a physical change soon began to take place in her body, with the result that King Abimelech found the old woman so attractive that he tried to take her as his concubine. Cho concludes--"If a woman begins to think of herself as attractive, she can be. Not only will physical changes take place, but her self-image will change..."

Healing may be accomplished by precisely the same technique, and Pastor Cho tells the story of a man who was knocked down and terribly injured by a taxi while doing his Christmas shopping. When the pastor got the hospital, the man was unconscious and was not expected to survive the night. Believing that fourth-dimensional visualizing was vital to his recovery, Cho prayed that the man be given five minutes of consciousness. Immediately the man recovered consciousness and Cho began to speak to him, saying, "I know you are thinking... you are already envisioning death.

But God wants you to participate in the miracle that is going to take place. The reason you have regained you consciousness is that God wants to use your fourth-dimensional power and begin to paint a new portrait upon the canvas of your heart. I want you to start painting a new picture of yourself in your imagination. You are on the way home and no accident has taken place. You knock on the door and your lovely wife answers. She looks very pretty. On Christmas day she opens up her present and you feel so proud you have such good taste.

"The next morning you wake up and have a good breakfast with your family. In other words, you are erasing death from your mind and you're painting a picture of happiness... You leave the praying to me! I will pray in faith and you agree with me! I just ask your ability to dream and see your health and happiness!"

This was the way the man was taught to incubate the image of health. We have to learn, says Cho, to always visualize the final result and in that way we can incubate what we want God to do for us. He claims that the moment the injured man stopped asking if God was going to heal him, the bed began to shake and God performed a miracle.

Paul Yonggi Cho teaches that all Christians should aim to prosper in body, soul and spirit, and their success and failure in this is due entirely to their success or failure in visualizing. He writes that his church members have so proved these principles of success that there have been no bankruptcies in his church, and the membership has undertaken the largest and most expensive church-building program in all history.

However, one cannot always take Pastor Cho's claims very seriously, for elsewhere he writes of how his own bankruptcy was all but inevitable, and how he stood on the very verge of suicide through the near failure of his church-building project. In the end he was only saved by church members taking such sympathetic action that many sold their homes and most precious possessions to bail him out.

Needless to say, when we come to the Bible we cannot find any of these instructions or ideas. We look in vain for any advice about visualizing, incubating, imagining, or any other technique of sorcery or will-power designed to dominate God and to take away His sovereignty over the lives of His people. In the Bible we find that even an apostle like Paul is obliged to ask God in a humble, dependent way if he might be enabled to visit the people of a certain church--subject to the will of God.

The Apostle Paul, judged in the light of Paul Cho's books, was a dismal failure because he knew what it felt like to be abased, to endure hardship, and to encounter many, many difficulties. So often events did not turn out according to his wish or endeavor as a servant of Christ. Paul evidently made the mistake of neg ative thinking--accepting trials and tribulations. Overall he failed miserably in the use of his fourth-dimensional powers, never proving successful at fantasying or willing anything into existence.

To get God's guidance or blessing, Dr. Cho teaches that we must ask the Lord to reveal His will by putting a desire for the intended thing into our heart. Then God must be asked to give a sign to confirm that the "desire" is from Him. (This sign might amount to anything! A small coincidence will do.) Then, if we have peace about the desired thing we should "jump up and go... miracle after miracle will follow you... constantly train yourself to think in terms of miracles."

Absolute confidence in ideas which spring into the mind as "desires" is a characteristic of Dr. Cho. Faith, according to his teaching, is not merely trusting that God will do those things which He has promised to do in His Word. Faith is redefined as having absolute trust in desires which come subjectively into one's mind, for these ideas or desires are assumed to be direct communications from God, and we must therefore develop unshakable confidence in them. If we take these ideas and imagine and incubate them into reality, then we are promised "miracles," and these should be our lifelong experience.

Paul Yonggi Cho soon added another stage to the process of visualizing and incubating miracles--"the creative power of the spoken word." He says that he would often see on his "mind screen" a kind of television picture of growths is appearing, cripples throwing away their crutches, and so on. Then, he claims, God said to him: "You can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in your church... but nothing will happen--no soul will be saved, no broken home rejoined, until you speak the word. Don't just beg and beg for what you need. Give the word... "

Cho replied, "Lord, I'm sorry. I'll speak forth." Ever since that time whenever he has seen in his mind cripples healed or tumors disappearing, he has spoken out, saying, "Someone here is being healed of such and such," and he has named the disease. He claims that hundreds of people are healed every Sunday when he closes his eyes and calls out all the healings which he sees in his mind.

Interestingly, the vision or revelation which he claims led him to this technique is strikingly similar to that which is claimed (some years later) by John Wimber, an acknowledged admirer of Cho's ministry. Like all "healers," Dr. Cho is forced to acknowledge that not everyone is successfully healed by his word. He cannot claim the infallibility of the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles. He admits to many bothersome failures, but he claims that these are always due to lack of faith on the part of the sufferer.

Dr. Cho expresses his disappointment that many Western people are bypassing Christianity and looking in Oriental temples for miraculous powers which he and others are now making available in Christian churches! He says, "Evangelical Christians are increasingly understanding how to use their imaginations by learning how to speak the language of the Holy Spirit--visions and dreams."

With all this in view we have no problem in identifying the strands which make up Paul Cho's new "synthesis" religion. The Korean people have an ancient religion called Sinkyo, which sees the world as a "religious arena inhabited by spirits." Tragedies, troubles and illnesses can be cured by the Mudany, a woman priest who can interact with the spirits. She is the local "medical priest," combining the roles of a medium and prophetess. She receives clairvoyant insights, goes into trances, casts out devils and cures diseases.

Korea has also for centuries been heavily influenced by Buddhism, particularly the form already mentioned which places great stress on healing and divining. It is taught that people do not need to be in bondage to their circumstances; they can, by right attitudes, by concentration, and by uniting with the eternal realm, get above suffering and sickness. The religious disposition of the Koreans is both harnessed and exploited by the "Christianity" of Paul Yonggi Cho in his blatant mix of sorcery, mind-over-matter, self-interest, Sinkyo, Japanese Buddhism and Christianity. But to mix pagan ideas and practices with the pure religion of Christ is condemned in Scripture as the heinous sin of idolatry. It is a marriage of Christianity and the occult, and is forbidden by God -- "What communion hath light with darkness? And--What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"

What has built the largest church in the world?

The answer is, an idolatrous mixture of biblical teaching and pagan mind- techniques.God is deprived of His sovereignty in the believer's affairs, and the authority of Scripture is replaced by the authority of supposedly direct messages from God and the product of the imagination.

This is the kind of church which has moved hordes of impressionable Christian teachers the world over to jump on to the healing-prophesying bandwagon. We need to take very great care in these days.

Look at the books which charismatics and neo-evangelicals are writing today. They are commending these things. Look at healing advocates like John Wimber. They are deeply impressed by these things. These are the teachings which have captured their minds! This is the brand of Third World Christianity they are so anxious to emulate.

What are we to say to these things?

Remember the Judaizers!

By Peter Masters

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES

BENNY HINN SAYS HE WANTS TO KILL HIS CRITICS

BENNY HINN CURSES HIS CRITICS

THE THREE RING CIRCUS OF TODD BENTLEY

MARK DRISCOLL SAYS THAT JOEL OSTEEN IS HIS CHRISTIAN BROTHER

"Who's the happiest christian preacher out there? I'll give you an example his name is Joel Osteen...He is my christian brother, I do believe that...And I'll tell you what doesn't bother me about the guy. It doesn't bother me that he's got a big church, it doesn't bother me that that he is on the radio, it doesn't bother me that he is on the tv it doesn't bother me that he publishes books, it doesn't even bother me that he is happy all the time because maybe his spiritual gift is encouragement."
(Mark Driscoll - "The Rebel's Guide to Joy")

MARK DRISCOLL SAYS THAT JESUS LUSTED AFTER WOMEN

Mark Driscoll says that Jesus lusted after women and wanted to sleep with his female disciples.

"If you're tempted to these sorts of things -- including sexual sin -- some of you say, "Now Mark, Jesus wasn't sexually tempted." Well, of course he was -- 30 something year old single man who had women who adored him. You don't think he ever wanted the comfort of a woman? You don't think he ever got tired of going to bed by himself? You don't think that he didn't once want to have intimate relations with a woman? He was tempted."
(Mark Driscoll - “How Human was Jesus?”, October 15th 2006.)

"Could Jesus have Sinned?
While systematic theologians have spilled much ink on this point, the precise biblical answer is that we do not know. The Bible never addresses, much less answers, the question. Some will find this disturbing, but the Bible is clear that humility is the first requirement for a good theologian, so that we can be satisfied with what the God of the universe thinks we need to know."
(Mark Driscoll - "Vintage Jesus" - Could Jesus have sinned? - Page 52)

MARK DRISCOLL

"In my own life, I occasionally receive prophetic dreams, where God tells me about people and circumstances in the future that ultimately come to pass just like God said. Occasionally, just a few occasions, I've had God audibly speak to me. As far as I know, I've never been visited by an angel. But I do, and we do believe, in these kinds of supernatural, miraculous ways that God specially reveals."
(Mark Driscoll - Christian Doctrine part 2 - What is Revelation?)

"I started praying to God, "God, I love Grace and I want to marry her. Should she be the girl that I should marry?" I'd never really considered God much in the equation prior to that. And God spoke to me audibly. He doesn't do that all the time. He said to marry Grace, plant churches, train men and preach the Bible. And so I called Grace and said, "Well, God said that we're supposed to get married."
(Mark Driscoll - Christian Doctrine series - Incarnation: God comes - Part 1)

"I was at Washington State when God told me to move back home, start up a family and plant a church in Seattle,"

"Dude, when God speaks to you, it's the sort of thing you're just not going to forget."

BRANDAN KRAFT'S VIOLATION OF REVELATION 22:18-19

"We think the book of James is trash...I personally cannot find anything of redeeming value from the book of James"
(Brandan Kraft - July 19th, 2007 (Kraft posted the following quote on his forum in a thread titled, "James Exposed." The remark was made in Brandan Kraft's first post on the very first page of the thread).


Brandan Kraft wrote:

"There are other topics in James that I also find questionable such as chapter 5. What is James' primary beef with rich people? It's almost like it has gnostic roots."

“Nicholas, it has [been] posted numerous times on here, I don't think anyone here resents anyone for embracing the book of James as "canonical." Yes it is in the canon, but reprobates put together the "Canon." The "canon" as everyone calls it is an invention of men. Usually, it's the supporters of the "canon" that resent the dissenters. They can't stand that we think the book of James is trash. I don't think there was any conflict here, and I agree, there is a lot of inspired writing out there that is not in the canon that in my opinion is authoritative. You'll even find some of it right on this website."


In the same post the heretic Brandan Kraft writes:

“I personally cannot find anything of redeeming value from the book of James or from the account of his life found in the gospels and the books of Acts other than the fact that it simply reminds us that we will never be free of the leglizers until Jesus returns. We are experiencing the tribulation that began with "certain" followers of James. . . .”
(Brandan Kraft - July 19th, 2007 - "James Exposed.").

"To say James is authoritative because it's in the bible is about as dumb a statement that can be made because the BIBLE is not authoritative. The BIBLE is a COLLECTION of books that a group of men DECIDED was authoritative."

"I despise the book of James!"
(Brandan Kraft - Myspace profile)

What does God's word say about this heresy and hatreed towards his word?

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Below is an excerpt from a short study or Revelation 22:18-19, the link to the full article is at the bottom of this page.



Already in Deuteronomy 4:2 God said, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you”.

God anticipated that the children of Israel would tamper with the Word of God. But Deuteronomy 4:2 is not as strongly worded as Revelation 22:18-19, because Deuteronomy 4:2 only concerns the commandments of God.

We also read in Proverbs 30:5-6 the equivalent of Revelation 22:18, where God says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar”.

And as you know, “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone”.

What is the main problem with adding or taking away from the words of the Bible?

There Is No Fear of God Before Their Eyes (2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

In the second letter of Peter God addresses the problem of false teachers who quietly shall bring into the church damnable heresies.

Why will they do that?

It is because there is money to be made in those heresies, and moreover, “There is no fear of God before their eyes”.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Verse 20 says that we may not approach the Bible with our own interpretation. We may not come to our neighbor and say, “Whatever the Bible means to you is the truth for you”, for the next verse says that the words in the Bible are words from God. God spoke in old time through the mouths of holy men of God, and what they said and what they wrote are words that were given them by God the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we may not invent an interpretation that comes out of our own mind, or invent an interpretation that came from the culture of those days. It must be an interpretation that harmonizes with the remainder of the Word of God, for God cannot lie. And thus we must approach the Bible with awe and respect, and with fear and trembling, as if God was speaking to us personally.

A passage that is often quoted in support of 2 Peter 1:21 is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where God says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”.

What it all boils down to is this:
God spoke the words of the Bible, and we better listen carefully, or else we may be guilty of contempt of God. At any time that we encounter a passage that we must understand, or a problem that we face in our life we must ask:

What did God say?

What is God’s opinion about this matter?

Holy men of God spoke and wrote the words that God moved them to write. In the Old Testament God’s words were written in Hebrew, and in the New Testament God’s words were written in Greek. We have in our hands the KJV, which is as close as possible a word by word translation out of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and out of the Greek Textus Receptus. These are the two most reliable documents of the Word of God.

Which God Are We Worshipping? (John 1:1, Revelation 19:11-13, James 3:1)

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here in this verse the Lord Jesus Christ is called “The Word”, the Logos. Moreover, when God says “the Word was God” He underscores that Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, but He is fully God.

In many other parts of the Bible God identifies “the Logos” with the Word of God, the Bible. And thus we come to recognize that the Bible, the Word of God, is identified with the Lord Jesus Christ. God confirms this conclusion in Revelation 19:11-13, where Christ appears as the Judge of all the world, and He is given the name: “Word of God”

Revelation 19:11-12
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

What does this tell us about the Word of God?

It tells us that the Bible, the Word of God, from cover to cover, is a description of the Lord Jesus Christ. And now the adding or taking away from the Word of God enters into the equation. The Bible is our Authority. Not only is it a description of the Lord Jesus Christ, but it also has become the Authority that we obey. If then we would add or take away from the Bible we would produce another authority over us, and thus another god which rules over us.

Let us consider a vivid picture of our actions:
When we add to the Bible by claiming additional messages from God, like the Roman church has done through the centuries by adding the utterances of the saints as if they were inspired by God, then we have changed the face of Christ.

Every time we add another message from God, it is as if we have produced another lump on the face of Christ, and thus we have produced another god, which does not look at all like Christ.

Every time we take away from the Word of God it is as if we have gouged out a piece of flesh out of the face of Christ, and thus we have produced another god, which does not look at all like Christ. And thus we would engage in the sin of idolatry. The sin of idolatry is the sin that God hates most of all.

Revelation 21:8 says that idolaters have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. And the false teachers who have created these idols, who lead others with them into Hell, shall receive the hottest place in Hell according to James 3:1. And thus we can see that the doctrine of Revelation 22:18-19 is a most useful doctrine, for it gives us the discernment to know right from wrong. This is the sharp edge of the sword of the Spirit. This is the most useful tool God has given us to defend ourselves against the wiles of the Devil and against all the evil forces that try to persuade us to come to their side. Even if one day we would stand all alone, we would still see right from wrong. Praise God that He has given us this tool of discernment.

AMEN.

To read the full article please click below.

http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/a-short-study-of-revelation-2218-19/

ROBERT HIGBY'S ATTACK AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD

"So to Calvin; every word enshrined in the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and James are as sacred and certain as the person and work of Jesus Christ himself."
(Robert Higby - 27th December 2005 - Calvin's 66 book canon)


"The present writer does not believe the Christocentric hermeneutic supports Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as having canonical authority."
(quote taken from - The Biblical Canon Study #3: Identifying the Old Testament Canon (study #2) - October 2005)


Here is what Higby says about "Song of Songs" in the same study.

"The Song of Songs is merely a discourse of human love and romance...It is simply the poetic view of two individuals on what constitutes great romance and sex; nothing more. It is not even a standard as to how all must view what constitutes great romance and sex."

Now Higby moves on to attack Esther.

"The doctrine of revenge present in Esther is against the whole of Old Testament revelation, let alone New Testament revelation. Therefore, Esther is to be rejected as canonical."
(Robert Higby - October 8th 2005 - From the thread titled: The multi level canon)

And...

"Esther 9 adds to the law, it is as simple as that. The Law of Moses, according to Christ himself, is not to be added to. Also, the feasts of Lev. 23 are the complete and inspired prophetic picture of Christ's Messianic work. To institute new feasts AS JEWISH LAW, especially ones based on questionable historical acts, this is forbidden."
(Robert Higby - October 19th 2005 - the Multi level canon.)

Robert Higby wrote:
"The main theological problems with Mark 16:9ff are two, as I see it:

1. The ’signs’ that are predicted to follow those that believe have not really been manifested as such, at least to some degree (the drinking of poison and avoiding death, etc.) and

2. Mark 16:16 teaches that ’he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved,’ whereas Paul and John clearly teach that genuine belief with an AMEN (faith alone) evidences salvation. The water may be a testimony to the gospel but the lack of it does not negate eternal life! "


For a biblically accurate teaching of Baptism in Mark 16:16 please read the following article.

http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/what-baptism/

Robert Higby even has some issues he'd like to deal with regarding 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.


Robert Higby wrote:
"There are some very minor issues with 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, etc. but they are not worth a major argument and I would prefer to deal with the largest issue first."


This third quote is further proof that he rejects Esther, Ecclesiastes and James and his reason why.

"My personal rejection of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and James is the false doctrine that they contain; the same reasons for rejecting other apocryphal works."
(Robert Higby - January 4th 2006 - 'Calvin's 66 book Canon')


And finally we finish with Higby's "trouble" accepting 3 John as scripture along with 2 Peter and James.

"For me, the remaining 4 NT books that were originally antilegomena remain an open issue for study. I have the most trouble with 3 John, as it has no attestation of existence until the 3rd century (like James and 2 Peter) and gives no definite gospel testimony. Plus we do not know anything about who the characters mentioned in that book actually were historically."
(Robert Higby - July 21st 2007 - From the thread 'James Exposed')

Here is what God has to say against such heresy.

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

2 Peter 3:17-18
...Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

GOD'S MERCY AND GRACE

“Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life…”
Genesis 19:19

The religious leaders in Christ’s day on earth, falsely assumed that because they were blessed with riches, religious esteem, and were prospering in this life, that they were therefore objects of God’s grace.

Our Lord in Matthew 23 used very condemning language to show them that anything outward is purely temporal and is NO indication of being God’s children. One might well be rich and condemned, just as one may well be poor and saved, Luke 16:18-20.

The distinction between "grace" and "mercy" is necessary to make.

In grace there is always mercy...particular and distinct, based on the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Lot’s own confession is that of all who are taught by the Lord’s Spirit.

There is mercy to be had, and they cry for it, but only on the basis of God’s saving sovereign grace toward them because of the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus.

On the other hand, there are many mercies of God manifest toward even the non-elect (breath, food, comfort, health and prosperity) that are not necessarily evidences of grace.

In truth, anything this side of hell is a mercy, but just because God has not yet cast a soul into hell, in no way means that they are objects of His saving grace. Mercy may be described as God withholding what we deserve as elect ones (Lamentations 3:22), even as it may be described as God withholding hell for a time from reprobates (Nehemiah 9:27).

However, mercy alone is not salvation. God causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust without distinction, Matthew 5:45.

God may withhold eternal judgment from many for awhile, all the while prospering their temporal lives. Because of this many are puffed up in pride by such mercies, assuming themselves to be ‘blessed,’ when in reality, it is just God hardening them further against the day of wrath - Romans 2:25

Nonetheless, mercy given with grace is unique, particular, and determinate on behalf of sinners that God has chosen, redeemed and justified in Christ - Ephesians 2:8,9. In due time, God does reveal Christ in them, and they do therefore rejoice in the grace of God, more so even than the temporal mercies.

Do you know the gift of Christ and grace AND mercy in Him because of His righteousness imputed, and thankful for them, as much as the daily gifts of life He gives to sustain you in your earthly pilgrimage?

By Ken Wimer

BRANDAN KRAFT AND ROBERT HIGBY'S ATTACK AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD

"We think the book of James is trash...I personally cannot find anything of redeeming value from the book of James"
(Brandan Kraft - July 19th, 2007 (Kraft posted the following quote on his forum in a thread titled, "James Exposed." The remark was made in Brandan Kraft's first post on the very first page of the thread).


What does God have to say about Brandan Kraft's remarks?

Luke 9:26
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall
the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his
Father’s, and of the holy angels."

Revelation 22:18-19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

This heresy originated with a man named Robert Higby, and Brandan Kraft is a faithful disciple of Robert Higby.
Higby accuses John Calvin of selecting the 66 Books of God's Bible to be the official canon, and then Higby writes the following on the 27th of December 2005 (in the thread titled "Calvin's 66 book canon"):

"So to Calvin; every word enshrined in the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and James are as sacred and certain as the person and work of Jesus Christ himself."

Thus, we clearly see Higby mocking God's Holy Word.
The true follower of Jesus Christ knows that it is God Himself who put together His Word into one cohesive whole.

Robert Higby wrote:
"The present writer does not believe the Christocentric hermeneutic supports Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as having canonical authority."
(quote taken from - The Biblical Canon Study #3: Identifying the Old Testament Canon (study #2) - October 2005)

Here is what Higby says about "Song of Songs" in the same study.

"The Song of Songs is merely a discourse of human love and romance...It is simply the poetic view of two individuals on what constitutes great romance and sex; nothing more. It is not even a standard as to how all must view what constitutes great romance and sex."

Now Higby moves on to attack The Book of Esther.

"The doctrine of revenge present in Esther is against the whole of Old Testament revelation, let alone New Testament revelation. Therefore, Esther is to be rejected as canonical."
(October 8th 2005 - From the thread titled: The multi level canon)

And...

"Esther 9 adds to the law, it is as simple as that. The Law of Moses, according to Christ himself, is not to be added to. Also, the feasts of Lev. 23 are the complete and inspired prophetic picture of Christ's Messianic work. To institute new feasts AS JEWISH LAW, especially ones based on questionable historical acts, this is forbidden."
(Robert Higby - October 19th 2005 - the Multi level canon.)

Here is another attack on the Epistle of James by Brandan Kraft.

Brandan Kraft wrote:
"There are other topics in James that I also find questionable such as chapter 5. What is James' primary beef with rich people? It's almost like it has gnostic roots."

Brandan must be blind to the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ said:

Luke 6:24
But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

and..

Matthew 19:23
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The reader should clearly be able to see that what James writes about rich people is in perfect harmony with the words of Jesus Christ himself in the gospels.

The following is Brandan Kraft's response to individuals who reject his heresy:

"These people are on crack!"

Yet God says:
Proverbs 10:18
"....he that uttereth a slander, is a fool."

And if that wasn’t enough, two days later, on July 19, 2007, in the James Exposed Thread, Brandan wrote [Post #11]:

"Yes it is in the canon, but reprobates put together the "Canon." The "canon" as everyone calls it is an invention of men. Usually, it's the supporters of the "canon" that resent the dissenters. They can't stand that we think the book of James is trash. I don't think there was any conflict here, and I agree, there is a lot of inspired writing out there that is not in the canon that in my opinion is authoritative. You'll even find some right here on this website."

Brandan Kraft continues:

“I personally cannot find anything of redeeming value from the book of James or from the account of his life found in the gospels and the book of Acts other than the fact that it simply reminds us that we will never be free of the legalizers until Jesus returns. We are experiencing the tribulation that began with "certain" followers of James. . . .”

Below is what Monty Collier wrote on Brandan Kraft's forum before being banned for posting an entire exegesis of James 2 which was removed by Brandan.

"Has anyone considered what happened after the conversion of Paul?
Everyone knew that Saul sought to kill the Christians.
When the Lord saved Saul, God had to speak to Ananias in a special way and show him that Saul was now a Christian (Acts 9:10-16).
When Paul came to the other disciples they did not believe he was a Christian. He had to demonstrate his faith. He did this by preaching sound doctrine (Acts 9:20-21).
Those that heard him were amazed. They were witnessing God's power. When Saul came to Jerusalem the disciples also did not believe him to be a Christian. They knew his former profession. But Barnabas gave evidence of Saul's conversion (Acts 9:26-27).

"Saul's new profession, his works of counfounding the Jews (Acts 9:22) all gave evidence of his conversion.

"Paul himself agrees with James in the first chapter of Galatians. He understood that our faith had to be professed, confessed, defended, and demonstrated before men. Galatians 1:23-24 is an outworking of Christ's teaching in Matthew 5:13-16.
Paul's profession and good works resulted in his acceptance among the church. Among those Christians who knew him only as a persecutor of the faithful, this brought them to accept him as a Christian and to glorify God! Paul states, "But they had heard only, that he which persecutes us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed" (Galatians 1:23). Notice how Paul himself emphasizes how his previous profession and works were compared to his present profession and works among them.James, therefore, is in complete agreement with Paul when he states, "Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18).
James is in complete agreement because he is not talking about how God justifies a man. The context of the entire Book of James demonstrates that James is not writing on how God justifies a man. Logic and context rule in the interpretation of Scripture. The mistake that Higby, Gill, and Nicholas have made is that they have equivocated on the term 'justify'. The word has more than one meaning. The context determines the meaning. Alvin Plantinga once wrote a book called "Warranted Christian Belief."In this book he tries to justify Christianity as an acceptable intellectual position, that is, he was trying to prove to other men, among other things, that you can be Christian and intelligent. No one thought Plantinga was teaching Justification by Faith Alone in that book. The point is that the word has a demonstrative meaning and a legal meaning. Paul uses the legal meaning in Romans and James uses the demonstrative meaning in James.

"Concerning James 1:17, Bob thinks that because a Muslim can interpret this verse according to his own belief system that the verse must be rejected. This is absurd. The ability to misinterpret, does not negate the fact that there is a correct interpretation. Just because one does not understand a verse, a chapter, or even an entire Book of the Bible, does not mean that they should tear out that which is obscure to them.Thomas Jefferson also tore out many parts of the Bible in order to accomodate his own Deistic system of belief.

"He, like some on P-net, justified his actions by appealing to his own understanding of history.

"The reason Catholics and Arminians read and interpret James in this manner is to attack Sola Fide. The reason Higby, Kraft, and Nicholas take the Catholic interpretation is to attack the book itself. Let me just point out that regardless their motives, they have taken that first step back to the Roman Catholic Church. "
By Monty Collier


Brandan Kraft wrote:
"To say James is authoritative because it's in the bible is about as dumb a statement that can be made because the BIBLE is not authoritative. The BIBLE is a COLLECTION of books that a group of men DECIDED was authoritative."

Below the reader will see further proof that Robert Higby seems intent on attacking the very words of Almighty God.

First he expresses his objections to Mark 9-18 being authentic.


Robert Higby writes:

"The main theological problems with Mark 16:9ff are two, as I see it:

"1. The ’signs’ that are predicted to follow those that believe have not really been manifested as such, at least to some degree (the drinking of poison and avoiding death, etc.) and

"2. Mark 16:16 teaches that ’he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved,’ whereas Paul and John clearly teach that genuine belief with an AMEN (faith alone) evidences salvation. The water may be a testimony to the gospel but the lack of it does not negate eternal life! "


For a biblically accurate teaching of Baptism in Mark 16:16 please read the following article.

http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/what-baptism/

Robert Higby even has some issues he'd like to deal with in 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.


Higby writes:

"There are some very minor issues with 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, etc. but they are not worth a major argument and I would prefer to deal with the largest issue first."


This third quote is further proof he rejects The Books of Esther, Ecclesiastes and James. Why you ask?


Higby explains:

"My personal rejection of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and James is the false doctrine that they contain; the same reasons for rejecting other apocryphal works."
(Robert Higby - January 4th 2006 - 'Calvin's 66 book Canon')

Finally, we finish with Higby's "trouble" accepting 3 John as Scripture along with 2 Peter and James.

"For me, the remaining 4 NT books that were originally antilegomena remain an open issue for study. I have the most trouble with 3 John, as it has no attestation of existence until the 3rd century (like James and 2 Peter) and gives no definite gospel testimony. Plus we do not know anything about who the characters mentioned in that book actually were historically."
(Robert Higby - July 21st 2007 - From the thread 'James Exposed')

The final quote is from Brandan Kraft's myspace profile. Under the question of his favourite books he writes:

"...Dead Sea Scrolls, Most of the books from what is referred to as the "Bible" - I despise the book of James!"

The Dead Sea Scrolls are those which Brandan Kraft states are inspired by God and authoritative.

Here is the quote again:

Brandan Kraft writes:
"There is a lot of inspired writing out there that is not in the canon that in my opinion is authoritative."

Here is a final word from A.W.Pink:

"In Romans 3:28 the Apostle Paul declared “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” and then produces the case of Abraham to prove his assertion. But the Apostle James, from the case of the same Abraham, draws quite another conclusion, saying, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). This is one of the “contradictions in the Bible” to which infidels appeal in support of their unbelief. But the Christian, however difficult he finds it to harmonize passages apparently opposite, knows there cannot be any contradiction in the Word of God. Faith has unshaken confidence in the inerrancy of Holy Writ. Faith is humble too and prays, “That which I see not teach Thou me” (Job. 34:32). Nor is faith lazy; it prompts its possessor unto a reverent examination and diligent investigation of that which puzzles and perplexes, seeking to discover the subject of each separate book, the scope of each writer, the connections of each passage."

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

2 Peter 3:17-18
...Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Isaiah 40:7-8
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Below is a list of further scripture references refering to those who pervert and dismantle Scripture:

Wrest Scripture: 2 Peter 3:15-17

Perverting the word: Jeremiah 23:36

No tampering with the Word of God: Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6

Adding man's traditions: Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:6-9, 13; Colossians 2:8.

Idle words: Matthew 12:36.

KENNETH COPELAND AND THE GOSPEL OF HIS OWN MAKING

Kenneth Copeland stands today as one of the Faith Movement’s leading spokesmen. His numerous materials, combined with his crusades and international outreach centres, attest to his vast influence. Copeland is responsible for spreading many of the Faith Movement’s unbiblical teachings.

The Force of Faith

Of the multiple views of faith held by Faith teachers, Copeland focuses primarily on an understanding of faith as a force. “Faith is a power force,” he claims. “It is a tangible force. It is a conductive force.” Moreover, “faith is a spiritual force … It is substance. Faith has the ability to affect natural substance.” As “the force of gravity … makes the law of gravity work … this force of faith … makes the laws of the spirit world function.” Copeland affirms that “God cannot do anything for you apart or separate from faith,” for “faith is God’s source of power.” Moreover, “everything that you’re able to see or touch, anything that you can feel, anything that’s perceptive to the five physical senses, was originally the faith of God, and was born in the substance of God’s faith.” In other words, “faith was the raw material substance that the Spirit of God used to form the universe.”

Copeland mistakenly derives his erroneous definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Neither the original Greek text nor any English translations support Copeland’s understanding of faith. The same holds true for his understanding of spoken words. Besides, the idea of words functioning as faith-filled containers makes no sense if there is no such thing as a “force of Faith” (requiring packaging and transportation) in the first place.

A God of Human Proportions

Copeland’s view of God fares no better biblically than his understanding of faith. He describes God as someone “very much like you and me … A being that stands around six foot two inches or six foot three inches, that weighs around a couple of hundred pounds, and has a [hand] span nine inches across.” Copeland’s statement is based on his misreading of Isaiah 40:12 (“Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the [nine inch] span …”). Yet, following the same line of interpretation, Hagin’s 6 foot or so god must also have “weighed the mountains in [a gigantic set of] scales, and the hills in a [huge] balance” (v. 12b).

However, the Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physical features like His human creation. Human-like descriptions were simply meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus declared, “God is spirit” (John 4:24), not a spirit-being with a body (cf. Deuteronomy 4:12). The Creator is, after all, “God, and not man” (Hosea 11:9). Copeland’s diminished view of God is further amplified by a correspondingly inflated view of the universe in general and man in particular. He claims that the earth is “a copy of the mother planet [i.e., heaven] where God lives.” Exactly how Copeland could “squeeze” God on any planet is difficult to fathom, especially since Solomon pointed out that heaven itself cannot contain the infinite God (1 Kings 8:27).

Members of God’s Class

Copeland overemphasises similarities between God and man to the point where any distinction becomes virtually nil: “God’s reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself … Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus … Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh.” Actually, the terms “image” and “likeness” refute Copeland’s point. The Hebrew word for “likeness” (demuth) simply means similarity or resemblance, not identity.

Copeland states that “man was created to know that great life force and he longs for it in his dreams. Adam had that life force in him before he committed high treason.” This is yet another sense in which Copeland believes Adam was created in God’s class for he was made to partake of “the unseen force that makes God, God.” This destroys the vital distinction between the infinite Creator and His finite creature.

Covenant of Convenience

According to Copeland, “God had no avenue of lasting faith or moving in the earth. He had to have covenant with somebody … He had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn’t come.” In fact, “the reason that He’s making covenant is to get into the earth.” “God is on the outside looking in,” says Copeland. “In order to have any say-so in the earth, he’s gonna have to be in agreement with a man here.” “Since man was the key figure in the Fall,” Copeland argues, “man had to be the key figure in the redemption, so God approached a man named Abram.” An agreement was struck between God and Abram that “gave God access to the earth.” God, in turn, “promised to care for Abraham and his descendants in every way—spiritually, physically, financially, socially.”

Commenting on the “deal,” Copeland writes that God “re-enacted with Abram what Satan had done with Adam, except that God did not sneak in and use deception … and Abram bought it.” As his comments indicate, Copeland views divine covenants no differently from business contracts. They are benefit-oriented, not relationship-oriented. They are formed by mutual agreement (for mutual benefit) through negotiation, as opposed to being initiated by the stronger party offering non-negotiable help (not of necessity but of grace)—which is the traditional Christian understanding of God’s covenants. They focus on the fulfilment of certain terms (performance) rather than personal loyalty. Copeland himself states that “the Word of the living God is a contract.” (For the biblical teaching of God’s covenant as a living, spiritual bond between Him and His elect people in Christ, click here.)

The Spoken Word Made Flesh

“God is injecting His Word into the earth to produce this Jesus,” explains Copeland. “These faith-filled words that framed the image that’s in him … He had to sneak it in here around the god of this world [i.e., Satan].” Using a combination of faith and confession, “God spoke His Word and then spoke His Word again … he kept saying, ‘He is coming. He is coming.’” However, “the only avenue God had to get His words into the earth was through men … through the mouths of His prophets … Finally, the great moment came when that Word was brought forth in human form.” During this final phase, “the angels spoke the words of the covenant to her [i.e., Mary], and the Spirit of God hovered over her and generated that seed, which was the Word that the angel spoke to her. And there was conceived in her, the Bible says, a holy thing. The Word literally became flesh.”

The notion of Jesus being the end product of generations of positive confession is categorically unbiblical. It suggests that the “Word” in John 1 was a creation (the personalization of the previously impersonal words of God) rather than the eternally existent Creator (see vv. 1-3), thus subverting the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. Copeland asserts Jesus did not openly claim to be God because “He hadn’t come to earth as God, He’d come as man. He’d set aside His divine power.”

Misunderstanding Philippians 2:5-7, Copeland states that the incarnate Christ “had no innate supernatural powers. He had no ability to perform miracles until after He was anointed by the Holy Spirit.” In Copeland’s view, three basic factors enabled Jesus to perform miracles. First, “the force of faith was controlling His ministry.” Second, “He exercised that authority by the use of words.” Third, “He used the covenant to control the laws of nature.” And all these factors are based on complete misinterpretation of the Word of God.

Spiritual Death and Rebirth in Hell

When it comes to defining the Christ’s atonement, Copeland says, “It wasn’t a physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin … anybody can do that.” Jesus supposedly “put Himself into the hands of Satan when he went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned].” Copeland is here referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that “Adam would die spiritually—that he would take on the nature of Satan which is spiritual death.” He adds that “the day that Jesus was crucified, God’s life, that eternal energy that was His from birth, moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death itself.” Copeland would have us believe that during an alleged conversation with Jesus, the Son of God said, “It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross … I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death …” Jesus, according to Copeland, “had to give up His righteousness” and “accepted the sin nature of Satan.”

Copeland’s account, vivid though it may be, is not in the Bible. It misuses the phrase “firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18) to bolster the “born again Jesus” doctrine. Actually, the Greek wood for “firstborn” (prototokos) primarily denotes primacy, headship, and pre-eminence. The phrase itself points to Christ’s supremacy “over all creation” (Colossians 1:15) in general and those who will be raised from the dead in particular, alluding to Christ’s bodily resurrection—not some spiritual resuscitation in hell.

Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (Luke 23:43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He triumphed “over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15). Jesus paid for the sins of His people in full at the cross (Matthew 1:21; John 19:30) — not by becoming a satanic being, but through his physical sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10; Colossians 1:22).

The Believer’s Authority

Copeland’s basis for the believer’s authority is that upon conversion the believer undergoes a total and immediate change of nature. At the moment of spiritual birth, “the spirit of God hovered over you, and there was conceived in your body a holy thing identical to Jesus … And there was imparted into you zoe, the life of God.” Hence, “you are to think the way Jesus thought. He didn’t think it robbery to be equal with God.” Copeland states, “You are not a spiritual schizophrenic, half-God and half-Satan, you are all-God” and “You don’t have a God in you; you are one …”

Yet Scripture states there is only one God who indwells all believers (John 14:17, 23). Moreover, the Bible views spiritual birth not in terms of a change of nature (from satanic to divine), but as our regeneration by the Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5). Copeland teaches that the believer’s change of nature (into a god) brings with it a proportional change in ability. The believer is thus allegedly able to “speak things” into existence by way of faith-filled words, or positive confession.

In Copeland’s teaching on the believer’s authority, we are told that knowing and exercising the rights set forth under the covenant guarantees success. He remarks that he Bible “is the wisdom of God placed in covenant contract … Everything in it is mine … You just keep looking at it, and keep reading it, and that covenant will turn you into that kind of person—whatever it is you decide to be.” Copeland translates his concept of covenant rights into what has been termed the “health and wealth” or “prosperity” message. “The basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at Calvary,” he asserts. “For Him to put any of this on us now would be a miscarriage of justice.”

Fatally Flawed

Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland’s theology can be attributed to the following four reasons.

First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. “Believers are not to be led by logic,” he writes. “We are not even to be led by good sense.” Isaiah 1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, “Come now, let us reason together.”

Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical interpretation. His neglect in this area is made clear by his gross misunderstanding of key words and utter disregard of the context in which they appear. The Bible, however, stresses the importance of correctly handling the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of systematic theology, as indicated by his statement, “I don’t preach doctrine, I preach faith.” Although he may not realize it, his preaching on faith and other topics do in fact constitute doctrines, which combined form his theology (however inconsistent). He would do well to heed the divine command to “watch your life and your doctrine closely” (1 Timothy 4:16).

Fourth, Copeland displays an open attitude of disdain and disrespect for the historically established views of the Christian church. Admittedly, tradition must ultimately be tested by the Word of God. However, it should be recognised that certain historically accepted views, especially as they apply to essential Christian doctrine and are stated in the Reformed creeds, are significant, time-tested summations of fundamental Bible-based truths. To deviate from them is to reject the heart of Christian faith.

Scripture warns, “My brethren, be not many masters [i.e., teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1).

Copeland, being a false teacher, has made himself an enemy of the gospel: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9).

By Angus Stewart

Charles Finney - A Most Popular False Prophet

To listen to this audio message, please click on the blue speaker.



Finney Denied:
1) Original Sin
2) Man's Inability
3) Holy Spirit Regeneration
4) Predestination & Election

Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen & Pope Benedict - They All Agree

To listen to this sermon please click the blue speaker.

Rick Warren is bringing teachers of the ‘NEW AGE’ into his church. Joel Osteen is teaching that man determines his own destiny. Billy Graham started this teaching with his ‘Hour of Decision’ broadcast and Pope Benedict is telling his world audience that we should admire and revere Mohammed. Christ preached an entirely different message.

UNHOLY LAUGHTER

RICK WARREN'S FALSE GOSPEL

JOHN HAGEE CLAIMS JESUS DID NOT COME TO EARTH TO BE MESSIAH

Is "Christian Psychology" Christian?

The so-called "Christian Psychology" movement is by far the most popular movement among professing Christians today. Just check out your local "Christian" bookstore to see how much space is given to it. This heresy is being embraced by tens of thousands of professing Christians who claim to believe in the inerrancy, validity, and sufficiency of Scripture. "Christian" psychologists are enjoying a papal-like authority. Instead of analyzing what these men say according to Scripture (Acts 17:11), professing Christians come in droves to witness the next great insight -- how to overcome addictions, co-dependency, depression, or neurosis; how to deal with your children, spouse, or parents; or how to heal your "wounded inner child" ... and the list of buzzwords goes on and on. The Promise Keepers movement is, at its heart, a "Christian Psychology" movement.

Just the fact that the prominent psychologists and counselors in this movement are Arminians should be enough for the true Christian to discern that they are wicked and are to be avoided. But there are some who call themselves Reformed who are involved in and advocate "Christian Psychology" and who integrate the theories of pagan psychologists into their philosophies and approaches.

I can hear it now: "But isn't all truth God's truth?"

What this questioner fails to realize is that the issue is not about the origin of truth. Instead, the issue is this:

What truth about the human condition and the remedies for the soul can an ungodly man comprehend?

It takes only a brief perusal through the works of the fathers of psychology to see the following facts:

(a) The concept of sin (as the Bible portrays sin) is nonexistent.

(b) The concept of God (as the Bible portrays God) is nonexistent; thus, the concept of the biblical relationship of man to God is nonexistent.

(c) The concept of law, or absolutes, is nonexistent; thus morality becomes relative.

(d) The true gospel of salvation conditioned on the blood and imputed righteousness of Christ is nonexistent.

If secular psychologists start from ungodly premises, how then can a "Christian" psychologist use this tainted insight in finding the causes and cures for any of the ills of the soul such as rebellion in teenagers or interpersonal problems or worry?

The examples of "Christian" psychologists' using secular theory are innumerable; because of space limitations, I will offer only a few examples. Just take a look at the books in the "Psychology" or "Men's/Women's Issues" or "Family Issues" sections in your local "Christian" bookstore (and be prepared with one of those air-sickness bags).

Freud: Sexual Perversion. For those of you who are not familiar with the "big daddy" of psychoanalysis, here's an extremely condensed primer on Sigmund Freud: Freud was obsessed with sex. He described human development in terms of how the individual received sexual pleasure. He interpreted dreams as attempts to resolve underlying sexual conflicts. He saw the phallus, or phallic symbol, in everything. Freud admittedly lusted after his own mother, and he concluded that the first sexual attraction in all humans was for the parent of the opposite sex. He said that the young child's unconscious sexual longings for the parent of the opposite sex (in the "Oedipal Stage") explained the later outward hostility toward the same-sex parent during the teen years because of jealousy (called the "Oedipal Conflict").

What do the perverted sexual theories of Freud have to do with Christian Psychology?

To answer this question, I will simply provide the reader with direct quotes from several leaders in the movement. To let you know that these are not from the fringes of the movement, I will introduce the first quote: it is from Always Daddy's Girl by H. Norman Wright, a best-seller when it was released because of the large amount of publicity given it by James Dobson.

The book also quotes as authorities on father-daughter relationships various humanistic and overtly wicked sources such as the Freudian book Modern Woman: Her Psychology and Sexuality that includes a section written by Dr. Leon Hamner, who says that fathers give daughters sexual pleasure. Other sources used by Wright include Suzanne Fields' Like Father Like Daughter and Linda Leonard's The Wounded Woman that also put forth the incestuous sexual attraction view. The reader will see that Wright and others such as the ones quoted below promote the view that a quasi-incestuous relationship between fathers and daughters is a normal, non-sinful part of human existence. Here is Wright:

"It is true that a woman's sexuality develops over her entire lifetime, but it is definitely encouraged -- or retarded -- by her early interactions with her father. ... Your father was the first man you flirted with, the first man to cuddle you and kiss you ... Her femininity is encouraged by his smile or wink when she bats her eyelashes at him ... [There exists] an initial courtship experience with her father ... A woman's sexual self-image is partially molded by her father's response to her. ... Fathers are sometimes bothered by the sexual effect their daughters have on them or the effect they may have on their daughters. ... Unfortunately, some fathers are ... uncomfortable ... [and thus] tend to be absent when she displays her charms ... The results of these rejections will be seen in a young woman's insecurity and doubt about her ability to attract a man."

[The reader should note that many professing Christians think that there is nothing wrong with "flirting" with someone of the opposite sex. In fact, they even jokingly attribute the sin of flirting to little babies when they tell another adult of the opposite sex, "he's flirting with you" or "shame on you for flirting with a married man," as if this were not utterly sinful. So, too, many professing Christians imbibe the so-called "Christian romance novels" and the worldly dating scene in which flirting and lust are condoned.]

"Christian" psychologist David Stoop, in Making Peace With Your Father, says this:

"The beginning of adolescence is marked by what is called the Oedipal conflict. ... [It] is often used to describe the emerging adolescent who, as his or her sexuality begins to emerge, falls in love with the parent of the opposite sex and competes with the same-sex parent in an effort to 'win over' the object of his or her love. In its strong form, the incestuous overtones of this psychological model may seem repulsive. Yet it is generally accepted that all of us go through at least a mild form of this experience as we arrive on the doorstep of adolescence."

The February 16, 1993 edition of the "Minirth-Meier Clinic" radio program affirmed these twisted views by saying that every child goes through an Oedipal Stage where the child becomes attached to the parent of the opposite sex and has a resulting conflict with the same-sex parent. If you listen to that program, you will find more of the same twisted thinking. They rationalize sin as those awful "co-dependencies" or "addictions," and they encourage callers to "work it out" with "professionals."

In a book entitled The Masculine Journey, which is endorsed by Promise Keepers and was handed out to all Promise Keepers attendees, Robert Hicks uses his "stages of manhood" theory to condone sin and even to blaspheme. One of the stages he puts forth is the Zakar stage, which is a phallic stage. He says, "The phallus has always been the symbol of religious devotion and dedication" [referring to pagan sexual rites] and that every man has "the deep compulsion to worship with our phallus." He says that a teenager's first sexual sin should be thought of as a "rite of passage" and says that "we usually give the teenagers in our churches such a massive dose of condemnation regarding their first experiences with sin that I sometimes wonder how any of them ever recover." He then says this about Jesus Christ:

"I believe Jesus was phallic with all the inherent phallic passions we experience as men. But it was never recorded that Jesus had sexual relations with a woman. He may have thought about it as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrays, but even in this movie He did not give in to temptation and remained true to His messianic course."

This is blasphemy. Yet it is not beyond the thinking of most professing Christians, who think that mere "attractions" and "passions" outside the marriage bond are not sinful, as long as they are not consummated.

How many times have you heard a professedly Christian person comment on how "good-looking" or "sexy" a person of the opposite sex is?

This is wickedness. To demonstrate this, here is a quote from another "Christian" counselor, Michael R. Saia (from Counseling the Homosexual), who says that a homosexual attraction is not sin:

"The dilemma here is that many people may assume that a man is sinning just because he is attracted to another man. ... [The attraction] is not something for which the person is morally culpable. As one gay man told me, 'Nobody in his right mind would choose to be homosexually oriented if he had a choice in the matter.' Before a counselor has comprehended and accepted the involuntary nature of the homosexual sexual preference, he may speak tremendous condemnation into the life of a counselee. Constant, subtle insinuation that a person is responsible for his sexual attractions can be a terrible psychological pressure."

I hope the reader sees that if one believes that a heterosexual attraction outside of marriage is not sin, then it follows that a homosexual attraction is not sin.

Me Me Me: Self-Esteem. The other principle part of the "Christian" psychology movement is the focus on self-esteem and self-worth. The secular psychologists most famous for this approach were Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Their view was that psychological ills stem from a self-evaluation that is too low and that counselors should work at improving people's evaluations of themselves.

There are two prominent leaders of the self-esteem movement in Christendom. One is the pastor of a professedly Reformed congregation in a professedly Reformed denomination, and the other is a semi-Pelagian. Both are wicked. They are Robert Schuller and James Dobson.

The following are some quotes from Schuller: "Prayer, worship, and well-thought-out sermons will not produce morally strong and spiritually exciting Christians if they fail to produce self-confident, inwardly secure, nondefensive, integrated persons. What we need is a theology of salvation that begins and ends with a recognition of every person's hunger for glory. ... Why would love-needing persons resist, rebel against, and reject beautiful love? ... Deep down we feel we are not good enough to approach a holy God. ... It is precisely at this point that classical theology has erred in its insistence that theology be 'God-centered,' not 'man-centered.' ... [Original sin] could be considered an innate inability to adequately value ourselves. Label it a 'negative self-image,' but do not say that the central core of the soul is wickedness. If this were so, then truly, the human being is totally depraved" (in Self-Esteem: The New Reformation).

He went on to say the following in Christianity Today (8/10/84): "I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition."

Does James Dobson, the leading "Christian" psychologist and darling of the evangelicals, oppose Schuller's heretical teaching?

Here are some quotes:

"Feelings of self-worth and acceptance ... provide the cornerstone of a healthy personality. ... What is the primary motive that would cause a husband or wife to 'cheat' -- to even risk destroying their homes and families for an illicit affair? ... I have observed the most powerful influence to emanate from ego needs"
(from Dr Dobson Answers Your Questions).

"If I could write a prescription for the women of the world, I would provide each one of them with a healthy dose of self-esteem and personal worth … I have no doubt that this is their greatest need"
(from What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew about Women).

Paul warned Timothy that "in the last days ... men will be lovers of self" (2 Timothy 3:1-2). Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is for those who are poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3). Look up "pride" in your concordance or topical Bible to see what the entirety of the Word says.

Would you conclude that the problems of the world stem from too little self-esteem or too much of it?!

A common rationalization takes the form of the following: "If Jesus came down to earth to shed His blood for us, then there must be some inherent worth in us." However, Scripture clearly tells us that God saved His elect not because of anything that was worth saving in us, but purely by His grace (Romans 5:6,8; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Instead of reacting to God's grace by looking to ourselves as worthy, we must react by glorifying the sovereign God who loved the unlovable and who came for the sin-sick and not for the "self-esteemed" healthy (Matthew 9:12-13).

Paul said, "For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7)

The story of the tax gatherer and the Pharisee illustrates the point perfectly: "The tax gatherer ... was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified" (Luke 18:13-14).

Which one had the high self-esteem - the Pharisee or the tax gatherer?

We have a good idea of what Dobson would say to the tax gatherer. In his book Hide or Seek, he responded to a woman who felt worthless in this way: "Jesus did not leave his throne in heaven to die for the 'worms' of the world."

Dobson's "jesus" didn't die for the worms of the world. But my Jesus died for the worms and wretches -- those who know they have no worth and who are saved by the worthiness of their substitute.

Is the reader still not convinced that Dobson is wicked?

If the following quote won't do it, nothing will:

"There is only one cure for the cancer of bitterness, that is to forgive the perceived offender. Once and for all, with God's help, as strange as it seems, I am suggesting that some of us need to forgive God for those heartaches that are charged to His account. You've carried resentment against Him for years. Now it's time to let go of it. Please don't misunderstand me at this point. God is in the business of forgiving us, and it almost sounds blasphemous to suggest that the relationship could be reversed. He has done no wrong and does not need our approbation. But the source of bitterness must be admitted before it can be cleared. There is no better way to get rid of it than to absolve the Lord of whatever we have harbored. … It is the only way you will ever be entirely free. … Corrie ten Boom forgave an SS guard who shared responsibility for the deaths of her family member. Surely we can forgive the King of the Universe Who sent His only Son to die as an atonement for our sin" (from When God Doesn't Make Sense).

This is blasphemy. And this book was endorsed by R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer, leaders of the "Reformed" bandwagon. Let us who are Christians have nothing to do with the blasphemy, perversion, and self-worth-ship of the so-called "Christian Psychology" movement.

By Marc D. Carpenter

HERETICS BILLY GRAHAM AND ROBERT SCHULLER DENY JESUS CHRIST

BILLY GRAHAM DENIES THE GOSPEL

THE FAITH MOVEMENT, WORLDLY, WEALTHY, BUT SPIRITUALLY POOR

It is important to note that the bulk of the theology of the Faith Movement can be traced directly to the cultic teachings of New Thought metaphysics. Thus, much of the theology of the Faith Movement can also be found in such clearly pseudo-Christian cults as Religious Science, Christian Science, and the Unity School of Christianity. Over a century before the Faith Movement became a powerful force within the Christian church, Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802-1866), the father of New Thought, was popularising the notion that sickness and suffering ultimately have their origin in incorrect thinking.

Quimby’s followers believe that man can create his own reality through the power of positive affirmation (confession). Metaphysical practitioners have long taught adherents to visualise health and wealth, and then to affirm or confess them with their mouths so that the intangible images may be transformed into tangible realities.

Some of the teachings and practices of the movement can be traced to certain post-World War II faith healers and revivalists operating within Pentecostal circles. Both Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin point to T. L. Osborn and William Branham as true men of God who greatly influenced their lives and ministries. Of course, Osborn himself has consistently followed E. W. Kenyon’s Scripture-twisting antics, and Branham has denounced the doctrine of the Trinity as coming directly from the devil. Twisted texts, make-believe miracles, and a counterfeit Christ are all common denominators of the Faith Movement’s leading teachers. And, as all who look into the matter will clearly see, it all began with the metaphysical teachings of Essek William Kenyon.



Essek William Kenyon

Essek William Kenyon, whose life and ministry were enormously impacted by such cults as Science of Mind, the Unity School of Christianity, Christian Science, and New Thought metaphysics, is the true father of the modern-day Faith Movement. Many of the phrases popularised by present-day prosperity preachers, such as, “What I confess, I possess,” were originally coined by Kenyon. Kenneth Hagin, to whom we next turn our attention, plagiarised much of Kenyon’s work, including the statement, “Every man who has been ‘born again’ is an Incarnation ... The believer is as much an Incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.”


Kenneth E. Hagin

Kenneth Hagin takes Kenyon’s theology from bad to worse. Not only does he boast of alleged visits to heaven and hell, he recounts numerous out-of-body experiences (OBEs) on the earth as well. On one occasion, Hagin claims he was in the middle of a sermon when, suddenly, he was transported back in time. He ended up in the back seat of a car and watched as a young woman from his church committed adultery with the driver. The entire experience lasted about fifteen minutes, after which Hagin abruptly found himself back in church, summoning his parishioners to prayer. Despite his propensity for telling tall tales and describing false visions, virtually every major faith-movement teacher has been impacted by Hagin, including Frederick K. C. Price and Kenneth Copeland.


Kenneth Copeland

Kenneth Copeland started his ministry as a direct result of memorising Hagin’s messages. It wasn’t long before he had learned enough from Hagin to establish his own following. To say his teachings are heretical would be an understatement—blasphemous is more like it. Copeland brashly pronounces God to be the greatest failure of all time, boldly proclaims that “Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross” and describes Christ in hell as an “emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit.” Yet, despite such statements, Benny Hinn ominously warned that “those who attack Kenneth Copeland are attacking the very presence of God!”


Benny Hinn

Benny Hinn is one of the stars on the Faith movement circuit. While claiming to be “under the anointing,” Hinn has uttered some of the most unbelievable statements imaginable, including the claim that the Holy Spirit revealed to him that women were originally designed to give birth out of their sides. Hinn also admits to frequenting the graves of both Kathryn Kuhlman and Aimee Semple McPherson to get the “anointing” from their bones. For Hinn fantasy is often passed on as fact, as with the thousands of “documented” healings claimed by Hinn. One of the cases involved a man who was supposedly healed of colon cancer. A medically naïve person reading the pathology report may read “no evidence of malignancy” and be duped into thinking that a healing had indeed taken place. However, medical consultant, Dr. Preston Simpson’s investigation revealed that the tumour was surgically removed rather than miraculously healed.


Frederick K. C. Price

Fred Price is the most notable of a growing number of black prosperity preachers. His church in Los Angeles now claims some 16,000 members. He is seen nationally on television and has referred to himself as the “chief exponent of ‘Name It and Claim It.’” Price has added is own unique twists to Faith Theology by asserting that Jesus took on the nature of Satan prior to the crucifixion and by claiming that the Lord’s Prayer is not for Christians today. Despite telling his followers that he doesn’t allow sickness in his home, Price’s wife has been treated for cancer in her pelvic area. Referring to his wealth, Price says the reason he drives a Rolls Royce is that he is following in Jesus’ steps.


John Avanzini

John Avanzini is billed by his Faith peers as a recognised authority on biblical economics. The truth, however, is that Avanzini is an authority on perverting Scripture as a means to picking the pockets of the poor. He has honed his craft into such an art form that when Faith teachers need money, they inevitably call on “Brother John.” Armed with a bag full of Bible-twisting tricks, he tells the unsuspecting that “a greater than a lottery has come. His name is Jesus!” According to Avanzini, if Jesus was rich, we should be rich as well. Thus, he recasts Christ into a mirror image of himself—complete with designer clothes, a big house, and a wealthy, well-financed advance team. Thinking otherwise, Avanzini claims, will prevent Christians from reaping the prosperity God has laid out for them.


Robert Tilton

Robert Tilton hit the big time as a fisher of funds by developing a religious info-mercial called Success-N-Life. It all began when he travelled to Hawaii to hear from the Lord. Says Tilton, “If I’m going to go to the cross, I’m going to go in a pretty place. Not some dusty place like Jerusalem. That’s gravel is all that place is.” While languishing in his exotic wilderness, Tilton “realised his mission was to persuade the poor to give what they could to him—as God’s surrogate—so they too could be blessed.” Then, one day, Tilton tuned in to television and turned on to Dave Del Dotto’s real estate info-mercials. The rest is history. Tilton used what he saw as a prototype for building an empire that takes in as much as $65 million per year. It now appears that Tilton’s wealth may dwindle rapidly amid reports of scandal and a variety of lawsuits.


Marilyn Hickey

Marilyn Hickey, much like Tilton, employs a broad range of tactics to manipulate followers into sending her money. Among her many ploys are anointed prayer cloths, ceremonial breastplates, and ropes that can be used as points of contact. In one of her appeal letters, Hickey promises she will slip into a ceremonial breastplate, “press your prayer request to my heart,” and “place your requests on my shoulders”—all for a suggested donation. Her message is peppered with such Faith jargon as “the God-kind of faith,” “confession brings possession,” and “receiving follows giving.”


Paul Yonggi Cho (David Cho)

Paul Yonggi Cho—pastor of the world’s largest church, located in Seoul, South Korea—claims to have received his call to preach from Jesus Christ Himself, who supposedly appeared to him dressed like a fireman. Cho has packaged his faith formulas under the label of “fourth dimensional power.” He is well aware of his link to occultism, arguing that if Buddhists and Yoga practitioners can accomplish their objectives through fourth dimensional powers, then Christians should be able to accomplish much more by using the same means. He recently made the news by changing his name from Paul to David. As Cho tells the story, God showed him that Paul Cho had to die and David Cho was to be resurrected in his place. According to Cho, God Himself came up with his new name.”


Charles Capps

Charles Capps was ordained as a minister in the International Convention of Faith Churches and Ministers by Kenneth Copeland and derived his teachings directly from Kenneth Hagin. This combination has led Capps to make some blasphemous statements. Capps has gone so far as to teach that Jesus was the product of God’s positive confession: “This is the key to understanding the virgin birth. God’s Word is full of faith and spirit power. God spoke it. God transmitted that image to Mary. She received the image inside of her … the embryo that was in Mary’s womb was nothing more than the Word of God … She conceived the Word of God.” Capps not only preaches the blasphemous, he also preaches the ridiculous. For example, he claims that if someone says, “I’m just dying to do that” or “That just tickled me to death,” their statements may literally come true (i.e., they may die). According to Capps, this is precisely why the human race now lives only about 70 years instead of 900 years, as was the case with Adam.


Jerry Savelle

Jerry Savelle has made his fortune by mimicking virtually all of the Faith teachers. His greatest claim to fame, however, may well be his ability to mimic Kenneth Copeland. In fact, Savelle appears to be an exact duplicate of Copeland. Savelle demonstrates a total lack of biblical acumen, as he blindly regurgitates virtually every heresy in the Faith Movement. With regard to health, Savelle boasts that sickness and disease cannot enter his world. As for wealth, he says that words can speak your world into existence.


Morris Cerullo

Morris Cerullo claims that he gave up a driving ambition to be the governor of New Jersey in order to become a minister of the gospel. He purports to have first met God at the tender age of eight. Since then his life has been one mind-blowing experience after another. He claims he was transported to heaven for a face-to-face meeting with God and told he would be capable of revealing the future. On one occasion, Cerullo informed his audience, “You’re not looking at Morris Cerullo; you’re looking at God; you’re looking at Jesus.” Not only is Cerullo a master of make-believe, he is also a master of manipulation. On one occasion he claimed that God was directly speaking through him, to tell people to surrender their wallets and purses to God through him.


Paul Crouch

Paul Crouch and his wife, Jan, are the founders of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, which today has an estimated net worth of half a billion dollars. As Crouch himself puts it, “God has, indeed, given us the MOST POWERFUL VOICE in the history of the WORLD.” To those who would speak out against the false teachings on his network, Crouch has this to say: “I think they’re damned and on their way to hell; and I don’t think there’s any redemption for them.” When one leader met with him to prove that the Faith Movement compromises essential Christian doctrine, Crouch declared, “If you want to criticise Ken Copeland for his preaching on faith, or Dad Hagin, get out of my life! I don’t even want to talk to you or hear you. I don’t want to see your ugly face. Get out of my face, in Jesus’ name.” Sadly, Crouch refers to the Faith message as a “revival of truth … restored by a few precious men.”

Mother Theresa's Message Was Opposed To Christ

To listen to this audio message please click the blue speaker.




Christ preached a sermon on a mountain, not in a church building. He preached the righteousness of Christ not a works doctrine, not a doctrine of mariolatry, idol worship and an 'all paths lead to god religion.'

WAYNE BENT'S END OF THE WORLD CULT

What Do Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Adrian Rogers & Oral Roberts Have In Common?

To listen to this audio message please click the blue speaker.



What do Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, Adrian Rodgers,Pat Robertson,James Dobson,Rex Humbard, Jerry Falwell and Charles Stanley all have in common?

JOHN WESLEY AND METHODIST APOSTASY

"It is manifest that the public worship of the Roman Church is wholly degenerated from the nature of Christ’s kingdom," so declared John Wesley.

He protested against Rome’s doctrines of tradition, seven sacraments, transubstantiation ("nonsense, absurdity and self-contradiction," he called it), pilgrimage, purgatory, indulgences (which "strike at the root of all religion"), veneration of relics, worship of images ("gross, open, palpable idolatry"), the intercession of the Virgin Mary, prayers to saints, papal supremacy, celibacy of clergy, human merit, etc. Thus he called Rome "that apostate church" and the "mother of abominations" filled with "superstition," "delusion" and "corruption."

Few Methodist pulpits ring with such strong denunciations of Rome’s idolatry today. Moreover, though Wesley taught the infallibility, clarity and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, Irish Methodism’s Edgehill College inculcates higher criticism of the Bible.

However, Wesley was also a great admirer of Francis of Sales, a Counter-Reformation leader, and Roman Catholic mystics in general. He also made other unbiblical ecumenical remarks about Rome. As one Methodist theologian put it, Wesley was "a very complex man."

Wesley’s inconsistent analysis of Rome stemmed from his sharing Rome’s cardinal heresy, free will. Both Wesley and Rome believe in a love of God for all men and an ineffectual atonement of Christ dependent on the free will of the sinner. Thus Wesley railed against God’s predestination as "blasphemy" (contrary to Article 17 of the Thirty Nine Articles which he swore to uphold). To say the least, he was often less than clear on the truth of justification by faith alone.

Wesley taught many other errors including resistible grace, the falling away of true saints, sinless perfection, lay preaching and women preaching (again all contrary to the Thirty Nine Articles). As one who claimed miraculous healings and dreams, and encouraged wailing and falling down in his meetings, Wesley is rightly seen as a prominent forerunner of the aberrant charismatic movement.

Though Methodism has departed further than its founder, the seeds of its destruction were already to be found in the teaching of Wesley himself.

By Angus Stewart

PROFIT FOR FALSE PROPHETS - IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

Did John Wesley Preach The Gospel?

To listen to this audio message, please click the blue speaker.

“YOU JUST NEED TO LISTEN CLOSELY”

You will hear this kind of statement when a preacher’s critics either do not want to, or cannot, bring a particular charge against his preaching. This is not the Scriptural way to “try [test] the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). We are commanded to listen to every man’s message very closely and test it by the standard of God’s written Word -- “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). Any who add to or subtract from the teachings of God’s word are not sent of God (Revelation 22:18-19).

The Lord instructed us, “Take heed WHAT you hear” (Mark 4:24), and “HOW you hear” (Luke 8:18). Only a fool refuses to listen closely and carefully to any preacher who claims to be preaching THE Gospel of Christ which is either the savor of death unto death or life unto life (2 Corinthians 2:16).

When you listen to messages closely and carefully, I hope you hear the message of God’s grace that glorifies God so as to inspire worship in spirit and in truth, exalts Christ both in His Person and His finished work so as to leave you with no hope of salvation but in His blood and imputed righteousness alone. I hope you hear the message that God uses to save His elect and edify His children to grow strong in grace and in knowledge of Christ. So, please, please, listen closely, and see if what you are being told is true as it stands on the perfect, inerrant Word of God.

By Bill Parker

"TAKE HEED THEREFORE UNTO YOURSELVES"

Take Heed Therefore Unto Yourselves (Acts 20:28)

Throughout its history, the New Testament church has been attacked by Satan through such wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29-30). They always speak “perverse things, to draw away disciples after them,” and they do not care how it affects the people of God as long as they get their way – “not sparing the flock.” Their heresies come in many forms, always disguised as truth. Some of the more popular perversions are:

LEGALISM – A legalist is one who supposes salvation, or some part of it, is based on his attempts to keep the law. He will not preach that Christ’s blood and righteousness imputed ALONE is the ground of sinners being accepted before God. He must add something he does by God’s enablement or something God does within him as forming some part of the ground of his salvation. (Luke 18:9-11)

GNOSTICISM – “Gnosticism” comes from a Greek word meaning “knowing ones”. A Gnostic is one who boasts superior knowledge. He claims to see deeper and beyond what others can discern. His supposed knowledge is either beyond or opposed to God’s revealed Word in Christ. (1 John 4:1-3)

MYSTICISM - A mystic is one who looks within himself to find righteousness, holiness, peace, and assurance. He majors on the subjective, the inward, the unexplainable, all based on emotions and experience, not on the Word of God in Christ. (Colossians 1:18)

ELITISM – An elitist sets himself up as judge over the hearts of others. He has revelations and knowledge about the salvation of others that are beyond the Word of God in Christ. His goal is to gather a circle of people unto himself so that he can think and judge for them. (3 John 9-10)

As the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, we must take heed, watch, and beware of such heresies, or any teaching, that avoids, denies, or confuses the clear teaching of salvation by God’s grace in Christ Jesus and based on His finished work alone.

By Bill Parker

Jerry Falwell Declares The Gospel Doctrine Of An Efficacious Particular Redemption To Be A Heresy

To listen to this audio message please click the blue speaker.

WE PREACH NOT OURSELVES, BUT CHRIST

2 Corinthians 4:5
"For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake."

There are many, many ways in which false preachers preach themselves and avoid preaching Christ and the Gospel of salvation conditioned on Him alone.

When does a man preach himself instead of preaching Christ?


(1) When he preaches salvation, any part of it, conditioned on the sinner in any way to any degree instead of salvation conditioned totally upon Christ.


(2) When he preaches justification before God based upon any other ground but the blood and the righteousness of Christ imputed, and when he makes no efforts to exclude any contribution from the sinner's best efforts as to the ground of salvation.


(3) When he removes the offense of the Gospel by refusing to say that any who are ignorant of or not submitted to Christ's righteousness imputed are lost and their deeds are evil. When he speaks peace where there is no peace to gain the praise and admiration of men.


(4) When he refuses to preach repentance clearly and let sinners know that everything before justifying faith, no matter how moral or religious, is dead works, fruit unto death, and acts of open idolatry as they are the fruit of self-righteousness.


(5) When he seeks to motivate his hearers to obedience, worship, love, good works, and godliness based on something other than the absolute certainty of salvation conditioned on Christ alone, the assurance of true faith. When he seeks to motivate them with legal fears of punishment and legal doubts as to the certainty of their final glory.


(6) When he begins to consider more what men will say and do if he preaches the clear Gospel and its doctrines rather than the glory of God and the pre-eminence of Christ in these matters of salvation. When he is more concerned about the reactions of sinner than with the glory of God.


(7) When he seeks to build a following for himself and establishes relationships built on personality rather than in the Gospel of Christ. When he will compromise the Gospel and hold back the truth in order to open up opportunities to preach.


(8) When he defends his own religious experience, and the experiences of other, whether it is consistent with God's Gospel or not, and refuses to judge all things by God's word.


(9) When he seeks to intimidate people to get them to agree with him and follow him based on anything other than "thus saith Lord," the clear testimony of God's word alone.




These are just a few of the ways men preach themselves rather than Christ. But there is only one way to preach Christ.

We preach Christ when we preach ALL OF SALVATION conditioned on Him alone.

We preach Christ when we tell our hearers that it is what HE ALONE DID FOR SINNERS, HIS DOING AND HIS DYING, that makes the only difference between saved and lost, heaven and hell.

Bill Parker

BILLY GRAHAM'S STRANGE FIRE

Numbers 26:61
And Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before the LORD.

“I fully adhere to the fundamental tenets of Christian faith for myself and my ministry. But, as an American, I respect other paths to God–and, as a Christian, I am called on to love them”
(“Our Task Is to Do All We Can, Not to Sit and Wait,” Parade Magazine, Oct. 20, 1996, p. 4).

“Each time a President has asked me to lead the Inaugural prayer, I have argued that I should not do it alone, that leaders of other religions should be there too....We are all brothers and sisters in our hearts. We ought to love each other.” What about other Christian leaders who do not share this view? “Well, I don’t agree with them”
(ibid., p. 5).

At San Francisco Crusade, 1997 Billy Graham stated: “There are other sins. Why do we jump on that sin [homosexuality] as though it’s the greatest sin?...What I want to preach about in San Francisco is the love of God. People need to know that God loves them no matter what their ethnic background or sexual orientation. I have so many gay friends, and we remain friends”
(“Graham Welcomes Gays at San Francisco,” Christian News, Oct. 20, 1997, p. 7).

There are those who think that Billy Graham is the next best thing to God here on earth but his theology stinks and is full of errors including his acceptance of Gays.

In his autobiography Just As I Am," Graham talks more about the people he knew than about Jesus Christ. Graham does make a few theological comments but they seem more from hell than heaven including:

“The heart of the problem for men like Bob Jones, Carl McIntire, and John R. Rice was the sponsorship of the Crusade [1957] by the Protestant Council of New York. The council, they contended, included many churches and clergy who were theologically liberal and who denied some of the most important elements of the biblical message. It was not the first time some of them had raised their objections to my growing ecumenism, of course, but the New York Crusade marked their final break with our work”
(Just As I Am, pp. 302-03).

“My goal, I always made clear, was not to preach against Catholic beliefs or to proselytize people who were already committed to Christ within the Catholic Church. Rather it was to proclaim the Gospel to all those who had never truly committed their lives to Christ”
(ibid., p. 357).

“Ken [Strachan of the Latin American Mission] held the same view I did: that there needed to be a coming together in some way and some form between Catholics and Protestants”
(ibid.)

“During the past ten years my concept of the church has taken on greater dimension....I an now aware that the family of God contains people of various ethnological, cultural, class, and denominational differences”
(“What Ten Years Have Taught Me,” Christian Century, Feb. 17, 1960, p. 188).

“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran, and other leaders...has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction”
(“I Can’t Play God Any More,” McCall’s, Jan. 1978, p. 158).

“I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant....We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me”
(“A Lutheran Looks at Billy Graham,” Oct. 10, 1961, p. 12).

“I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost–were going to hell–if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God–through nature, for instance–and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ‘yes’ to God”
(“I Cant’ Play God Any More,” McCall’s, Jan. 1978, p. 156).

“I’ve found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance....We only differ on some matters of later church tradition”
(ibid., p. 158).

Terry Mattingly to Graham: “Is the pope an evangelical?” Graham: “This one is”
(“Billy, Catholics, and Evangelicals–A Flashback,” Current Thoughts and Trends, Jan. 1995, p. 24).

“We can talk to one another as Christian brothers”
(“Catholics Laud ‘Dr. Graham’,” Christianity Today, Dec. 8, 1967, p. 41).

Graham upon receiving an honorary doctorate from Roman Catholic Belmont Abbey: “The gospel has built this school and the gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation”
(“Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree,” The Gastonia Gazette, Wed., Nov. 22, 1967).

“There’s no group of people in the world I’d rather be with right now than you” [the National Council of Churches staff members]. I think of you, I pray for you [and] follow with great interest the things you do”
(“The Graham Touch: Salvation and Unity,” The American Baptist, Jan./Feb. 1992, p. 11).

“When I hear the Pope plead, ‘Come to Christ, come to Christ,’ he sounds like me when I invite people at the end of my services to come forward and make a decision for Christ”
(“The Split-Up of Evangelicals,” Newsweek, April 26, 1982, p. 89).

Speaking to Hispanics and Roman Catholics at the San Antonio Crusade (1997), with special reference to Archbishop Patrick Flores: “The Devil has separated us, and a crusade like this is used of God to bring people of all denominations together. We need one another”
(“Latino Catholics Boost Graham Crusade Attendance,” Christianity Today, May 19, 1997, p. 51).

In an interview with Robert Schuller, Graham speaks: “I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ.... He’s [God] calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.” Schuller: “What, what I hear you saying that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they’ve been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you’re saying?” Graham: “Yes, it is, because I believe that. I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived..” Schuller: “I’m so thrilled to hear you say this. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy.” Graham: “There is. There is”
(“Graham Believes Men Can Be Saved Apart from Name of Christ,” Christian News, Oct. 20, 1997, p. 15).

THE BIBLICAL PRESCRIPTION FOR DEALING WITH FALSE TEACHERS

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.


Titus 1:13
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;


Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.


2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.


2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


2 John 1:10-11
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: {11} For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.


2 Thessalonians 3:14
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.


Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;


2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

T.D Jake's Heretical Oneness/Unitarian Theology

To listen to this audio message, please click the blue button.



The United Pentecostal Churches deny that Jesus Christ is eternal and also state in their doctrinal statements the three distinct persons of the Trinity is one person just taking on different manifestations. This is unbiblical.

GOD'S CONDEMNATION OF FALSE PREACHERS

Let us suppose a certain doctor of medicine denies that a certain common infirmity is as severe as medical science generally claims. He conducts seminars in which he ignores the medical procedures followed by other physicians and suggests instead his own regimen for treating its symptoms. To those desiring a medicine for it he peddles a placebo he himself has concocted in the place of that which is prescribed by medical science. Many die as the consequence for following his recommendations.

How will his peers respond? They will accuse him of malpractice, denounce him as a charlatan and huckster, disbar him from their profession, and ascertain that he is punished to the full extent of the law.

Let us now suppose a certain minister of religion denies man's native sinful state is as severe as God's Word declares. He conducts preaching services in which he ignores looking to Christ alone for salvation and suggests instead his own regimen of works of righteousness. To those desiring a curative he sells a placebo known as "Another Gospel" some man has concocted in the place of the "Gospel of Christ". Everyone following his recommendations continues to be dead in trespasses and sins and eventually experiences the "second death".

How will his peers respond? Most of them will praise him because to condemn him would be to condemn themselves also. Even some who deny his freewillism and profess to believe instead in the gospel of free grace will commend his sincerity and acknowledge him as "our Arminian brother".

Not this preacher! I accuse him of rank heresy, denounce him as a religious charlatan and huckster and a false preacher lying against God, and disbar him from my spiritual fellowship. I furthermore assert that God never sent him and is against him, and will not use his ministry to the spiritual salvation of anyone, and will in the end condemn him to eternal punishment.

Let me identify clearly the sort of preacher I here denounce. I denounce the preacher who denies Christ's testimony that man is completely incapable and unwilling to come to Him for salvation (John 5:40; 6:44, 65), averring instead that salvation is in some way attributable to an act of man's "free will". I denounce the preacher who denies that "salvation is of Jehovah" from beginning to end and throughout (Jonah 3:9), averring instead that salvation is accomplished through a cooperative effort between God and man (synergism). I denounce the preacher who denies the divine testimony that salvation is by God's sovereign grace alone through God-given faith alone in God's Christ alone, and who avers instead that salvation is at least to some degree or in some way a result of man's works – whether of legalism, baptism, ad infinitum ad nauseam (Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:4-7).

Although many will denounce me for doing so, I am in good company. Paul the apostle calls upon God to anathematize false gospelers (Galatians 1:8f). Jesus the Christ speaks of them when He warns, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ... And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:15-23). And God Almighty warns in our present passage, "'Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!' says the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: 'You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings,' says the LORD" (Jeremiah 23:1f).

I. What are the marks of these false preachers? In essence, God says, "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them" (v.2). More particularly:

1. They worship a false god (v.13): "They prophesied by Baal" - even though they claim to speak for Jehovah.

2. They preach in the name of God the lying heresies of men (vv.25-27): "I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name, saying, 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed!' ... Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart, who try to make My people forget My name by their dreams [as opposed to God's revelation] which everyone tells his neighbor, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal."

3. They speak peace to those who follow their lies (v.17): "They continually say to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You shall have peace"'; and to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say, 'No evil shall come upon you.'"

4. They are abominable to God (vv.11, 14): "For both prophet and priest are profane; yes, in My house I have found their wickedness .... Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: They commit adultery [certainly spiritually, often physically] and walk in lies; they also strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, and her inhabitants like Gomorrah."

II. What does God say about these false preachers? In essence, God says, "Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings" (v.2). More particularly:

1. God has neither spoken to them nor sent them (v.21): "I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied."

2. God is against them (vv.30-32a): "Therefore behold, I am against the prophets ... who steal My words every one from his neighbor. Behold, I am against the prophets ... who use their tongues and say, 'He says.' Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams ... and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness."

3. God will not profit their ministries (v.32b): "Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all." THUS SAID JEHOVAH!

4. God will condemn them to everlasting punishment (vv.34, 39f): "And as for the prophet and the priest and the people who say [falsely], 'The oracle of the LORD!' I will even punish that man and his house [i.e., all his spiritual kin, all who share in his heresy]. ... therefore behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you and forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and will cast you out of My presence. And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." "Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery ways; in the darkness they shall be driven on and fall in them; for I will bring disaster on them, the year of their punishment" (v.12). "Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall" (v.15a). "Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD has gone forth in fury - a violent whirlwind! It will fall violently on the head of the wicked. The anger of the LORD will not turn back until He has executed and performed the thoughts of His heart. In the latter days you will understand it perfectly" (vv.19f).

5. God forbids His people to heed them (v.16): "Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Do not listen to the words of the [false] prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the LORD.'" "'So when these people or the prophet or the priest ask you, saying, "What is the oracle of the LORD?" you shall then say to them, "What oracle?" I will even forsake you,' says the LORD. ... 'for you have perverted the words of the living God, the LORD of hosts, our God'" (vv.33, 36b).

III. What will God do despite false preachers?

1. God will gather all His elect (v.3): "But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase." God has driven sinners from Himself because of their sins (Isaiah 59:2), but will gather His "remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5) through Christ (John 10:16).

2. God will provide His elect with faithful ministers (v.4): "I will set up shepherds over them who will feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking." Faithful shepherds feed God's flock by preaching to them Christ, who is all their sustenance (John 21:15-17). Faithful shepherds oversee God's flock in such as way as to drive fear and dismay from it (Acts 20:28f) and meet all its needs (Ephesians 4:11-16).

3. God will save His elect through Jesus Christ alone (vv.5f): "'Behold, the days are coming,' says the LORD, 'that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.'" Jehovah will not be frustrated by false preachers. Christ shall be victorious over all His foes, including false preachers telling lies in His name. Let us not heed those whom God reprobates. Let us resort to Christ's ministers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your servant for Jesus' sake, Daniel E. Parks (2 Corinthians 4:5)
Pastor, Redeemer Baptist Church
2801 Cleveland Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40206 / 502.899-9205

DARWIN FISH

Darwin Fish Bumps Head - Accidentally Declares Himself to be a "Wolf"

LAKE HUGHES, CALIFORNIA

It was a week filled with trouble for Darwin Fish. The founder of "God's Word Fellowship" seen by many as a "cult," surrounded himself with problems last week after a fall that left him unconscious for several minutes. Fish is notorious for his controversial view that his church alone is the only known church in the world today (or ever that he knows of) that teaches the truth. Furthermore Fish continually engages in "exposing" and protesting mainstream Christian leaders both past and present as what he calls "Wolves in sheep's clothing." Such targets of his accusations include John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon and "The Early Church Fathers."

But last week is a week that Fish would like to forget. During a weekly protest Fish lost his balance while stepping off of a curb hitting his head on the pavement. After lying unconscious for about three minutes Fish sat up and went in to what some describe as a "manic tirade."

"It was very bizarre." Said Elizabeth Carrol, an eye-witness. "I've seen Fish around a number of times with his signs and such. I always thought he was just a wacko. But this time he was jumping up and down and running in circles screaming out things about himself."

For approximately ten minutes Fish loudly anathematized himself, declaring "Darwin Fish is really a wolf in sheep's clothing! Don't listen to him! You can't be saved by following his ministry!"

Many of Fish's followers tried desperately to quiet him as he screamed accusations, flailed his arms and pointed at himself shouting, "Fish! Fish! He's the wolf!"

The strange display ended when one of Fish's followers threw a cup of cold water in his face. When told what he had just done, Fish embarrassedly ran and hid himself in his "Fishmobile" while his followers once again began shouting chants against John MacArthur.

Neither Fish nor any member of his church was available for comment this week following the incident, but the answering machine at the church's toll-free number stated that "Darwin Fish is not a wolf, but one of the few chosen who hate every false way."

The below is taken from the cults website.

Question: Can you name any other true believers/teachers in history (outside of the Bible) since the early church (100 AD) until now?

Answer by Darwin Fish:

No,

Question Are you saying that you have to do more than just believe on Christ's death and resurrection to be saved?

Answer by Darwin Fish:

Yes

this is what one lady wrote about her son being caught up in the cult of Darwin Fish:

I have heard from the source...my son. He was snagged by this group, (he was only 19) and has since abandoned his wife and baby for the sake of "truth". Darwin Fish's truth, that is. Yes, I have been to this website, read everything on it, plus I've had the "privilege" to listen to a handful of tapes. This group has a mean, hateful attitude and I've heard from my son that they all are quite proud of that fact. During my research into this group, I've made contact with former members and some of their family. They all affirm the observations I've had. This group is extremely judgemental and seem to rejoice in the fact that one day they will get to see the unsaved burning in hell. They will be able to see their families in utter torture and they will laugh. This group serves a hate-filled god. Because man will treat others like the god they serve, they thrive on hateful attitudes and send most of the world to hell. Since my son joined this group, he has put everyone of his family, everyone of his friends, and everyone that knows anyone....in hell. It's so amazing to me that in this world, in this state, in this city...no one knows the truth except this group. My son practices what he calls being "cunning as a serpent". This is being deceitful without actually telling a lie. I've witnessed this vile behavior a few times; his wife didn't know when to believe him. Because his wife has refused to go with him to this group, he has been able to justify leaving her. She has been called by him and by other men in this group names like; evil, wicked, whore, hater of God, hater of truth...My son has informed me that one of many reasons why I'm going to hell is because I teach young children about God and the bible. He shoots scripture at you like bullets; he's getting better at that technique. Guess they give him alot of practice. I/we love our son very much. We realize he is being fooled and we know he truly desires to follow real truth. This isn't it. Let this serve as a warning to anyone who may come across this group. Do not try and engage them in a debate about God or His Word. They live for the "hunt and kill" and go back with joyous stories of the events. Another notch in their belts! They delight in the attention they receive when they wave their signs, inform people passing by that they are on the way to hell, when security tries to have them move and they can throw up the "free speach" mantra, when the police tell them to stay on the sidewalk... you get the picture. We are saddened by this situation but we know that God is doing His work and we can rest in His promise that NOthing can separate us from the love of God.

quotes from Darwin Fish:

Christianity today? They say they are Christians but they are not. It's the church of the Devil ("Revelation" 9/3/95).

I do not want to be identified with Christianity . . . I want to be identified as being outside of it . . . This next one really sets us apart. It makes me really wonder about the history of Christianity and what is going on today and what is taught. And I'll tell you if you speak against this subject you will be immediately considered a heretic . . . I'm talking about the Trinity . . . The Trinity is never used in the Bible ("For the Record"—part one 6/22/95).

They have placed us to be in error based on historical Christianity, the traditions of men . . . The word Trinity isn't even a Biblical term . . . I find it amazing how they cry heresy, heresy, when you say something about the Trinity when the word is not even found in Scripture . . . If you look in the commentaries you will note that many commentaries believe that the three Holies speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit . . . You may find it interesting to note that in the Greek majority text by Hodges and Farstad which depicts the Greek reading of the New Testament according to what is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts Revelation 4:8 has nine Holies . . . We've taken a stand that the church is really a farce . . . It's really a false church. It's really not the true church ("Outside the Camp" 7/27/95)

V. THE "TRINITY" FALLS SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

This is a HOT one! The Bible NEVER uses this term, and typically how
this term is used today, it falls short of what is revealed in the Word of
God about who God is.
It is true that there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as
God, Matthew 28:19-20. It is true that God is plural in person hood,
Genesis 1:26-27; 11:7-8; Isaiah 48:16.
But, the word that "Christianity" (starting with the early church
fathers and the Catholics) has used to describe Him (i.e. the "Trinity")
falls short in what is revealed in the seven Spirits of God in Revelation.
Please see Revelation 1:4-5; 4:5; 5:6; & Zechariah 4:1-10. There are seven
spirits describing the Holy Spirit clearly portrayed in Scripture.
Typically, these seven are brushed aside by preachers today as the
seven-manifold manifestations of the Holy Spirit (read the commentaries on
the Revelation passages above). If we simply take the Bible for what it
says (take God at His word), we see that the Holy Spirit is described in
Revelation and Zechariah as seven. Just as there is only one God, yet we
have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (plural in who He is). There is one
Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), yet in describing this one Holy Spirit the Bible
reveals Him to be seven (plural in who He is). This is definitely hard to
understand, but nonetheless this is what the Word reveals (Romans
11:33-36). More on this can be heard on the tapes, Jesus, 100% Man, 100%
God, and For The Record, Part 1.

and finally a good summary of Darwin's teaching and lifestyle:

Converts to Darwin's cult often become overtly hateful to relatives and friends who express any concerns. According to close family members, the young wife of one convert was told by several men in the cult that she was a "whore, stubborn and going to hell with her baby if she did not move to Fish's church. She did not move. [She] is a young, tiny, woman with a baby. Three or four, counting [her husband], went into her home and took all her furnishings and fridge, and food from fridge, took the firewood outside, and left this girl who has been married only one year with a baby. [She is now living] with her unworking Mom and disabled stepdad, who lives in a one-bedroom unit."

Most cultists typically borrow their errors from historic heresies like Pelagianism, Socinianism, Arianism, and Gnosticism. Darwin seems to be inventing his doctrinal anomalies on the fly. Having already denied the Trinity and remade God in the image of man, Darwin would seem to have no reason to stop reinventing "Christianity." After all, Darwin has already repudiated every preacher and theologian in the history of the church as a "false teacher." That means there are absolutely no doctrinal moorings in his system. Darwin's interpretation of Scripture is subject to no rule but his own whims. So it remains to be seen how far from orthodoxy he will travel.
In the meantime, it is not without significance that Darwin is spending his time trying to justify masturbation, attempting to build a case for polygamy, advocating harsh discipline of children, and continuing to condemn everyone who does not agree with him—while having little or nothing to say about Christ or the gospel. The Fish cult has attracted at least one convicted child molestor, two or more men who have abandoned their wives, and several other men who treat their wives like chattel. The men of the cult boast of their freedom to drink and smoke, while some of them are living in open disobedience to 1 Timothy 5:8. Wives and children are the most pathetic victims of this cult. It has become a fraternity for men who are worse than infidels (1 Timothy 5:8).

HILLSONG'S GREED

TELEVANGELIST SCANDALS

What Do Joyce Meyer, John Hagee, Billy Graham & Jezebel Have In Common?

To listen to this audio sermon please click the blue speaker.



We are most assuredly living in the last days when Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Billy Graham are telling worldwide audiences they don't have to know Jesus to be saved.

KENNETH HAGIN & SON

ROBERT SCHULLER AND BILLY GRAHAM

On May 31st 1997, professing Calvinist Robert Schuller interviewed Arminian Billy Graham on television. The following is a transcript of part of that interview:

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer - you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that's what God is doing today - he's calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

Focus On The Family Yokes With Robert Schuller

To listen to this audio message, please click the blue speaker.





Focus on the Family is joining forces with Robert Schuller on Jan. 2008 to promote false teachings along with Rick Warrens' wife, Larry King,Rupert Murdoch,Chuck Colson and Jay Sekulow. The doctrine of the exaltation of Man opposed to the Doctrine of Christ.

MORE HERESY FROM KENNETH COPELAND, FRED PRICE & BENNY HINN

NAKED & UNASHAMED - JOHN WESLEY EXPOSES HIMSELF

Naked and Unashamed:
John Wesley Exposes Himself

"It has also been suggested, that 'Mr. Wesley is a very laborious man;' not more laborious, I presume, than a certain active being, who is said to go to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it: nor yet more laborious, I should imagine, than certain ancient Sectarians, concerning whom it was long ago said, 'Woe unto you Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte:' ... Mr. Sellon, moreover, reminds me (p. 128) that, 'while the shepherds are quarrelling, the wolf gets into the sheep fold;' not impossible: but it so happens that the present quarrel is not among 'the shepherds,' but with the 'wolf' himself; which 'quarrel' is warranted by every maxim of pastoral meekness and fidelity." (Augustus Toplady, Complete Works, p. 54)

Over the course of John Wesley's long life, he not only preached to countless thousands but also published 151 sermons, his journals, his "Notes On The Scriptures," and many books and pamphlets. He also published fourteen volumes of The Arminian Magazine from 1778-1791. By 1834, 43 years after Wesley's death in 1791, the Wesleyan-Methodists numbered just over a million, and many millions of professing Christians today count Wesley as their spiritual forefather. He also seems to have had an immense "softening" effect on the spirit of so-called "Calvinism," encouraging multitudes of "Calvinists" to blunt the "sharper edges" of their doctrine. Wesley made no conscious attempt to hide or obscure his views. He made no attempt to pass himself off as a Calvinist, as Jacob Arminius had done. He made no attempt to deny the legitimate implications of his views. A candid review of his own published works will clearly reveal how heretical his views really were. Any true Christian will see that Wesley was not saved. This article will show some of what Wesley believed from his own words.

[All quotes are from The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI (1996); Format: (Volume: Page). For the sake of readability, the quotes are not set off by quotation marks.]

Baptismal Regeneration

That are the benefits we receive by baptism, is the next point to be considered. And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death. ... By baptism, we who were "by nature children of wrath" are made the children of God. And this regeneration which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being "grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace." This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord: "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the Apostle, "the washing of regeneration." ... Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit by long-continued wickedness. (10:192)

Free Will

Men are as free in believing or not believing as if he [God] did not know it at all. Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be held accountable either for his thoughts, words, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad. (6:227)

Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones. Therefore, (with reverence be it spoken,) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. ... Herein appears the depth of the wisdom of God, in his adorable providence; in governing men, so as not to destroy either their understanding, will, or liberty. He commands all things, both in heaven and earth, to assist man in attaining the end of his being, in working out his own salvation, so far as it can be done without compulsion, without over-ruling his liberty. (6:318)

And although I have not an absolute power over my own mind, because of the corruption of my own nature; yet, through the grace of God assisting me, I have a power to choose and do good as well as evil. I am free to choose whom I will serve; and if I choose the better part, to continue therein even unto death. (7:228-229)

The God of love is willing to save all the souls that he has made. ... But he will not force them to accept it; he leaves them in the hands of their own counsel ..." (7:317)

If you ask, "Why then are not all men saved?" the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, "As I live, saith the Lord God," "I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." (Ezek. xviii. 3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" (2 Pet. iii. 9;) "He willeth that all men should be saved." ... God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, "How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!" (Matt. xxiii. 37.) (7:381)

How is it more for the glory of God to save man irresistibly, than to save him as a free agent, by such grace as he may either concur with or resist? ... I shall not now dispute (which might yet be done,) whether salvation by irresistible grace, (which indeed makes man a mere machine, and, consequently, no more rewardable and punishable,) whether, I say, salvation by irresistible grace, considered apart from its consequences, manifest the glory of God more or less than salvation by grace which may be resisted. (10:231-232)

Perfectionism

What is then the perfection of which man is capable while he dwells in a corruptible body? It is the complying with that kind command, "My son, give me thy heart." It is the "loving the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind." This is the sum of Christian perfection: It is all comprised in that one word, Love. The first branch of it is the love of God: And as he that loves God loves his brother also, it is inseparably connected with the second: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:" Thou shalt love every man as thy own soul, as Christ loved us. "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets:" These contain the whole of Christian perfection. ... Agreeably to this is the plain matter of fact. Several persons have enjoyed this blessing, without any interruption, for many years. Several enjoy it to this day. And not a few have enjoyed it unto their death, as they have declared with their latest breath; calmly witnessing that God had saved them from all sin till their spirit returned to God. (6:413-420)

By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God, and our neighbour, ruling our tempers, words, and actions. ... As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently, in an instant. ... I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before. I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary. (11:446)

Inefficacious Atonement

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died," (Rom. xiv. 15,) - a clear proof that Christ died, not only for those that are saved, but also for them that perish: ... (7:380-381)

"What! Can the blood of Christ burn in hell? Or can the purchase by the blood of Christ go thither?" I answer, ... If the oracles of God are true, one who was purchased by the blood of Christ may go thither. For he that was sanctified by the blood of Christ was purchased by the blood of Christ. But one who was sanctified by the blood of Christ may nevertheless go to hell; may fall under that fiery indignation which shall for ever devour the adversaries. (10:297)

Justification, Perseverance, and Final Glory Conditioned on the Sinner

Many excellent men, who are thoroughly apprized of this, - who are convinced, the wedding garment here mentioned is not to be understood of any qualification for the Lord's Supper, but of the qualification for glory, - interpret it of the righteousness of Christ; "which," they say, "is the sole qualification for heaven; this being the only righteousness wherein any man can stand in the day of the Lord. For who," they ask, "will then dare to appear before the great God, save in the righteousness of his well-beloved Son? Shall we not then at least, if not before, find the need of having a better righteousness than our own? And what other can that be than the righteousness of God our Saviour?" ... "We certainly," says he, "shall need a better righteousness than our own, wherein to stand at the bar of God in the day of judgment." I do not understand the expression. Is it scriptural? Do we read it in the Bible, either in the Old Testament or the New? ... Is there any expression similar to this of the "wedding garment" to be found in Holy Scripture? In the Revelation we find mention of "linen, white and clean, which is the righteousness of the saints." And this, too, many vehemently contend, means the righteousness of Christ. ... Away with such Antinomian jargon! ... Does not that expression, "the righteousness of the saints," point out what is the "wedding garment" in the parable? It is the "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." The righteousness of Christ is doubtless necessary for any soul that enters into glory: But so is personal holiness too, for every child of man. ... The former is necessary to entitle us to heaven; the latter to qualify us for it. Without the righteousness of Christ we could have no claim to glory; without holiness we could have no fitness for it. ... What, then, is that holiness which is the true "wedding garment," the only qualification for glory? ... It first, through the energy of God, worketh love to God and all mankind; and, by this love, every holy and heavenly temper - in particular, lowliness, meekness, gentleness, temperance, and longsuffering. ... In a word, holiness is the having "the mind that was in Christ," and the "walking as Christ walked. ... Choose holiness, by my grace; which is the way, the only way, to everlasting life. He cries aloud, "Be holy, and be happy; happy in this world, and happy in the world to come." "Holiness becometh his house for ever!" This is the wedding garment of all that are called to "the marriage of the Lamb." Clothed in this, they will not be found naked: "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (7:312-317)

First: The nature of justification. ... I believe the condition of this is faith ... It is allowed, also, that repentance, and "fruits meet for repentance," go before faith. (Mark i. 15; Matthew iii. 8.) ... Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. (8:46-47)

Q. 2. Is faith the condition of justification? A. Yes; for every one who believeth is not condemned; and every one who believes is justified. Q. 3. But must not repentance, and works meet for repentance, go before this faith? A. Without doubt; if by repentance you mean conviction of sin; and by works meet for repentance, obeying God as far as we can, forgiving our brother, leaving off from evil, doing good, and using his ordinances, according to the power we have received. ... Q. 11. Are works necessary to the continuance of faith? A. Without doubt; for a man may forfeit the free gift of God, either by sins of omission or commission. Q. 12. Can faith be lost but for want of works? A. It cannot but through disobedience. (8:275-277)

Q. 12. What is sincerity? A. Willingness to know and do the whole will of God. The lowest species thereof seems to be "faithfulness in that which is little." Q. 13. Has God any regard to man's sincerity? A. So far, that no man in any state can possibly please God without it; neither, indeed, in any moment wherein he is not sincere. Q. 14. But can it be conceived that God has any regard to the sincerity of an unbeliever? A. Yes, so much, that, if he persevere therein, God will infallibly give him faith. ... Q. 22. But do we not give up faith, and put sincerity in its place, as the condition of our acceptance with God? A. We believe it is one condition of our acceptance, as repentance likewise is. And we believe it a condition of our continuing in a state of acceptance. ... Q. 25. What means then, "To him that believeth, his faith is counted for righteousness?" A. That God forgives him that is unrighteous as soon as he believes, accepting his faith instead of perfect righteousness. (8:288-289)

We have received it as a maxim, that "a man is to do nothing in order to justification." Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires to find favor with God, should "cease from evil, and learn to do well." So God himself teaches by the prophet Isaiah. Whoever repents, should "do works meet for repentance." And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for? (8:337)

"So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." (Matt. xviii. 35.) So! How? He will retract the pardon he had given, and deliver you to the tormentors. "Why, then you make salvation conditional." I make it neither conditional nor unconditional. But I declare just what I find in the Bible, neither more nor less; namely, that it is bought for every child of man, and actually given to every one that believeth. If you call this conditional salvation, God made it so from the beginning of the world; ... (10:254)

"But is not the faithfulness of God engaged to keep all that now believe from falling away?" I cannot say that. ... Those who are branches of Christ, the true vine, may yet finally fall from grace. ... It remains, that true believers, who are branches of the true vine, may nevertheless finally fall. ... Those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly. (10:242-247)

On this authority, I believe a saint may fall away; that one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. ... One who is endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. ... Those who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. ... "But how then is God faithful?" I answer, In fulfilling every promise which he hath made, to all to whom it is made, all who fulfil the condition of that promise. ... Yet, notwithstanding all this, unless you fulfil the condition, you cannot attain the promise. ... "But many promises are absolute and unconditional." In many, the condition is not expressed. But this does not prove, there is none implied. ... "But there is no condition, either expressed or implied, in those words of St. Paul: 'I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor height, nor depth, nor any creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'" (Romans viii. 38. 39.) Suppose there is not, (which will bear a dispute,) yet what will this prove? Just thus much, - that the Apostle was at that time fully persuaded of his own perseverance. And I doubt not, but many believers at this day have the very same persuasion, termed in Scripture, "The full assurance of hope." But this does not prove that every believer shall persevere, any more than that every believer is thus fully persuaded of his perseverance. ... Those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches," may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. ... "But if so, then farewell all my comfort." My comfort stands not on any opinion, either that a believer can or cannot fall away, not on the remembrance of anything wrought in me yesterday, but on what is to-day; ... Those who live by faith may yet fall from God, and perish everlastingly. ... Those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant may so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. ... "Can a child of God go to hell? Or can a man be a child of God to-day, and a child of the devil to-morrow? If God is our Father once, is he not our Father always?" I answer, (1.) A child of God, that is, a true believer, (for he that believeth is born of God,) while he continues a true believer, cannot go to hell. But, (2.) If a believer make shipwreck of the faith, he is no longer a child of God. And then he may go to hell, yea, and certainly will, if he continues in unbelief. (3.) If a believer may make shipwreck of the faith, then a man that believes now may be an unbeliever some time hence; yea, very possibly, to-morrow; but, if so, he who is a child of God to-day, may be a child of the devil to-morrow. For, (4.) God is the Father of them that believe, so long as they believe. But the devil is the father of them that believe not, whether they did once believe or no. ... those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world; those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness and of the fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son of God; those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. (10:285-298)

Yet I believe, (and that without the least self-contradiction,) that final salvation is "by works as a condition." (10:432)

If, on the other hand, we deny all absolute decrees, and admit only the conditional one, (the same which our blessed Lord hath revealed,) "He that believeth shall be saved;" we must, according to their apprehension, assert salvation by works. We must do this (in a sound sense of the expression,) if we believe the Bible. ... It is plain, then, if we affirm, No man is saved by an absolute, unconditional decree, but only by a conditional one; we must expect, all who hold unconditional decrees will say, we teach salvation by works. Let none, therefore, who hold universal redemption be surprised at being charged with this. Let us deny it no more; let us frankly and fairly meet those who advance it upon their own ground. If they charge you with holding salvation by works, answer plainly, "In your sense, I do; for I deny that our final salvation depends upon any absolute, unconditional decree. If, therefore, there be no medium, I do hold salvation by works. (11:494-495)

Conditional Election

In a word, God, looking on all ages, from the creation to the consummation, as a moment, and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all the children of men, knows every one that does or does not believe, in every age or nation. Yet what he knows, whether faith or unbelief, is in nowise caused by his knowledge. (6:227)

This decree, whereby "whom God did foreknow, he did predestinate," was indeed from everlasting; this, whereby all who suffer Christ to make them alive are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God," ... (7:385)

Hatred of Unconditional Election and Reprobation

But if this be so, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. ... This, then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. ... the doctrine itself, - that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, - has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. ... This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. ... How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings! ... This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. ... this doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. ... For supposing the eternal unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian Revelation were not in being, and the other part of mankind must be damned, notwithstanding that Revelation. And what would an infidel desire more? ... it is a doctrine full of blasphemy ... this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, "Jesus Christ the righteous, "the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth," as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people. ... You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying one thing, and meaning another; as pretending a love which he had not. ... It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. ... This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. ... This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination ... Sing, O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! For God, even the mighty God, hath spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof! Here, O death, is thy sting! They shall not, cannot escape; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, O grave, is thy victory! Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil, are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw on them for ever and ever! (7:376-384)

Q. 74. What is the direct antidote to Methodism, the doctrine of heart-holiness? A. Calvinism: All the devices of Satan, for these fifty years, have done far less toward stopping this work of God, than that single doctrine. It strikes at the root of salvation from sin, previous to glory, putting the matter on quite another issue. ... Be diligent to prevent them, and to guard these tender minds against the predestinarian poison. (8:336)

The observing these melancholy examples day by day, this dreadful havoc which the devil makes of souls, especially of those who had begun to run well, by means of this anti-scriptural doctrine, constrains me to oppose it from the same principle whereon I labour to save souls from destruction. Nor is it sufficient to ask, Are there not also many who wrest the opposite doctrine to their own destruction? If there are, that is nothing to the point in question; for that is not the case here. Here is no wresting at all: The doctrine of absolute predestination naturally leads to the chambers of death. (10:257-258)

I apprehend, then, this is no fallacious objection, but a solid and weighty one; and defy any man living, who asserts the unconditional decree of reprobation or preterition, (just the same in effect,) to reconcile this with the scriptural doctrine of a future judgment. I say again, I defy any man on earth to show, how, on this scheme, God can "judge the world in righteousness." (10:374)

I do not believe (what is only preterition or reprobation in other words) any such absolute election, as implies that all but the absolutely elect shall inevitably be damned. I do not believe the doctrine of irresistible grace, or of infallible perseverance; because both the one and the other implies that election which cannot stand without preterition or reprobation. I do not believe salvation by works. Yet if any man can prove (what I judge none ever did, or ever will) that there is no medium between this and absolute predestination; I will rather subscribe to this than to that, as far less absurd of the two. (10:379)

If the salvation of every man that ever was, is, or shall be, finally saved, depends wholly and solely upon an absolute, irresistible, unchangeable decree of God, without any regard either to faith or works foreseen, then it is not, in any sense, by works. (11: 494)

But if such a Minister should at any time deliberately, and of set purpose, endeavour to establish absolute predestination, or to confute scriptural perfection; then I advise all the Methodists in the congregation quietly to go away. (13:246)

Speaking Peace to Heretics and Other God-Haters

Men may differ from us in their opinions, as well as their expressions, and nevertheless be partakers with us of the same precious faith. It is possible they may not have a distinct apprehension of the very blessing which they enjoy: Their ideas may not be so clear, and yet their experience may be as sound, as ours. ... But still, though their opinions, as well as expressions, may be confused and inaccurate, their hearts may cleave to God through the Son of his love, and be truly interested in his righteousness. ... And who that knows it can expect, suppose, a member of the Church of Rome, either to think or speak clearly on this subject? And yet, if we heard even dying Bellarmine cry out, - when he was asked, "Unto which of the saints wilt thou turn?" - Fidere meritis Christi tutissimum; "It is safest to trust in the merits of Christ;" would we have affirmed that, notwithstanding his wrong opinions, he had no share in His righteousness? ... With these we may rank even in the Reformed Churches, who are usually termed Mystics. One of the chief of these, in the present century, (at least in England,) was Mr. Law. It is well known that he absolutely and zealously denied the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as zealously as Robert Barclay, who scruples not to say, "Imputed righteousness! - imputed nonsense!" The body of the people known by the name of Quakers espouse the same sentiment. Nay, the generality of those who profess themselves members of the Church of England are either totally ignorant of the matter, and know nothing about imputed righteousness, or deny this and justification by faith together, as destructive of good works. To these we may add a considerable number of the people vulgarly styled Anabaptists, together with thousands of Presbyterians and Independents, lately enlightened by the writings of Dr. Taylor. ... But will any one dare to affirm that all Mystics (such as Mr. Law in particular,) all Quakers, all Presbyterians or Independents, and all members of the Church of England who are not clear in their opinions and expressions, are void of all Christian experience? - that, consequently, they are all in a state of damnation, "without hope, without God in the world?" However confused their ideas may be, however improper their language, may there not be many of them whose heart is right toward God, and who effectually know "the Lord our righteousness?" (5:238-243)

"If you consider this, you cannot but see in what sense men may now also cast out devils. Yea, and every Minister of Christ does cast them out, if his Lord's work prosper in his hand. By the power of God attending his word, he brings these sinners to repentance; an entire inward as well as outward change, from all evil to all good. .. But shall we not forbid one who thus "casteth out devils," if "he followeth not us?" ... Suppose, then, a man have no intercourse with us, suppose he be not of our part, suppose he separate from our Church, yea, and widely differ from us, both in judgment, practice, and affection; yet if we see even this man "casting out devils," Jesus saith, "Forbid him not." ... "But what is a sufficient, reasonable proof, that a man does (in the sense above) cast out devils?" The answer is easy. Is there full proof, (1.) That a person before us was a gross, open sinner? (2.) That he is not so now? that he has broke off his sins, and lives a Christian life? And, (3.) That this change was wrought by his hearing this man preach? If these three points be plain and undeniable, then you have sufficient, reasonable proof, such as you cannot resist without wilful sin, that this man casts out devils. ... What if I were to see a Papist, an Arian, a Socinian, casting out devils? If I did, I could not forbid even him, without convicting myself of bigotry. Yea, if it could be supposed that I should see a Jew, a Deist, or a Turk, doing the same, were I to forbid him either directly or indirectly, I should be no better than a bigot still. ... In every instance of this kind, whatever the instrument be, acknowledge the finger of God. And not only acknowledge, but rejoice in his work, and praise his name with thanksgiving. Encourage whomsoever God is pleased to employ, to give himself wholly up thereto. Speak well of him wheresoever you are; defend his character and mission. (5:483-491)

Persons may be quite right in their opinions, and yet have no religion at all; and, on the other hand, persons may be truly religious, who hold many wrong opinions.
Can any one possibly doubt this, while there are Romanists in the world?
For who can deny, not only that many of them formerly have been truly religious, as Thomas à Kempis, Gregory Lopez, and the Marquis de Renty; but that many of them, even at this day, are real inward Christians? (6:199)

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)

... nor do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation. It is far better to leave them to Him that made them, and who is "the Father of the spirits of all flesh;" who is the God of the Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he hath made. ... 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)

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)

[A letter to a Roman Catholic] I think you deserve the tenderest regard I can show, ... were it only because the Son of God has bought you and me with his own blood. How much more if you are a person fearing God, (as without question many of you are,) and studying to have a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man? ... I believe that he was ... born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. ... 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 us thank God for this, and receive it as a fresh token of his love. ... 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. O brethren, let us not still fall out by the way! I hope to see you in heaven. ... O let you and I (whatever others do) press on to the prize of our high calling! that, being justified by faith, we may have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; that we may rejoice in God through Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the atonement; that the love of God may be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. (10:80-86)

As is obvious from the above quotes, John Wesley clearly put sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet; he clearly hated the truth and loved the lie. There was no subtle heresy with Wesley. He made no attempt to hide his wicked views. Truly, this wolf was not even clothed as a sheep. He was indeed a man with a consistent theology that was utterly Satanic. This is a very solemn matter, and it is made the more solemn when we realize that there were plenty of lost "Calvinists" right there with Wesley to make him feel comfortable in his Satanism. And there continue to be a host of lost "Calvinists" today who know what he believed and yet call him a Christian, showing that they do not believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ.

by Christopher Adams

Benny Hinn And Rod Parsley - Slain In The Spirit

To listen to this sermon, please click the blue speaker.

J.I. PACKER

"To be sure, fundamentalists within our three traditions are unlikely to join us in this, for it is the way of fundamentalists to follow the path of contentious orthodoxism, as if the mercy of God in Christ automatically rests on the persons who are notionally correct and is just as automatically withheld from those who fall short of notional correctness on any point of substance. But this concept of, in effect, justification, not by works but by words -- words, that is, of notional soundness and precision -- is near to being a cultic heresy in its own right and need not detain us further, however much we may regret the fact that some in all our traditions are bogged down in it."
James I. Packer (p. 174 of Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue, edited by James S. Cutsinger, printed by InterVarsity Press, 1997)

"Hitherto, isolationism everywhere in everything has been the preferred policy of both Catholics and evangelicals, and a good deal of duplication and rivalry, fed by mutual suspicion and inflammatory talk, has resulted. ... So I ought to have anticipated that some Protestants would say bleak, skewed, fearful, and fear-driven things about this document -- for instance, that it betrays the Reformation; that it barters the gospel for a social agenda ... Why, then, should any Protestant, such as myself, want to maximize mission activity in partnership with Roman Catholics? Traditionally, Protestants and Catholics have kept their distance, treating each other as inferiors; each community has seen the other as out to deny precious elements in its own faith and practice, and so has given the other a wide berth. There are sound reasons why this historic stance should be adjusted. First: Do we recognize that good evangelical Protestants and good Roman Catholics -- good, I mean, in terms of their own church's stated ideal of spiritual life -- are Christians together? We ought to recognize this, for it is true. I am a Protestant who thanks God for the wisdom, backbone, maturity of mind and conscience, and above all, love for my Lord Jesus Christ that I often see among Catholics ... Though Protestant and Catholic church systems stand opposed, and bad -- that is, unconverted -- Catholics and Protestants are problems on both sides of the Reformation divide, good Protestants and Catholics are, and know themselves to be, united in the one body of Christ, joint-heirs not only with him but with each other. ... Such a coalition [to combat 'disintegrative theology'] already exists among evangelicals, sustained by parachurch organizations, seminaries, media, mission programs and agencies, and literature of various kinds. It would be stronger in its stand for truth if it were in closer step with the parallel Catholic coalition that has recently begun to grow. ... their domestic differences about salvation and the church should not hinder them from joint action in seeking to re-Christianize the North American milieu. ... Propagating the basic faith, then, remains the crucial task, and it is natural to think it will best be done as a combined operation. ... Billy Graham's cooperative evangelism, in which all the churches in an area, of whatever stripe, are invited to share, is well established on today's Christian scene. And so are charismatic get-togethers, some of them one-off, some of them regular, and some of them huge, where the distinction between Protestant and Catholic vanishes in a Christ-centered unity of experience. ... What brings salvation, after all, is not any theory about faith in Christ, justification, and the church, but faith itself in Christ himself. ... What is ruled out is associating salvation or spiritual health with churchly identity, as if a Roman Catholic cannot be saved without becoming a Protestant or vice versa, and on this basis putting people under pressure to change churches."
J.I. Packer's article in Christianity Today (12/12/94) entitled "Why I Signed It," an explanation of why he signed the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" document

NORMAN GEISLER

"Irresistible grace" on the unwilling is a violation of free
choice. For God is love, and true love is persuasive but never coercive.
There can be no shotgun weddings in heaven. God is not a cosmic B.F.
Skinner who behaviorally modifies men against their will. C. S. Lewis
has two of the finest passages in print against the idea of
'irresistible force' used on unwilling believers. In Screwtape Letters
Lewis concludes that 'the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two
weapons which the very nature of God's scheme forbids Him to use.
Merely to override a human will...would be for Him useless. He cannot
ravish, He can only woo."..
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 35)

On Page 36 of his blasphemous and heretical book - "chosen but free" Geisler uses the writings of another heretic - C.S Lewis to try and strengthn his heretical view of arminian theology.

But if God is all-loving, then how can He love only some so as to
give them and only them the desire to be saved? If He really loves all
men, then why does He not give to all men the desire to be saved? It
only follows then that, in the final analysis, the reason why some go to
hell is that God does not love them and give them the desire
to be saved...Suppose a farmer discovers tree boys drowning in his pond
where he had placed signs clearly forbidding swimming....Suppose by some
inexplicable whim he should declare: 'Even though the boys are
drowning as a consequence of their own disobedience, nonetheless, out of
the goodness of my heart I will save one of them and let the other two
drown. In such a case we would surely consider his love to be partial
and imperfect....
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 36)

"although prompted-not coerced-by grace, the act of faith is an act
of the believer, not a gift from God only to the elect."
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 59)

"There is strong evidence to show that 'foreknow' does not mean
'choose' or 'elect' in the Bible. Many verses use the same root word for
knowledge of persons where there is no personal
relationship...Furthermore, even if one could demonstrate that sometimes
'foreknowledge' means to 'forechoose' (Romans 11:2), this does not
demonstrate the extreme Calvinist's view of unconditional election. For
the question still remains as to whether God ordained an act of free
choice as a means of receiving his unconditional grace...
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 69)

"His death on the Cross made salvation POSSIBLE for
all men but not ACTUAL--it is not actual until they receive it by
faith...
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 80)

it is not only the elect that were ungodly and enemies of God,but
also the non-elect. Therefore, Christ must have died for the non-elect
as well as for the elect. Otherwise, He would not have died for all the
ungodly...
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 196)

What Do Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Eddie Long & Creflo Dollar Have In Common?

To listen to this audio sermon, please click the blue speaker.

What do Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Paula White and Eddie Long have in common?
Answer: The lust and love of money.