since October 6, 1998.
This article was originally written and published over three years
ago. It would likely have lain dormant and largely unnoticed since
that time had it not been resurrected by one of the chief proponents
of the movement at Brownsville Assembly of God [hereafter referred
to as "BAG"] in the Pensacola, Florida, area. Dr. Michael
L. Brown, BAG's apologist and theologian took great issue with
the original article, first writing me a four page email critiquing
it and then subsequently referencing it in chapter three of his
recently-released book, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting
Critics of Revival and in his video tape sermon entitled Five
Fatal Flaws. Brown has occasionally offered to forward his
original email critique of the article to others online in ReaperNet
live chat sessions.
Brown's broad-spread criticism of my original article, although
he fails, both in his book and on the video tape sermon, to tell
his readers/hearers where they may locate the article to read
and evaluate it for themselves, brought considerable attention
to bear on the old article. Thereafter, a large number of individuals
began to inquire as to where they might obtain a copy. In light
of the feedback I received with the renewed interest in the original
article, in tandem with what has taken place in the three years
or so since it was originally written, it was determined that
the old article should be updated and republished. This updated
version maintains the core and substance of the original article,
while incorporating considerable additional related information
which has surfaced in the elapsed time since the original was
written.
Accusers of the Brethren or Good Bereans?
Have I therefore become your enemy by telling
you the truth? [Galatians 4:16]
It does indeed appear that anyone who wishes to discuss the current
movement has become, at best, a "Pharisee", and, at
worst, the enemy. Since the advent of "holy laughter"
at Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship [formerly Toronto Airport
Vineyard] in early 1994, as well as at the revival, so-called,
at BAG since Father's Day in 1995, there have been numerous disparaging
allegations leveled at anyone who calls into question Biblically
any of the peculiar practices presently taking place within the
movement. Those perceived to be a "critics" of these
movements have been referred to as ignorant, foolish, God mockers,
tragic, sad, pitiful, gossips, poor blind guides, pathetic, slanderers
of the Holy Spirit, judgmental, prideful and a whole host of other
scurrilous terms as well. "Critics" have also been on
the receiving end of more than a few imprecatory "prophecies",
wherein they are threatened with God's forthcoming wrath and destruction
if they continue to oppose the movement.
Let us examine some of the examples of the name-calling and attacks
which have been directed at any and all perceived "critics",
which practice seems to have reached an all-time high lately.
The following is an excerpt by Vineyard pastor James Ryle, disseminated
subsequent to his appearance on John Loeffler's Denver radio show
"Steel on Steel":
"There is today a group of people who promote themselves
as biblical purist, the faithful remnant who alone preach the
Word and who evidently posses the power to judge and criticize
anyone who is not like them. This is nothing new, as any student
of scripture can attest. It was in fact this very kind of people
who crucified Jesus Christ. They are scribes and Pharisees, religious
and angry, attacking and persecuting anyone who dares to differ
from their exclusive views. Here is where the plot thickens. These
watchdogs of doctrinal purity - who themselves ironically violate
scripture by their ungodly attitudes their mean spirited commentary
and their deceitful reporting have now turned their swords against
the Vineyard and it's leaders, why? Since there is no truth to
their accusations one must ask then why do they accuse? What motivates
them to tear down another church. The answer is pride, jealousy,
fear, hatred or ignorance. Take your pick. You can be sure one
of these factors is at the heart of this present contention."
Pastor Ryle provides no specifics, gives no documented cases,
but merely makes a broad assertion and in so doing makes a few
harsh judgments about others himself, specifically:
He likens us to those who crucified Jesus Christ; and calls us:
All of which begs the question: who is judging and accusing whom
here? I believe it will be evident to the objective eye who is
attempting to evaluate these teachings in light of Scripture in
a non-personal manner and who has gone on the offensive with personal
attacks. There is quite a difference between assailing the doctrines
and theology someone espouses and attacking the person. While
we are constrained in Jude, in the love of God, to earnestly contend
for the faith which was once for all time delivered to the saints,
there is a difference between contending for the faith and contending
against others. The latter is inappropriate and we ought not engage
in it.
The pattern itself is quite common and well established. Here
is but another example of it by Vineyard pastor Carl Tuttle:
"Okay, what about those who are opposed to this? Well folks,
there's always been opposition to the work and ministry of God,
you know. They opposed the prophets, they opposed the apostles
and they've opposed all those that have followed behind them.
Now, who has opposed it? Frankly...it's been the religious community.
The religious community always gets it back up when God moves,
and always starts clicking the tongue and wagging the finger,
you know?...Now if you want to read more about this, read Hebrews,
Chapter Eleven. There's always opposition to a move of God. There's
always opposition to a move of God, and we just don't want to
be those who oppose it."
Note several things Mr. Tuttle apparently expects the hearers
to take as a "given", a foregone conclusion:
Note further what Mr. Tuttle never teaches on the audio tape:
1. Be a Berean [Acts 17:10-11]:
"And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away
by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue
of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,
for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the
Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."
2. The sufficiency Scripture-in fact, Scripture is never used
except in reference to the faith hall of fame, Hebrews 11, and
then only to equate their perceived "persecution" with
that of dear saints who have long since preceded us.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that
the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
[2 Timothy 3:16-17]
"And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to
which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark
place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your
hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture
is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever
made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God." [2 Peter 1:19-21]
"For the word of God is living and active and sharper
than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division
of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge
the thoughts and intentions of the heart". [Hebrews 4:12]
At Toronto, William DeArteaga made the following comments:
"Phariseeism is the heresy of orthodoxy which is basically
correct ideas…ironically, the core problem with the Pharisee
is that he cannot recognize the present work of the Holy Spirit….Well,
for [John] Calvin, since all spiritual phenomena and powers stopped
with the apostles, there is not a category of possibly true from
the Holy Spirit, it's all, it has to be of the flesh or of the
devil. So if you have spiritual phenomena-you see, that's a non-discerning
theology….We all now associate the Great Awakening with Jonathan
Edwards and his great books on the Awakening. So, really, Jonathan
Edwards developed the Protestant theology of discernment as far
as I can see…his theology is probably the best that there
has ever come around. So, that's once incident where the Pharisees
stopped revival….And every revival has a predominant theologian,
you know. Historians say, well in this revival, Charles Finney
was the predominant figure here and theologian of that revival,
etc., etc. And the Lord has already chosen the predominant theologian
of this revival. It's not me! It's Jonathan Edwards. And every
book on revival out there, including my book does central chapters
on what did Jonathan Edwards say about revival. We're commentators
on Jonathan Edwards. That's really true."
As we can see, DeArteaga defines "Pharisees" as those
who "cannot recognize the present work of the
Holy Spirit". Which is to say, those who do not agree with
DeArteaga about just what Biblically constitutes a great move
of the Holy Spirit in these present times are labeled "Pharisees"
by him. So, yet again, we see those who have grave Scriptural
concerns about the movement called "Pharisees". Perhaps
DeArteaga and others hurling the label "Pharisees" at
those with whom they disagree do not realize that to call one
a Pharisee is to call one a hypocrite, plain and simple. Or worse,
perhaps they do and that is precisely what they mean to call us:
hypocrites. For that is what evoked our Lord's righteous indignation
with the Pharisees, the fact that they were hypocrites:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you
are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful,
but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
"Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but
inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [Matthew
23:27-28]
There is more than just the "Pharisee" label to take
issue with in the particular DeArteaga sermon cited above. The
most glaring inconsistency is the fact that he neglects to inform
his hearers that Jonathan Edwards was both an avowed Calvinist
and cessationist himself. Pretty astonishing considering the fact
that DeArteaga is supposed to be a well-versed church historian.
With that in view, let's have a look at DeArteaga's circular illogic:
Therefore, because John Calvin was a cessationist, that made him
a Pharisee, guilty of the "heresy of orthodoxy", which
is "basically correct ideas". More importantly, because
Jonathan Edwards indisputably demonstrates in his writings both
that he was a cessationist and a Calvinist, William DeArteaga
has just inadvertently called the cessationist beliefs of the
historical figure he and Toronto point to as the cornerstone of
their movement-"the predominant theologian of this revival"-heretical.
But I certainly do agree with DeArteaga insomuch as the theology
of Jonathan Edwards is concerned in that it is "the best
that there has ever come around", although I daresay DeArteaga
and I would disagree as to the context of the use of that. I would
to God the Body of Christ today would thoroughly, whole-heartedly
embrace and rediscover the Biblical, Christ-centered theology
of Jonathan Edwards. See the Appendix of this article for
an extensive, in-depth discussion of the writings of Jonathan
Edwards and the allegations regarding Edwards made by the proponents
and leadership of this present movement.
Rick Joyner and Bob Jones indulge themselves in the mix through
alleged visions, dreams and various other extra-Biblical revelations.
Joyner claims:
[Joyner's interpretation of verse 5 in Psalm 97, which Psalm he
claims God "gave" him as the Psalm for this year, 1997]
"The hills or mountains announced in this verse represent
the human opposition that now withstands the working of the Holy
Spirit in the church and in the world. This is a
prophetic indication that the Lord's manifest presence shall come
to destroy the human opposition that has withstood the working
of His Spirit among His people. This human opposition in times
past have attempted to withstand the Lordship of the Holy Spirit
in the church as well as the true revelation of the government
of God with Apostolic authority. This year will begin to unfold
the destruction of this opposition."
Joyner's visionary co-author of the "Shepherd's Rod 1997",
from which these citations are taken, also directs some alleged
Divine revelation at opposers of the movement as well:
"Vultures and foxes will devour those who do not move with
the Holy Spirit this year....Those who do not properly respond
to the Holy Spirit will be like a carcass in the desert, prey
for predators....The foxes are a symbol for delusion....Those
who do not receive the love of the truth that will be brought
to the church by the inspired teachers are going to be
marked by this strong delusion and confusion."
Of course, it's Jones and Joyner who determine, during the course
of this peculiar document, in just what manner the Holy Spirit
is allegedly going to move and who is or isn't receiving their
brand of "the love of the truth". Those who don't agree
with them are allegedly to be "marked" by "strong
delusion and confusion". This is yet another of many "prophetic"
threats of God's impending wrath directed toward anyone who opposes
them.
Don Nori of Destiny Image writes:
"It is amazing that when a portal is finally
discovered, a portal that opens eternity in an enormous
flood of God's true Presence…men are quick to condemn, criticize,
and accuse. It is even more amazing that most criticism comes
from folks who have never experienced revival in the settings
that they are repudiating….Finally, jealousy is the intruder
in the heart that keeps many criticizing revival".
The use of Nori's strange term "portal" in reference
to "God's true Presence" aside for the moment, we see
that he believes it is impossible to fairly evaluate a movement
without having "experienced" it personally. I have never
personally "experienced" arsenic, but I understand that
arsenic, ingested in sufficient quantities, will kill me. Therefore,
I do not need to "experience" arsenic firsthand to understand
its inherent danger. I have never been to Salt Lake City to "experience"
Mormonism firsthand either, but I do understand that the foundational
tenets of Mormonism are grievously flawed and erroneous to the
point of being "another gospel" which bears no resemblance
to the Gospel truth of Scripture. Nori simply makes a faulty argument
when he chastises "critics" for opposing the movement
because they haven't "experienced" it for themselves.
Furthermore, he presumptuously informs us those who do take Scriptural
issue with the movement are motivated by jealousy.
These kinds of unwarranted, flawed arguments are becoming all
too frequent today, as we see from yet another Don Nori quote:
"The New York Times, the standard in the secular American
media, recently published a front-page story proclaiming that
the revival at Brownsville and other places is just what America
needs. Now, since The New York Times sets the standard for the
secular press, no other secular media will oppose this point of
view. They may take different angles and talk about the revival
from slightly different perspectives, but all will report the
same basic fact: The revival is good for America. It seems that
the secular media is more willing to see God do the miraculous
than our religious brethren. Could it be that these brethren reject
fruit-proof because there is no confirming fruit-proof in their
own ministries? I wonder".
Has the Body of Christ sunk to having the secular media validate
or invalidate the things of God? Are we so anxious to validate
a movement by any means that we think it's a good thing
when the secular media endorses it and thinks its "good for
America"? Does this make sense in light of the fact that
the unbelieving, natural mind is not even able to comprehend spiritual
things, the things of God, and that our Lord said during His incarnation
that the unbelieving world would hate His people just as it had
hated Him?
Nori implies that critics reject the movement at BAG out of jealousy
because, as he alleges, "there is no confirming fruit-proof
in their own ministries". Denigrating allegations such as
this are all too common today and go hand in hand with contentions
such as BAG's Dr. Michael L. Brown's comment that some critics
are "ministry nobodies" in their own "home cities
and countries". The condescension and deprecation inherent
in such statements is regrettably all too evident.
"Something is seriously wrong here. Jesus said that we will
know His disciples by their fruit (see Jn. 15:8; Mt. 7:16,20)-not
by their family lineage, their proficiency in reading Hebrew or
Greek, or their ability to recite the Scriptures. Fruit-proof
is the criteria by which the activity of God is to be judged….
Fruit-proof still stands as the litmus test by which we are to
judge the authenticity of God's moving on earth. Yet many still
try to disprove these things by 'searching the Scriptures' to
see if they match their pre-set theology or their narrow understanding
of how God is to work. Jesus did not argue with John's disciples.
He simply said, 'Go tell John what you have seen and heard.'
"Who are we then, to so judge the fruit of God's moving in
our midst that we miss the life contained in His presence and
power? Jesus' final words to John were, "And blessed is he
who keeps from stumbling over Me" (Lk. 7:23). We stumble
when we try to fit the move of God into our old traditions and
expectations. This was the response of the scribes and Pharisees,
who attempted to use the Scriptures to prove that Jesus wasn't
the Christ. In His reply, Jesus pointed them beyond the letter
of the Scriptures to Himself as its fulfillment: 'You search the
Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life;
and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling
to come to Me, that you may have life' (Jn. 5:39-40). God is doing
the same thing today….
"Life is not as complicated as some people would try to make
it. It becomes complex only when we try to deny the moving of
God in the earth because it doesn't match our presumptions of
what God can and cannot do and of how He will and will not act.
The true measuring stick of God's presence is fruit-proof that
matches the fruit of His Spirit. If the fruit you see and hear
matches the fruit of God's life, then run to embrace it. If it
doesn't, then beware lest you fall into the folly of those who
deny the presence and the power of the living God."
"Fruit-proof is the criteria by which the activity of
God is to be judged…Fruit-proof still stands as the litmus
test by which we are to judge the authenticity of God's moving
on earth."??? I'll say something is "seriously
wrong here", indeed, terribly wrong. Nori has coined
the phrase, "fruit-proof", which is nothing more
than the appalling subrogation of Scripture with experience. It
certainly appears Nori is advocating the rejection of Scripture
as the absolute, final authority against which all matters of
faith and practice are to be measured. Nori himself has supplanted
the written Word of God with experientialism, simultaneously equating
those who refuse to do likewise with the Scribes and Pharisees,
while also accusing them [the "critics"] of denying
the presence and power of God.
However, perhaps the most direct, specific, ignoble threat incident
occurred when, on April 6, 1997, BAG pastor John Kilpatrick issued
an alleged imprecatory prophecy, claiming the Holy Spirit would
bring Christian Research Institute [CRI] and its president, Hank
Hanegraaff, down within 90 days. Seventy-two days later, Kilpatrick
apologized to CRI and Hanegraaff for the incident, admitting that
he had spoken not in God's stead, directly on God's behalf but,
rather, out of the anger of his own heart. Even though Kilpatrick
did apologize later, this gives us some idea of just how far some
of these leaders have a proclivity to go in striking out at outspoken
critics of the movement. And I'd say issuing imprecatory, false
"God's gonna get you" type "prophecies" against
those with whom one strongly disagrees is going very far indeed.
Steve Hill, current BAG evangelist, even went so far as to call
anyone who resists the BAG movement a "God mocker".
In fact, Hill has written a book entitled "The God Mockers".
I urge you to obtain chapter one of the book (see endnote) and
to thoroughly read and carefully evaluate it for yourself. All
of the following quotes have been taken from throughout that particular
chapter:
"Anytime you analyze something and quickly come to the conclusion
that it can't be God, be careful. You are not mocking that person
you're dealing with Almighty God"…."The Scriptures
picture mockers as those who oppose God"…."God
mockers…don't realize that they aren't just mocking a person
they are mocking the living Christ in that person! That is a dangerous
place to live, and an even more dangerous place to die. What do
you think when people say they've been set free from bondage?
Do you say, 'I wonder how long that will last?' These comments
mock the power of the Blood and the cross! You might as well look
up at Jesus and taunt Him with the words, 'It will never last.'
God mockers scoff and hold in contempt everything they 'don't
approve of'. The second mark of a God mocker is a fear of confrontation
and change. They are so stuck in religious tradition that
they are closed to new revelation….How anyone can
come into a revival meeting in Brownsville and fail to feel
Jesus is beyond me! I can't imagine it".
"Your rejection of the Spirit's work makes a mockery of the
things of God. Right now across America, groups of pastors and
church denominational leaders are openly mocking the move of God
across the nation! If you haven't noticed, God mockers tend to
hang out with other God mockers. They not only hang out with their
own kind, but they will even feed on one another like spiritual
carnivores. Once they find a likely body for prey, they will happily
gather in circles like buzzards to eat it. These God mockers are
writing 'position papers' about external physical manifestations
while totally ignoring the deeper work of God that is saving hundreds
of thousands of souls and permanently changing lives. They pompously
declare, 'Well, that isn't God,' and sign declarations of mockery
for 'distribution to the brethren' for their 'education' (the
Bible calls this sowing discord), while many of their church congregations
continue to dwindle year after year".
"God mockers have much to fear. God will recall every curse
uttered against His revival. He will replay every blasphemy
whispered…He will remember every word spoken against the
weary pastors…To your shock and dismay, He will say in that
day, 'You were mocking Me! Yes, it was Me all along"…."God
mockers have disturbed and confused this country"…."We
normally never give the time of day to critics or accusers….The
Bible says, 'Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm'
(Ps. 105:15). That is a deadly warning to every God mocker on
this planet"…."Be careful, God mocker. Do you know
who you are messing with?.…You are messing with God Almighty.
When He moves, you had better back off".
We see Hill directs a number of allegations at those who oppose
the movement at BAG:
I want to especially focus at some length on two critical points
Hill raises in the chapter:
What does this mean? The Apostle Paul himself, under Divine inspiration,
tells us that we are not to go beyond what is written in
God's Word and John reinforces it in his second Epistle as well:
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to
myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn
not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might
become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. [1 Corinthians
4:6]
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in
the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides
in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
[2 John 1:9]
We may be absolutely certain we have found the "teaching
of Christ" nowhere but in Scripture. After all, if
we do not acknowledge and concede an unchanging, infallible record
of the teachings of Christ, to which we are to neither add anything
nor take anything from, by which we as Christians are to
live, how are we to know with reassurance and certainty what those
teachings are and that we are abiding in them?
Addressing the issue, Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, adjunct professor
at Chafer Theological Seminary and founder and co-director of
Ariel Ministries, which ministers to Jewish people across the
globe, writes:
"The thing you find Scripture emphasizing is that the final
authority must be the Scriptures, the written Word of God, and
not anyone's experience. Certainly, the Apostles could have related
many of their experiences with Jesus in trying to defend their
preaching about Jesus. One thing the Book of Acts keeps reemphasizing
is that Paul, Silas and the others always made their final authority
the Word of God and not their own experiences, as incredible as
those experiences were by God's grace".
Dr. Fruchtenbaum continues:
"The Bible itself gives us a major admonition by which we
must judge all that claims to be of the Lord: the written Word
of God….it should be emphasized [referring to 1 Corinthians
4:6] that Paul says this to a church that had a strong tendency
to move towards the sensational and the experiential. Chapters
12-14 make it clear that the Corinthian Church was by far the
most Pentecostal/Charismatic of any church we have in the New
Testament. They certainly emphasized the gifts of the Spirit in
a way we do not read about in the other epistles to other churches.
The focus on the experiential showed that they were not spiritual
but carnal (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Paul must especially admonish a church
of this nature 'not to go beyond the things which are written.'
That which is written, of course, is the Holy Scriptures. For
any new manifestation or phenomenon, they must go back and test
it by the Word of God.…something that goes beyond that which
is written…must be rejected out of hand.
"One does not need to take a plane trip…to 'experience'
whether or not something is of God. It is sufficient to know that
it is not in Scripture: they have gone beyond that which is written
and, therefore, it is already evidence that these things are not
of God. And what happens to those who go beyond that which is
written? Paul declares that they become 'puffed up for the
one against the other.' They develop a spiritual pride that
is evident when they go around claiming to have a greater measure
of the Holy Spirit than other believers. As a result, they divide
all believers into two categories: those who have 'it,' and those
who do not. I guess I am one who does not have 'it.' [referring
to the Toronto movement] For that, I am glad, because the 'it'
is not found in Scripture. After observing and talking with so
many who claim to have 'it,' I have not been provoked to jealousy
to desire it in any way. I am quite content with the spirituality
described in Scripture-striving to attain it, using the Word and
nothing else.
"...Paul, then, issues a warning that as time goes on there
will be more and more false teachers, who are truly imposters
and will go around deceiving others, many of whom will be deceived
themselves (2 Tim. 3:13). They may well believe that they are
'God's anointed' and keep repeating it to their critics, but the
fact remains that they have become deceived themselves and, therefore,
proceed to deceive others as well.
"So what is it that will protect Timothy from being deceived
by false teachers? Paul answers that question in 3:14-17. He encourages
Timothy to continue in what he has learned (3:14) and he has been
trained from childhood in 'the sacred writings' (3:15).
Notice that we see the same emphasis found in 1 Corinthians 4:6
here: the written Word of God, 'the sacred writings'. There
will be two things that will keep Timothy from being deceived:
his knowledge of the sacred writings, and his continuing to 'abide'
in the sacred writings."
The second notable point Hill raises is:
Here we see the clear implication that those who speak against
the movement at BAG are blasphemers. This ominous threat of either
having committed, or being in danger of committing, the unpardonable
sin-blasphemy-has been all too frequently leveled at critics as
well. Another interesting case in point, BAG's Michael Brown writes:
"Blasphemy of the Spirit. It is a terrifying sin, a horrible
sin, a sin of disastrous consequences. It is the only sin specifically
described in the Bible as unforgivable. Just the thought of it
is enough to send spiritual chills down your spine.
"What makes this sin so severe? Listen to Jesus:
"'I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men
will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy
Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.'
He said this because they were saying, He has an evil spirit.'
(Mark 3:28-31)
"To blaspheme the Spirit is to knowingly attribute Jesus'
work done in the power of the Holy Spirit to the devil. It is
the ultimate offense. And it is something from which we must flee.
Why tamper with a sin which can lead to eternal judgment? There
is nothing more dangerous than the blasphemy of the Spirit. Jesus
could not have stated it more plainly, and we dare not take His
words lightly, especially in the day and age in which we live.
When revival fire is falling, when the Holy Spirit is moving in
power, we do well to examine this portion of the Word afresh.
And while it is true that there is debate among Bible scholars
as to the exact nature of the sin of blaspheming the Spirit, there
is no debate as to its eternal consequences!
"But first I want to make something perfectly clear:
I am not saying for a moment that the Christian brothers and sisters
who attack the current outpouring are guilty of blaspheming the
Spirit. I am not saying that those believers who attribute
the whole revival to the devil are guilty of this sin. I do not
even entertain such a thought for a moment."
If Brown does not want to instill the fear in critics of the BAG
movement that they may be in danger of committing the unpardonable
sin-blaspheming the Holy Spirit-by continuing to speak out in
opposition to the movement, why does he proceed to spend the opening
three paragraphs of the chapter "Scorning the Sacred"
discussing that very thing before he states that he is in no way
claiming critics are guilty of it? If Brown doesn't believe, as
he alleges, critics are guilty of blasphemy, then why bring it
up in the first place? More to the point, if Brown doesn't believe
critics are in danger of committing the unpardonable sin by blaspheming
the Holy Spirit, why does he also write in the same chapter:
"Are you totally and absolutely sure that you are right
in attacking the current revival? Are you willing to
wager your SALVATION on the fact that you are correct?
If not, how in the world can you dare risk the possibility that
your zeal is misguided and that you are opposing God Himself?
Is there no holy fear in you, no sense of the greatness of the
Lord, no awe of His might works, no recognition that it is far
better to tread carefully in your public judgments - lest you
revile the very One you claim to represent - than to speak rashly
about matters in which you are not, in fact, expert?"
I can see no other reason for Brown even raising the point of
blasphemy other than the fact that, while he doesn't out and out
claim, as Hill appears to have done, that critics are blaspheming,
he means to forcefully imply and hint that if we haven't already,
we are in grave danger of doing so if we continue to oppose the
BAG movement. Which seems highly contradictory to me with his
protestations to the contrary that he doesn't believe we are guilty
of blasphemy and that he hasn't even entertained so much as a
thought of such for even a moment. Brown claims one thing, but
his own words seem to bespeak quite another, do they not?
In recent months Brown has been one of the most prolific "criticizers
of the critics, although he, like Steve Hill, claims to scarcely
pay any attention to us at all. Implausibly, for two men who make
such a claim, they both wrote books wherein those they believe
to be opposed to the BAG movement are repeatedly addressed.
Dr. Brown (RevivalNow@msn.com): [Tue, Sep 16, 09:17PM EDT]
Adele -- don't get frustrated when and if critics are referred
to. Remember, Jesus addressed His "critics" too -- and
we only do so for the edification of the Body and for the clarifying
of truth. But if we responded to 1% of what the critics said,
let alone 10%, we'd spend all our time talking about them instead
of reaching the lost and backslidden. That's why they receive
only slight attention from us.
Let us review some of Brown's allegations about critics and see
if he pays "only slight attention" to us.
"Of course-how pathetic!-the critics continue to raise their
voices and attack those things of which they are ignorant. But
what would revival be like without the critics? (That's similar
to asking what the Gospels would be like without the Pharisees.)
When God starts moving, everyone falls into place: The hungry
press forward and are filled: the lost are drawn in and the backsliders
drawn home: the laborers are raised up and thrust out: and the
critics criticize! What else could we expect? Birds fly, fish
swim, liars lie, and critics criticize. Actually, we ought to
pity those who cannot recognize the glorious fruit....They reject
the Spirit because they don't like the style. Pity their souls
(think of having a ministry of criticism!) and pray for those
whom they mislead. We don't want anyone to be left out. A few
months ago the Lord said to me that soon it will be an embarrassment
to be associated with the critics. Day by day, the truth of that
word is becoming clearer and clearer. I would hate to find myself
standing in the path of a divine tidal wave, shaking my skeptical
fist and shouting, 'That's not God!' Heaven help the critics."
Brown covers considerable ground in just this one citation alone
by alleging:
As I noted above, Brown wrote an entire book to address "critics"
of BAG. Even the title, "Let No One Deceive You: Confronting
the Critics of Revival" is
somewhat misleading in that those I know, myself included, are
not opposed to genuine, Godly revival, far from it. Brown and
his colleagues at BAG just don't seem to get it: opposition to
the un-Biblical manifestations and practices at BAG does not
constitute our being critical of revival which is Scriptural and
genuine. But BAG leadership and proponents have taken the tact
that to be opposed to their movement is to be opposed to revival
period. It is an erroneous presumption.
Brown claims his chapter "Scorning the Sacred"
was written because:
"You see, it is possible to scorn the sacred and despise
the divine until the Lord Himself raises His voice in rebuke.
I fear that some critics are nearing that place of danger, and
this chapter is written to warn them help pull them back".
I find it rather peculiar that while Brown expresses considerable
concern about the plight of critics-quite frequently pointing
out that we are in grave danger of God's wrath and judgment-conversely,
he seems to have no such concerns for himself whatsoever as he
proceeds to level various and sundry derogatory allegations at
us. Although Brown claims at the outset of the book in his preface
that "this book is not vindictive", it is obvious as
one reads it there are many supercilious, pejorative terms used
to describe us, most of which are clearly attacking and personal
in nature. Consequently, I have a difficult time believing that
particular chapter, if not the whole book as well, was written
for any other reason than to attempt to intimidate us into silence
by instilling fear of God's wrath and retribution, while concurrently
endeavoring to suppress any inclination to seriously evaluate
the movement by those who presently endorse it.
That notwithstanding, as I stated regarding the Hill chapter,
I urge you, wherever at all possible, to obtain at least a copy
of the preface and first two chapters (see end note 21), if not
the book itself, to carefully read and review it for yourself
as well. Unless otherwise noted, I am going to primarily limit
myself to dealing with Brown's Preface and Chapters 1 and 2 in
the citations below. Browns writes:
"Just the issue of holy living might disqualify many contemporary
critics"!
"If we don't claim to be the holy heroes of the hour, the
mini-saviors of the moment, the enlightened leaders of the Critical
Intelligentsia Association (CIA), the elite members of the Faultfinding
Brotherhood International (FBI), if we are quick to hear and slow
to speak, recognizing that God is raising up a large and varied
army, the Lord can keep us safe from delusion".
"What is one of the roots of spiritual deception? Pride.
I have special revelation; I am right; I know. And this reveals
one of the strongholds of this destructive, critical spirit: Truth
doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't count. I have an opinion! That's
what really matters. After all, I am a critic….How dare you
question me?…This kind of attitude is all too common among
many of the contemporary critics of revival."
"Yes, all too often, the real issue is not truth, facts,
and evidence, but rather the critic's opinion….It is frequently
self-anointed, generally self-appointed, and virtually always
right. How can the critic possibly see clearly?"
"The critic is often more influenced by what he thinks and
discerns than by what the evidence, the clear and powerful evidence,
says…no matter what Scriptural proof you provide, no matter
what other proven leaders believe. As Judith Crist once remarked
with reference to art and literary critics, To be a critic, you
have to have maybe three percent education, five percent intelligence,
two percent style, and ninety percent gall and egomania in equal
parts. This applies to some spiritual critics too!"
"Careful, dear critic! Do you really want to know the truth,
or have you merely painted yourself into a corner from which you
cannot escape….If you really wanted to know the truth, you
would go and find it out for yourself…".
"Once the critic has made up his mind, he seeks out confirmation
to prove that his negative suspicions are true. In fact, he will
give more credence to one negative report that agrees with his
position than 1,000 that contradict and refute it….But that
is the blinding deception of a critical spirit."
"Yes, there is a cozy cocoon of criticism that feeds on itself
and draws strength from its rumormongering. May God's light penetrate
this darkness, and His truth pierce these lies! This kind of junk
repeating libelous falsehoods about our brothers and maligning
faithful servants of the Lord is as far from constructive correction
and godly rebuke as Death Valley is from the Arctic Circle. It
not only misses the mark, but instead of shooting at the enemy's
target, it fires at its own side." [Immediately following
this paragraph in chapter 1, Brown asks the reader to consider
some selective citations from John Wesley's Journals. Please see
Appendix II of this article for some additional quotes from John
Wesley's Journals and Letters which I believe you may find quite
worthy of consideration as well.]
"How do you want to be remembered? On which side do you want
to be? On the side of the critics…or on the side of those
who are bearing much fruit for the Kingdom of God…?"
Brown makes quite a number of presumptions and predilections where
critics of the BAG movement are concerned in just the Preface
and first two chapters alone, specifically:
As you can see, that's quite a list of invectives. Throughout
the book, and particularly in these two chapters, Brown's prevailing
presumption is that those who oppose the BAG movement are ignorant
of exactly what the movement entails and that we don't know what
we're talking about when we voice critical concerns. Another common
presumptive thread which runs throughout the book is the fact
that Brown paints critics of the BAG movement as critics of revival
in general, which simply isn't true. He grants no latitude whatsoever
to those who have carefully, prayerfully evaluated the
BAG movement in the light of Scripture, with the collateral enlightenment
of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and yet still do not believe it
to be a viable move of God. We must agree with him and believe
as he does, that BAG is a genuine God-sent revival, or else we're
foolish, pathetic, prideful, ignorant, self-anointed, self-appointed,
libelous rumormongers and egomaniacs with a considerable amount
of gall.
While Brown claims in the book that he and the other leaders at
BAG are perfectly willing to accept constructive criticism and
that they consider it carefully, it is patently obvious they are
only willing to do so if the ultimate outcome is that the individuals
raising the cautious concerns and criticism come around to embracing
and endorsing the movement. He allows no place at all for those
who, having thoroughly evaluated the movement, still do not believe
it is of God, precisely because he writes the entire book from
the presumption that BAG is a viable move of the
Holy Spirit and that critics are wrong for refusing to accept
that. Beyond offering the usual "fruit" as validation
he does not offer any substantial, sound Scriptural underpinnings
for the movement. One of my colleagues, Robert Hunter, put it
quite succinctly and cogently when he wrote:
"Again, without proving his [Brown's] point, he makes assumptions
about those who examine and reject Brownsville. They issue bogus
reports and mislead others. Dr. Brown's techniques should be called
what they are: brainwashing. He is conditioning his readers to
dismiss all criticism without any consideration whatsoever….Throughout
the [chapter], Dr. Brown speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
A very strong feature of the Toronto Blessing was the ability
of its leaders to say totally opposing things at the same time,
and that has carried over to this movement as well….the critics
are accused of 'scorning' testimonies, 'ridiculing' reports of
parents, educators, and law-enforcement agents, and 'mockingly'
rejecting the words of Christians. Dr. Brown says all of this
without bothering to prove his point. Who is doing the stone-casting
here? It appears that he is doing quite a bit of it himself!"
The attempt to instill fear by insinuating that anyone
who continues to oppose these movements is in danger of opposing
a "move of God" in order to side-step genuine Scriptural
concerns about aberrant practicies and teachings is becoming an
all too common manipulative ploy. Any viable move of God will
withstand careful Scriptural scrutiny of the highest order. Godly
men generally welcome and even invite and encourage careful, intense
Scriptural scrutiny and examination of the truths they profess
to preach and teach. On the other hand, the proponents and leaders
of Toronto and BAG attempt to manipulate, intimidate and frighten
by telling their hearers, and putting their critics on notice,
if they question the movement, they are ignorant God-mockers in
danger of grieving, or even blaspheming, the Holy Spirit and are
in jeopardy of missing out and being left behind by the Holy Spirit.
"But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that
his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
[John 3:21]
"But all things become visible when they are exposed by
the light, for everything that becomes visible is light."
[Ephesians 5:13]
What is the "light" which exposes and
discerns these things? How are we to know what is and what is
not a "move of God"? It is certainly not through experiential
"fruit-proof".
Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.
[Psalm 119:105]
"For the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light;
And reproofs for discipline are the way of life," [Proverbs
6:23]
"For with Thee is the fountain of life; In Thy light we
see light." [Psalm 36:9]
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we
beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth." [John 1:14]
That is the ageless magnificence of God's Word-it is as applicable
to your life as it is to mine and has been throughout the years
to countless others as well. The Bible is infallible, objective
truth which the indwelling Holy Spirit subjectively applies to
the hearts and lives of individual believers. The written Word
of God is living and active and everlasting and sufficient for
reproof, correction, training in righteousness and for equipping
God's people for every good work.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to conclude anything
other than the fact that, however much and emphatically it may
be denied by leadership and followers of Toronto and BAG, we are
faced with a movement which is asking us to deny the absolute
sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is being displaced as the
practical, authoritative absolute for God's people by a capricious,
fickle, experience-oriented faith. As Don Nori tells us, the "litmus
test" for judging whether something is or isn't of God is
no longer the whole counsel of God's Word, but, rather, "fruit-proof".
Why have God's people become so discontent and dissatisfied with
their Christian faith that many have now reached the point of
exchanging the absolute sufficiency of Scripture for experientialism?
What more can God do for us that He has not already done through
the plenary atonement on Calvary's Cross? What more do we want
or need which God has not freely given us?
I believe the answer to those questions is, simply, the "power",
whatever reasons may be given in justification thereof. It leads
right back to the Garden: "...and you shall be like God."
And I do not mean "power" in same sense that we must
be endued with power from on high for effective ministry either.
This goes far, far beyond that. Once a movement, any movement,
slips the bounds of what is normative and revelatory in Scripture
and goes after new revelation, no matter how much its proponents
profess to venerate and revere the written Word of God, we inevitably
see Scripture overthrown by experientialism.
It seems no different spiritually today than it was in the natural
during the Hebrew nation's wilderness wanderings. They wearied
of the manna God provided daily to sustain them in their journey
through the wilderness. They began to grumble and complain against
God, bemoaning having ever left the bondage of Egypt. Unsatisfied
and discontent with God's provision, they cried out for something
different than that which God had already prescribed for them.
Today, I do not believe the great hue and cry for "More!
More" means that these people really want "more"
so much as it means what they really want is something different
than that which God has already provided.
As we have seen, the type of experientialism ("fruit-proof")
Don Nori, and others, are advocating is the practice of omitting
and ignoring the objective truth of God's written Word when that
objective truth contradicts their personal, subjective experience.
As opposed to allowing the contextual, accumulative evidences
of Scripture to interpret their experiences, Scripture is now
to be interpreted through their subjective revelations
and experiences. Evidenced by Nori's attempted Scriptural exegesis,
we can plainly see that this kind of experientialism inevitably
leads to proof-texting and inferring and ascribing erroneous and
ambiguous meanings to Scripture passages. Nori's statements are
a clear indication that where there is more and more emphasis
placed on subjective experience, the authority, relevance and
practical application of the objective truth of Scripture for
God's people today is contemporaneously de-emphasized.
I submit to you that there is not a single movement which
has departed the purity of the Gospel truth and ultimately moved
into spiritless apostasy save they did it by elevating subjective
revelations and personal experiences above the objective truth
of Scripture. Why is that? Because once we remove the
Divine standard by going beyond the bounds of what is clearly
revelatory and normative in the written Word of God, we no longer
have an accurate point of reference for discerning what is or
isn't of God. We then find ourselves wholly at the mercy of fallible
mortals, whether ourselves and our own peculiar, subjective inferences
and interpretations of Scripture or that of others, or a combination
of both. After all, once the standard of the written Word of God
is practically removed as the final authority in all matters of
faith and practice and subjugated by experientialism and new revelation,
who is to say that what each man or woman deems to be right in
his or her own eyes isn't? Without the touchstone of Scripture
we have no absolute, inerrant frame of reference.
Paul did not call the Bereans denigrating, deprecating names for
searching the Scriptures daily to see if what he preached was
so. Instead, commending them he called them noble-minded. As I
noted at the outset, name-calling and verbal attacks directed
at anyone opposed to the movements at BAG and Toronto have reached
an all-time high. We have been accused of being not Bereans but,
rather, negative brethren, among a whole host of other invectives
as well. I believe it is obvious in the citations noted herein
just who is attacking, criticizing and judging whom. Do you not
find it paradoxical that those who have expended so much time
and effort threatening the critics with God's impending wrath
and retribution seem to have no such concerns in that regard for
themselves when they relentlessly judge, attack and "criticize
the critics"? Be that as it may, in the face of it, leave
us continually pray as did Augustine, "Lord, deliver me from
the lust of self-vindication".
The certainty and objective truth of Scripture depends only
upon God Himself and His very character for validation, whereas
subjective experience and revelation which are not normative and
revelatory in the Bible depend completely upon fallible
man and his ability to accurately discern what is and is not of
God. Are you willing to stake your eternal destiny on your ability,
apart from Scripture, to accurately ascertain and discern what
is or is not of God based on personal, subjective experiences
and new revelation?
"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]
"This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing
to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy
prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by
your apostles". [2 Peter 3:1-2]
"Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard
from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard,
through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has
been entrusted to you". [2 Timothy 1:13-14]
"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work". [2 Timothy 3:14-17]
Except where otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations
are taken from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960,
1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1988, by The Lockman
Foundation, La Habra, California.
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS: This article/data
file is the sole property of Debra Bouey. It may not be altered
or edited in any way. It may be xeroxed or reproduced only in
its entirety for circulation either free or as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this article/data file must
contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1997 by Debra
Bouey"). The Christian Conscience magazine is the only subscription-oriented
publication authorized by the author to publish this article/data
file in its entirety in its magazine. This article/data file may
not be used without the permission of Debra Bouey for resale or
the enhancement of any other product sold or published. The Christian
Conscience magazine and Debra Bouey retain all copyright privileges.
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards
In appealing to the writings of Jonathan Edwards as a means of
validating or invalidating the Toronto and/or BAG movements, as
many have proposed to do on both sides of the issue, in order
to equitably and judiciously do so, we must consider Edwards'
theology on the whole. To do otherwise-to fail to carefully consider
and honestly acknowledge his theological convictions-as has been
all too frequently the case lately, is highly selective, "revisionary
recall" of the historical works of Jonathan Edwards.
What Edwards wrote regarding physical manifestations and "Religious
Affections", which are those Edwards writings most frequently
cited by supporters of the two movements, must be studied from
within the context of his theological frame of reference, which
he clearly defined throughout his writings.
As I noted in the body of the article, early on after the movement
first began at Toronto Airport Vineyard (now Toronto Airport Christian
Fellowship), church historian William DeArteaga states:
"And every revival has a predominant theologian, you know.
Historians say, well in this revival, Charles Finney was the predominant
figure here and theologian of that revival, etc., etc. And the
Lord has already chosen the predominant theologian of this revival.
It's not me! It's Jonathan Edwards. And every book on revival
out there, including my book does central chapters on what did
Jonathan Edwards say about revival. We're commentators on Jonathan
Edwards. That's really true."
More recently regarding BAG, Mike Brown wrote:
"According to all Jonathan Edwards' tests for whether or
not the work is from God, the Pensacola outpouring is from God".
Both movements, Toronto and BAG, place emphasis on continuance
of the extraordinary spiritual gifts and ultimate restoration
of Apostolic and Prophetic offices as well. Did Jonathan Edwards
believe extraordinary spiritual experiences were normative and
routine among all of God's people? Did Edwards believe the extraordinary
spiritual gifts continued beyond the completed canon of Scripture?
Edwards responds:
"2. Ordinary and extraordinary.-The extraordinary gifts of
the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, of miracles, of prophecy,
&c., are called extraordinary, because they are such as are
not given in the ordinary course of God's providence. They are
not bestowed in the way of God's ordinary providential dealing
with his children, but only on extraordinary occasions, as they
were bestowed on the prophets and apostles to enable them to reveal
the mind and will of God before the canon of Scripture was complete,
and so on the primitive Church, in order to the founding and establishing
of it in the world. But since the canon of the Scripture has been
completed, and the Christian Church fully founded and established,
these extraordinary gifts have ceased. But the ordinary gifts
of the Spirit are such as are continued to the Church of God throughout
all ages; such gifts as are granted in conviction and conversion,
and such as appertain to the building up of the saints in holiness
and comfort."
"The canon of Scripture being completed when the apostle
John had written the book of Revelation, which he wrote not long
before his death, these miraculous gifts were no longer continued
in the church. For there was now completed an established written
revelation of the mind and will of God wherein God had fully recorded
a standing and all-sufficient rule for his church in all ages.
And the Jewish church and nation being overthrown, and the Christian
church and the last dispensation of the church of God being established,
the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no longer needed, and
therefore they ceased; for though they had been continued in the
church for so many ages, yet then they failed, and God caused
them to fail because there was no further occasion for them. And
so was fulfilled the saying of the text, 'Whether there be prophecies,
they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether
there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." And now there
seems to be an end to all such fruits [i.e. extraordinary gifts]
of the Spirit as these, and we have no reason to expect them any
more."
Regarding the practicality and supreme authority of Scripture
in the believer's life, while concurrently expressing his grave
concerns about extra-Biblical "new revelations", Edward
wrote:
"One erroneous principle, than which scarce any has proved
more mischievous to the present glorious work of God, is a notion
that it is God's manner in these days, to guide his saints, at
least some that are more eminent, by inspiration, or immediate
revelation. They suppose he makes known to them what shall come
to pass hereafter, or what it is his will that they should do,
by impressions made upon their minds, either with or without texts
of Scripture; whereby something is made known to them, that is
not taught in the Scripture. By such a notion the devil has a
great door opened for him; and if once this opinion should come
to be fully yielded to, and established in the church of God,
Satan would have opportunity thereby to set up himself as the
guide and oracle of God's people, and to have his word regarded
as their infallible rule, and so to lead them where he would,
and to introduce what he pleased, and soon to bring the Bible
into neglect and contempt."
"If God were now to speak from heaven to resolve
our doubts concerning signs of godliness, and should give some
particular sign, that by it all might know whether they were sincerely
godly or not, with such emphatical expressions as these, the man
that has such a qualification or mark, 'that is the man that is
a true saint, that is the very man, by this you may know, this
is the thing by which it is manifest who are saints and who are
sinners, such men as these are saints indeed;' should not we look
upon it as a thing beyond doubt, that this was given, as a special,
and eminently distinguishing note of true godliness? But this
is the very case with respect to the sign of grace I am speaking
of; God has again and again uttered himself in his word in this
very manner, concerning Christian practice, as John 14, 'he that
hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.'
Thus Christ in this place gives to the disciples, not so much
to guide them in judging of others, as to apply to themselves
for their own comfort after his departure, as appears by every
word of the context. And by the way I would observe, that not
only the emphasis with which Christ utters himself is remarkable,
but also his so much insisting on, and repeating the matter, as
he does in the context: verse 15, 'If ye love me, keep my commandments.'
Verse 23, 'If a man love me, he will keep my words.' And verse
24, 'He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings.' And in the
next chapter over and over: verse 2, 'Every branch in me that
beareth not fruit, he taketh away; and every branch that beareth
fruit; he purgeth it.' Verse 8. 'Herein is my Father glorified,
that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.' Verse 14,
'Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.' We have
this mark laid down with the same emphasis again, John 8:31 'If
ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.' And
again 1 John 2:3, 'Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep
his commandments.' And verse 5, 'Whoso keepeth his word, in him
verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we, that we are
in him' And chapter 3:18, 19, 'Let us love in deed, and in truth;
hereby we know that we are of the truth.' What is translated hereby
would have been a little more emphatical if it had been rendered
more literally from the original, by this we do know. - And how
evidently is holy practice spoken of as the grand note of distinction
between the children of God and the children of the devil, in
verse 10, of the same chapter? 'In this the children of God are
manifest, and the children of the devil.' Speaking of a holy,
and a wicked practice, as may be seen in all the context; as verse
3, 'Every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even
as he is pure.' Verses 6-10, 'Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth
not whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, neither known him. Little
children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness,
is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that committeth sin
is of the devil. - Whosoever is born of God sinneth not. - Whosoever
doeth not righteousness, is not of God.' So we have the like emphasis,
2 John 6: 'This is love, that we walk after his commandments;'
that is (as we must understand it), this is the proper evidence
of love. So 1 John 5:3, 'This is the love of God, that we keep
his commandments.'"
"Why cannot we be contented with the divine oracles, that
holy, pure word of God, which we have in such abundance and clearness,
now since the canon of Scripture is completed? Why should we desire
to have any thing added to them by impulses from above? Why should
we not rest in that standing rule that God has given to his church,
which the apostles teaches us, is surer than a voice from heaven?
And why should we desire to make the Scripture speak more to us
than it does?"
"They who leave the sure word of prophecy-which God has given
us as a light shining in a dark place-to follow such impressions
and impulses, leave the guidance of the polar star to follow a
Jack with a lantern. No wonder therefore that sometimes they are
led into woeful extravagances."
I point out the following because it is germane to the issue at
hand insomuch as Edwards and Arminianism are concerned.
During a recent ReaperNet live chat session when Professor James
White, author and Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, asked
Mike Brown if the preaching at BAG was Arminian in orientation,
Brown responded that it was, albeit "with more emphasis on
God's sovereignty". In the same conversation, Brown also
told White, "I'm convinced that [it] is only the Pentecostal
view that is true to sola scriptura".
Jonathan Edwards was severely critical of Arminianism. When he
moved to Stockbridge, a tiny frontier settlement, he looked forward
to writing an extensive multi-volume series addressing the pervasive
Arminian controversy of the day. While he did manage to write
several superlative treatises during that time-Original Sin, History
of Redemption, Nature of True Virtue and his magnificent work
on the Will, among others-he consequently very reluctantly accepted
the call to assume the Presidency of Princeton, which threatened
to derail his preparatory work for the multi-volume series he
had hoped to devote the rest of his life to writing. It would
not be long hence that he would die at age 55. Regarding Arminianism,
Edwards writes:
"The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret
and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction
between the decree and law of God; because we say he may decree
one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a
contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another.
However, if they will call this a contradiction of wills, we know
that there is such a thing; so that it is the greatest absurdity
to dispute about it. We and they know it was God's secret will,
that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac; but yet his command
was, that he should do it. We know that God willed, that Pharaoh's
heart should be hardened; and yet that the hardness of his heart
was sin. We know that God willed the Egyptians should hate God's
people; Psa. 105:25, "He turned their heart to hate his people,
and deal subtlely with his servants." We know that it was
God's will, that Absalom should lie with David's wives; 2 Sam.12:11,
"Thus saith the Lord, I will raise up this evil against thee,
out of thine own house; and I will take thy wives before thine
eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour; and he shall lie with
thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly;
but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun."
We know that God willed that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should
rebel. The same may be said of the plunder of the Babylonians;
and other instances might be given. The Scripture plainly tells
us, that God wills to harden some men, Rom. 9:18."
"Contingency, as it is holden by some, is at the same time
contradicted by themselves, if they hold foreknowledge. This is
all that follows from an absolute, unconditional, irreversible
decree, that it is impossible but that the things decreed should
be. The same exactly follows from foreknowledge, that it is absolutely
impossible but that the thing certainly foreknown should precisely
come to pass...The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer
a decree: for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless
he had decreed they should be; and that because things would not
be future, unless he had decreed they should be".
"About this time began the great noise, in this part of the
country, about Arminianism, which seemed to appear with a very
threatening aspect upon the interest of religion here. The friends
of vital piety trembled for fear of the issue; but it seemed,
contrary to their fear, strongly to be overruled for the promoting
of religion. Many who looked on themselves as in a Christless
condition, seemed to be awakened by it, with fear that God was
about to withdraw from the land, and that we should be given up
to heterodoxy and corrupt principles; and that then their opportunity
for obtaining salvation would be past. Many who were brought a
little to doubt about the truth of the doctrines they had hitherto
been taught, seemed to have a kind of trembling fear with their
doubts, lest they should be led into by-paths, to their eternal
undoing; and they seemed, with much concern and engagedness of
mind, to inquire what was indeed the way in which they must come
to be accepted with God. There were some things said publicly
on that occasion, concerning justification by faith alone".
One of Edwards' greatest passions, if not the primary passion
of his entire life, was to see the absolute, utter supremacy and
sovereignty of God realized in every area of life, insomuch as
it is possible for a mere fallible mortal to reach such a comprehension
in this present life. Nowhere did he write with more certitude
and theological conviction and persuasion than concerning God's
absolute sovereignty. This great passion is reflected in his writings
on God's complete sovereignty in Divine Election and Limited Atonement,
both of which are doctrines considerably at odds with the Arminian
theological viewpoint. On this subject, taking the text of Romans
9:18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he will he hardeneth.", Edwards writes:
"The apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, expresses
his great concern and sorrow of heart for the nation of the Jews,
who were rejected of God. This leads him to observe the difference
which God made by election between some of the Jews and others,
and between the bulk of that people and the Christian Gentiles.
In speaking of this he enters into a more minute discussion of
the sovereignty of God in electing some to eternal life, and rejecting
others, than is found in any other part of the Bible; in the course
of which he quotes several passages from the Old Testament, confirming
and illustrating this doctrine. In the ninth verse he refers us
to what God said to Abraham, showing his election of Isaac before
Ishmael - "For this is the word of promise; At this time
will I come, and Sarah shall have a son:" then to what God
had said to Rebecca, showing his election of Jacob before Esau;
"The elder shall serve the younger:" in the thirteenth
verse, to a passage from Malachi, "Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated:" in the fifteenth verse, to what God said
to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion:" and
the verse preceding the text, to what God says to Pharaoh, "For
the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have
I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that
my name might be declared throughout all the earth." In what
the apostle says in the text, he seems to have respect especially
to the two last-cited passages: to what God said to Moses in the
fifteenth verse, and to what he said to Pharaoh in the verse immediately
preceding. God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom
I will have mercy." To this the apostle refers in the former
part of the text. And we know how often it is said of Pharaoh,
that God hardened his heart. And to this the apostle seems to
have respect in the latter part of the text; "and whom he
will he hardeneth." We may observe in the text,
"1. God's different dealing with men. He hath mercy on some,
and hardeneth others. When God is here spoken of as hardening
some of the children of men, it is not to be understood that God
by any positive efficiency hardens any man's heart. There is no
positive act in God, as though he put forth any power to harden
the heart. To suppose any such thing would be to make God the
immediate author of sin. God is said to harden men in two ways:
by withholding the powerful influences of his Spirit, without
which their hearts will remain hardened, and grow harder and harder;
in this sense he hardens them, as he leaves them to hardness.
And again, by ordering those things in his providence which, through
the abuse of their corruption, become the occasion of their hardening.
Thus God sends his word and ordinances to men which, by their
abuse, prove an occasion of their hardening. So the apostle said,
that he was unto some "a savour of death unto death."
So God is represented as sending Isaiah on this errand, to make
the hearts of the people fat, and to make their ears heavy, and
to shut their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes, and
hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert,
and be healed. Isa. 6:10. Isaiah's preaching was, in itself, of
a contrary tendency, to make them better. But their abuse of it
rendered it an occasion of their hardening. As God is here said
to harden men, so he is said to put a lying spirit in the mouth
of the false prophets. 2 Chron. 18:22. That is, he suffered a
lying spirit to enter into them. And thus he is said to have bid
Shimei curse David. 2 Sam. 16:10. Not that he properly commanded
him; for it is contrary to God's commands. God expressly forbids
cursing the ruler of the people. Exod. 22:28. But he suffered
corruption at that time so to work in Shimei, and ordered that
occasion of stirring it up, as a manifestation of his displeasure
against David.
"2. The foundation of his different dealing with mankind;
viz. his sovereign will and pleasure. "He hath mercy on whom
he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." This
does not imply, merely, that God never shows mercy or denies it
against his will, or that he is always willing to do it when he
does it. A willing subject or servant, when he obeys his lord's
commands, may never do any thing against his will, nothing but
what he can do cheerfully and with delight; and yet he cannot
be said to do what he wills in the sense of the text. But the
expression implies that it is God's mere will and sovereign pleasure,
which supremely orders this affair. It is the divine will without
restraint, or constraint, or obligation.
"Doctrine. God exercises his sovereignty in the eternal salvation
of men.
"He not only is sovereign, and has a sovereign right to dispose
and order in that affair; and he not only might proceed in a sovereign
way, if he would, and nobody could charge him with exceeding his
right; but he actually does so; he exercises the right which he
has."
There is considerably more detail to this sermon, it is actually
quite lengthy, but I believe the point is well taken in Edwards'
opening preface, so I will forego citing further. I would, however,
heartily encourage you to avail yourselves of the entire text
of not only this particular sermon, but other of Edwards' writings
as well.
The leadership and proponents of both Toronto and BAG have often
been adamant in claiming that the Great Awakening was shut down
by the opposition of its critics and nay-sayers grieving the Holy
Spirit. I would like to cite some of the primary reasons Edwards
himself expressed concerning what he believed caused the Great
Awakening to wane. Just as the writings of Edwards have frequently
been abused and misused in misguided attempts to validate these
present movements today, so too, have Toronto and BAG erroneously
alleged that the Great Awakening's demise was hastened by its
critics, when, in fact, we can see in the citations below Edwards
had other reasons clearly in mind when he wrote. Edwards was there
in the midst of it at the time, and of course, subsequent to its
demise and, therefore, well-positioned and qualified to make such
an assessment. Here is his own perspective:
"It is by the mixture of counterfeit religion with true,
not discerned and distinguished, that the devil has had his greatest
advantage against the cause and kingdom of Christ, all along hitherto.
It is by this means, principally, that he has prevailed against
all revivings of religion, that ever have been since the first
founding of the Christian church. By this, he hurt the cause of
Christianity, in and after the apostolic age, much more than by
all the persecutions of both Jews and Heathens. The apostles,
in all their epistles, show themselves much more concerned at
the former mischief, than the latter. By this, Satan prevailed
against the reformation, began by Luther. Zwinglius, etc., to
put a stop to its progress, and bring it into disgrace; ten times
more, than by all those bloody, cruel, and before unheard of persecutions
of the church of Rome. By this, principally, has he prevailed
against revivals of religion, that have been in our nation since
the reformation. By this he prevailed against New England, to
quench the love and spoil the joy of her espousals, about a hundred
years ago. And I think, I have had opportunity enough to see plainly
that by this the devil has prevailed against the late great revival
of religion in New England, so happy and promising in its beginning.
Here, most evidently has been the main advantage Satan has had
against us; by this he has foiled us. It is by this means, that
the daughter of Zion in this land now lies on the ground, in such
piteous circumstances as we now behold her; with her garments
rent, her face disfigured, her nakedness exposed, her limbs broken,
and weltering in the blood of her own wounds, and in no wise able
to arise, and this, so quickly after her late great joys and hopes:
Lamentations 1:17, "Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there
is none to comfort her: the Lord hath commanded concerning Jacob,
that his adversaries shall be roundabout him: Jerusalem is as
a menstruous woman among them." I have seen the devil prevail
the same way, against two great revivings of religion in this
country. Satan goes on with mankind, as he began with them. He
prevailed against our first parents, and cast them out of paradise,
and suddenly brought all their happiness and glory to an end,
by appearing to be a friend to their happy paradisaic state, and
pretending to advance it to higher degrees. So the same cunning
serpent, that beguiled Eve through his subtlety, by perverting
us from the simplicity that is in Christ, hath suddenly prevailed
to deprive us of that fair prospect, we had a little while ago,
of a kind of paradisaic state of the church of God in New England.
"After religion has revived in the church of God, and enemies
appear, people that are engaged to defend its cause, are commonly
most exposed, where they are sensible of danger. While they are
wholly intent upon the opposition that appears openly before them,
to make head against that, and do neglect carefully to look all
around them, the devil comes behind them, and gives a fatal stab
unseen; and has opportunity to give a more home stroke, and wound
the deeper, because he strikes at his leisure, and according to
his pleasure, being obstructed by no guard or resistance.
"And so it is ever likely to be in the church, whenever religion
revives remarkably, till we have learned well to distinguish between
true and false religion, between saving affections and experiences,
and those manifold fair shows, and glistering appearances, by
which they are counterfeited; the consequences of which, when
they are not distinguished, are often inexpressibly dreadful.
By this means, the devil gratifies himself, by bringing it to
pass, that that should be offered to God, by multitudes, under
a notion of a pleasing acceptable service to him, that is indeed
above all things abominable to him. By this means he deceives
great multitudes about the state of their souls; making them think
they are something, when they are nothing; and so eternally undoes
them; and not only so, but establishes many in a strong confidence
of their eminent holiness, who are in God's sight some of the
vilest of hypocrites. By this means, he many ways damps and wounds
religion in the hearts of the saints, obscures and deforms it
by corrupt mixtures, causes their religious affections woefully
to degenerate, and sometimes, for a considerable time, to be like
the manna that bred worms and stank; and dreadfully ensnares and
confounds the minds of others of the saints and brings them into
great difficulties and temptation, and entangles them in a wilderness,
out of which they can by no means extricate themselves. By this
means, Satan mightily encourages the hearts of open enemies of
religion, and strengthens their hands, and fills them with weapons,
and makes strong their fortresses; when, at the same time, religion
and the church of God lie exposed to them, as a city without walls.
By this means, he brings it to pass, that men work wickedness
under a notion of doing God service, and so sin without restraint,
yea with earnest forwardness and zeal, any with all their might.
By this means he brings in even the friends of religion, insensibly
to themselves, to do the work of enemies, by destroying religion
in a far more effectual manner than open enemies can do, under
a notion of advancing it. By this means the devil scatters the
flock of Christ, and sets them one against another, and that with
great heat of spirit, under a nation of zeal for God; and religion,
by degrees degenerates into vain jangling; and during the strife,
Satan leads both parties far out of the right way, driving each
to great extremes, one on the right hand, and the other on the
left, according as he finds they are most inclined, or most easily
moved and swayed, till the right path in the middle is almost
wholly neglected. And in the midst of this confusion, the devil
has great opportunity to advance his own interest, and make it
strong in ways innumerable, and get the government of all into
his own hands and work his own will. And by what is seen of the
terrible consequences of this counterfeit religion, when not distinguished
from true religion, God's people in general have their minds unhinged
and unsettled in things of religion, and know not where to set
their foot, or what to think or do; and many are brought into
doubts, whether there be anything in religion; and heresy, and
infidelity, and atheism greatly prevail."
"You have heard great things from New England of late, which,
I doubt not, have refreshed and rejoiced your hearts; and indeed,
great and wonderful have the things been in which God has passed
before us. But now we have not such joyful news to send you; the
clouds have lately thickened, and our hemisphere is now much darkened
with them. There is a great decay of the work of God amongst us,
especially as to the awakening and converting influence of the
Spirit of God; and the prejudices there are, in a great part of
the country, are riveted and inveterate. The people are divided
into two parties, those that favor the work and those that are
against it, and the distinction has long been growing more and
more visible, and the distance greater, till there is at length
raised a wall between them up to heaven; so that one party is
very much out of the reach of all influence of the other. This
is very much owing to imprudent management in the friends of the
work, and a corrupt mixture which Satan has found means to introduce,
and our manifold sinful errors by which we have grieved and quenched
the Spirit of God.
"It can scarcely be conceived of what consequence it is,
to the continuance and propagation of a revival of religion, that
the utmost care be used to prevent error and disorder among those
that appear to be the subjects of such a work; as also, that all
imaginable care be taken by ministers in conducting souls under
the work; and particularly that there be the greatest caution
used in comforting and establishing persons, as being safe and
past danger of hell. Many among us have been ready to think that
all high raptures are divine; but experience plainly shews that
it is not the degree of rapture and ecstasy (though it should
be to the third heavens), but the nature and kind that must determine
us in their favor. It would have been better for us, if all ministers
here had taken care diligently to distinguish such joys and raised
affections, as were attended with deep humiliation, brokenness
of heart, poverty of spirit, mourning for sin, solemnity of spirit,
a trembling reverence towards God, tenderness of spirit, self-jealousy
and fear, and great engagedness of heart after holiness of life,
and a readiness to esteem others better than themselves; and that
sort of humility that is not a noisy showy humility, but rather
this which disposes to walk softly and speak trembling; and if
we had encouraged no discoveries or joys but such as manifestly
wrought this way, it would have been well for us.
"And I am persuaded we shall generally be sensible, before
long, that we run too fast when we endeavor by our positive determinations
to banish all fears of damnation from the minds of men, though
they may be true saints, if they are not such as are eminently
humble and mortified, and (what the Apostle calls) "rooted
and grounded in love" [Eph. 3:17]. It seems to be running
before the Spirit of God. God by his Spirit does not give assurance
any other way, than by advancing these things in the soul: he
does not wholly cast out fear, the legal principle, but by advancing
and filling the soul full of love, the evangelical principle.
When love is low in the true saint, they need the fear of hell
to deter them from sin, and engage them to exactness in their
walk, and stir them up to seek heaven; but when love is high,
and the soul full of it, we don't need fear. And therefore a wise
God has so ordered it that love and fear should rise and fall
like the scales of a balance: when one rises, the other falls,
as there is need, or as light and darkness take place of each
other in a room, as light decays, darkness comes in, and as light
increases and fills the room, darkness is cast out; so love, or
the spirit of adoption, casts out fear, the spirit of bondage.
And experience convinces me, that even in the brightest and most
promising appearances of new converts, it would have been better
for us to have encouraged them only as it were conditionally,
after the example of the Apostle, Heb. 3:6, "Whose house
are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the
hope firm unto the end"; and vs. 14, "For we are made
partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence
steadfast unto the end." And after the example of Christ,
Rev. 2:10, "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give
thee a crown of life." So Luke 21:34-36, and in many other
places.
"'Tis probable that one reason why God has suffered us to
err, is to teach us wisdom, by experience of the ill consequence
of our errors….I hope, dear Sir, you'll remember me in your
prayers. Never was I so sensible in any measure how vain a creature
man is; what a leaf driven of the wind, what dry stubble, what
poor dust, a bubble, a shadow, a nothing, and more vain than nothing;
and what a vain and vile helpless creature I am, and how much
I need God's help in everything, as of late. Dear Sir, don't forget
New England; and don't forget your affectionate and obliged brother
and servant, and unworthy fellow laborer."
In reading Michael Brown's recently released book, in his Appendix
I came across his discussion of Toronto's Guy Chevreau's use of
Jonathan Edwards' material in his book "Catch the Fire".
Of considerable interest is the part where Brown uses an Iain
Murray citation regarding his [Murray's] review of Chevreau's
book. Brown writes:
"As mentioned above, Guy Chevreau holds a Th.D. in Historical
Theology...and in a recent review of his book, 'Catch the Fire',
historian Iain Murray commended Chevreau for his lengthy treatment
of Edwards' writings. Though Murray felt that Chevreau's emphasis
on physical phenomenon throughout the book was not 'consistent
with what he rightly quotes from Edwards,' he had this to say
about Chevreau's 70-page discussion of Edwards' material itself:"
[Brown cites Murray in the quote below]
"It must be said that the long treatment of the thought of
Jonathan Edwards is, in our judgment, well and fairly done. No
one could read that chapter without profit. It is clear also that
the author, who writes with an appealing sincerity, has absorbed
some of Edward's main emphases and in particular the point that
physical actions can never of themselves provide any proof of
the power of the Holy Spirit: it is inward transformation, resulting
in a closer communion with Christ and a greater knowledge of God,
which alone has validity."
Iain Murray has authored a number of fine books including an excellent
biography of Jonathan Edwards and "Revivals and Revivalism",
among others as well. Being quite familiar with Iain, I was somewhat
surprised at the Murray citation in Brown's book in the context
in which it was presented. Therefore, I went to the source-the
Murray book review itself-and found my perplexity and concern
regarding Brown's use of the Murray citation quite justified.
Let us look at the entire section of the Murray quote -the part
which Michael Brown conveniently left out and did not cite [emphasis
mine]:
"It must be said that the long treatment of the thought of
Jonathan Edwards is, in our judgment, well and fairly done. No
one could read that chapter without profit. It is also clear that
the author, who writes with an appealing sincerity, has absorbed
some of Edwards' main emphasis and in particular the point that
physical actions can never of themselves provide any proof of
the power of the Holy Spirit: it is inward transformation, resulting
in a closer communion with Christ and a greater knowledge of God,
which alone has real validity. But while asserting this,
Guy Chevreau contradicts it by constructing his book very largely
around the physical phenomenon. We fail to see how this is consistent
with what he quotes from Edwards. If physical phenomena, such
as falling down, are not the vital thing, why should they be given
such prominence? We can understand secular reporters giving all
their attention to the merely outward, but this book appears to
confirm that those most closely involved are themselves far too
interested in the appearance of things."
Iain does a little more than just say Chevreau's use of the Edwards
material is inconsistent-he out and out says Chevreau contradicts
his own Edwards assertions. Murray is clearly stating that Chevreau's
use of the Edwards writings is both inconsistent
and contradictory. Do you see how Brown's highly selective
citation, leaving out the balance of the Murray comments, is extremely
misrepresentative of Iain's learned opinion regarding Guy Chevreau's
use of the Jonathan Edwards material?
If I were so inclined, which I am not, I could use the Murray
citation, in part, to make Chevreau's use of the Edwards material
look utterly erroneous. I could leave off Murray's initial qualifying
comments and equally as grossly misrepresent the Murray quote
as Brown has done, only in reverse, by only quoting the latter
part, starting with "Guy Chevreau contradicts it [his
Edward quotes] by constructing his book very largely around
the physical phenomenon. We fail to see how this is consistent
with what he quotes from Edwards...".
To do such a thing would be extremely misrepresentative
of Iain's review, equally as much so as is Brown's only citing
the first part of it in his book. What this tells us is that context
is everything and, furthermore, that we ought to, insomuch as
it is possible, check these things out for ourselves. Here we
have a paragraph by Iain Murray which, if selectively quoted,
could be used in two diametrically opposite ways. It is only in
looking at the entire paragraph we see the clear intent and thrust
of Murray's comments.
In the Edwards excerpts I have cited here, as well as in a considerable
number of other of his written works, he has told us exactly what
his theological persuasions were as they relate to the present
issue before us: Would Jonathan Edwards have considered himself,
as William DeArteaga asserts "the predominant theologian
of this [Toronto] revival"? Would Jonathan Edwards affirm
Michael Brown's declaration, "According to all Jonathan Edwards'
tests for whether or not the work is from God, the Pensacola outpouring
is from God"? Given the theological convictions of Jonathan
Edwards, do you really believe if he were here today he would
sanction and ratify either of those proclamations?
A few more questions to consider (all of the Edwards quotes below
are taken from material already cited in this Appendix):
1. Would Edwards, who was firmly persuaded the "extraordinary
spiritual gifts" of the Spirit ceased with the completion
of the canon of Scripture, endorse two movements which emphasize
the extraordinary spiritual gifts? More than simply that, would
Edwards ever have endorsed two movements which teach that the
extraordinary spiritual gifts are normative for all of God's people,
day in and day out?
"The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift
of tongues, of miracles, of prophecy, &c., are called extraordinary,
because they are such as are not given in the ordinary course
of God's providence. They are not bestowed in the way of God's
ordinary providential dealing with his children...The canon of
Scripture being completed when the apostle John had written the
book of Revelation...these miraculous gifts were no longer continued
in the church...and we have no reason to expect them any more".
2. Would Edwards have affirmed these two movements which both
often rely heavily upon extra-Biblical revelation in the form
of "words of knowledge" and "prophetic words",
dreams and/or visions?
"One erroneous principle, than which scarce any has proved
more mischievous to the present glorious work of God, is a notion
that it is God's manner in these days, to guide his saints, at
least some that are more eminent, by inspiration, or immediate
revelation...".
3. Would Jonathan Edwards, an avowed Calvinist whose theological
convictions were diametrically opposed to Arminianism have ever
embraced and validated two movements whose leaders admit their
teachings are Arminian in orientation?
"About this time began the great noise, in this part of the
country, about Arminianism, which seemed to appear with a very
threatening aspect upon the interest of religion here".
Again, I ask you: Given the theological convictions of Jonathan
Edwards, do you really believe if he were here today he would
sanction and ratify either DeArteaga's or Brown's proclamations?
Why, then, is it so important to appeal to Edwards in an attempt
to obtain his post mortem "blessing", if you will, on
these movements? Because if it could viably be shown through his
written legacy that Jonathan Edwards, the foremost pastor of the
Great Awakening and one of the greatest, most admired theological
thinkers America has ever known, would have endorsed and embraced
Toronto and Brownsville, it would grant them a large measure of
theological credibility.
How anyone can seriously engage themselves in the reading of the
writings of Edwards and fail to take into account his theological
convictions regarding Calvinism and cessationism, which permeate
all of his work, simply escapes me. One wonders if those in the
movements who have so blatantly misrepresented his work had any
concern at all that those to whom their highly selective quotations
of the material were directed would actually ever follow through
and read his literature for themselves? I am inclined to believe
this is quite likely so, particularly in light of the problems
with the Iain Murray citation in Brown's book, which I have noted
above.
That notwithstanding, in his own words, Jonathan Edwards has shown
us precisely why he would not endorse the statements made by either
Brown or DeArteaga…and why he would not have embraced and
condoned either Toronto or BAG.
Appendix II
On Appealing to John Wesley
In his book, "Let No One Deceive You",
Michael Brown cites several of John Wesley's Journal entries which
dealt with occasions upon which some individuals instigated disputations
with him. Using the Wesley quotes in his book as a springboard,
Brown writes:
"There you have it. 'Wesley, I've heard it from
someone who heard it somewhere that you were always a little weird.
Therefore regardless of the purity of your doctrine, regardless
of the undeniable fruit, I'm going to hold my opinion.' Blind
guide!….Wesley violated the dead orthodoxy of the day, even
though no one could genuinely point a finger at him, rumors were
repeated and slander spread to discredit this holy man of God.
"Thank the Lord, over the course of time, the
only ones discredited were the destructive critics….Most
believers would be hard pressed to name the chief critic of the
Great Awakening, or the leading opponents of the ministry of Charles
Finney, or the main antagonist of the Welsh Revival. These names
have faded into infamy while the names of those whom they ridiculed
and reviled are now revered.
"How do you want to be remembered? On which
side do you want to be? On the side of the critics, who freely
air their opinions for the world to hear-even when confronted
with truth-or on the side of those who are bearing much fruit
for the Kingdom of God to the glory of the Son of God? On whose
side do you want to be when the Lord stands to sort things out?
"If you want to be on the right side then, you
had better be there now. Are you?"
Brown, having simply pronounced throughout his book
that BAG is indisputably a great, Godly revival without ever establishing
such a pronouncement as a fact, makes it clear that anyone who
disagrees with him on that point is unquestionably a destructive,
discredited "blind guide" on the wrong side of God.
What's more, though the context in which he presents the citations
is controvertible and debatable, Brown is equating the present
opposition to BAG with the resistance and opposition men like
John Wesley and Dwight Moody encountered in their ministries.
Ironically, the Moody citation Brown uses is one in which the
Moody biographer from whom Brown quotes notes:
"Curious reports of Mr. Moody's provincial tour
went before him to Long. 'The World' said: 'In many large English
towns they (the evangelists) had the satisfaction of throwing
females into convulsions, and have been lucky enough to consign
several harmless idiots to neighboring lunatic asylums.' Those
who attended the meetings bore testimony that this element of
violent excitement was totally absent from them".
I fail to see the contextual appropriateness of this
particular citation in that the claim that Moody's services threw
"females into convulsions" was patently false. However,
bizarre manifestations have occurred repeatedly at BAG. One need
only purchase some of the videos BAG sells to observe them for
oneself. The "Honey, Where Are We From?" video has
a great deal of palsy-like jerking and falling down on it. When
a visiting pastor's wife is asked by John Kilpatrick, BAG's senior
pastor, where she and her husband are from, she is in such a state
that, drawing a blank, she looks out into the audience at her
husband and inquires, "Honey, where are we from?" Then
there is the video testimony of the Ward sisters, Alison and Elizabeth,
where intense jerking, palsy-like manifestations, are at the forefront.
Perhaps one of the most bizarre incidents at BAG
occurred during one of the services when a young man was lying
on the stage writhing on the floor simulating the birthing process.
Steve Hill says this was intercession. Hill explained to the audience,
"This is intercession in the deepest form right here. You
can't tell me God doesn't love you, when He will stricken another
young man who loves God with all his heart, cause him to fall
to the ground and experience the moanings and groanings of birth
pains. He's giving birth to you, friend. He's giving
spiritual birth to you. He's dying for you right
now. He's dying for you that you might have life".
In the situation with Moody, the allegations were erroneous and
false, however, this is quite obviously not so where BAG is concerned.
As to John Wesley, Brown may be somewhat disappointed
to learn that he "freely air[ed]" some very unflattering
opinions in his Journals and Letters regarding external manifestations
and strange behavior…and Christendom has been hearing them
for centuries now as they stand recorded in print. Wesley made
it clear he attached absolutely no weight to outward manifestations,
nor did he place any particularly positive emphasis on them whatsoever.
Wesley did, however, ascribe some very negative connotations to
them. Though even in doing so, he was always driven by, and aspired
to epitomize Divine love in word, deed and action. Based on what
he records in his Journals in the following citations, it is quite
likely if he were here today, he would be equally as inclined
to view manifestations and other practices which have become normative
in some churches today, including BAG, negatively. Therefore,
Wesley seems an unlikely and inappropriate candidate for Brown
to summon in support of his contentions regarding critics of BAG.
Wesley might well have been as proportionately critical of some
of the practices at BAG as those individuals Brown is chastising
in his book. Wesley writes:
"It is chiefly among these enormous mountains
that so many have been awakened, justified, and soon after perfected
in love; but even while they are full of love, Satan strives to
push many of them to extravagance. This appears in several instances:
-
"One general inlet to enthusiasm is, expecting the end without
the means; the expecting knowledge, for instance, without searching
the Scriptures, and consulting the children of God; the expecting
spiritual strength without constant prayer, and steady watchfulness;
the expecting any blessing without hearing the word of God at
every opportunity.
"Some have been ignorant of this device of Satan. They have
left off searching the Scriptures. They said, 'God writes all
the Scriptures on my heart. Therefore, I have no need to read
it.' Others thought they had not so much need of hearing, and
so grew slack in attending the morning preaching. O take warning,
you who are concerned herein! You have listened to the voice of
a stranger. Fly back to Christ, and keep in the good old way,
which was 'once delivered to the saints;' the way that even a
Heathen bore testimony of: 'That the Christians rose early every
day to sing hymns to Christ as God.'
"The very desire of 'growing in grace' may sometimes be an
inlet of enthusiasm. As it continually leads us to seek new grace,
it may lead us unawares to seek something else new, beside new
degrees of love to God and man. So it has led some to seek and
fancy they had received gifts of a new kind, after a new heart,
as,
"One ground of many of these mistakes is, the taking every
fresh, strong application of any of these scriptures to the heart,
to be a gift of a new kind; not knowing that several of these
scriptures are not fulfilled yet; that most of the others are
fulfilled when we are justified; the rest, the moment we are sanctified.
It remains only to experience them in higher degrees. This is
all we have to expect.
"Another ground of these, and a thousand mistakes, is, the
not considering deeply, that love is the highest gift of God;
humble, gentle, patient love; that all visions, revelations, manifestations
whatever, are little things compared to love; and that all the
gifts above-mentioned are either the same with, or infinitely
inferior to, it.
"It were well you should be thoroughly sensible of this,
-'the heaven of heavens is love.' There is nothing higher in religion;
there is, in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but
more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out
of the royal way. And when you are asking others, 'Have you received
this or that blessing?' if you mean anything but more love, you
mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, and putting them
upon a false scent. Settle it then in your heart, that from the
moment God has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing
more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of the
Corinthians. You can go no higher than this, till you are carried
into Abraham's bosom.
"I say yet again, beware of enthusiasm. Such is, the imagining
you have the gift of prophesying, or of discerning of spirits,
which I do not believe one of you has; no, nor ever had yet. Beware
of judging people to be either right or wrong by your own feelings.
This is no scriptural way of judging. O keep close to 'the law
and to the testimony!'"
"What I have seen in London occasioned the first caution
I gave you. George Bell, William Green, and many others, then
full of love, were favored with extraordinary revelations and
manifestations from God. But by this very thing Satan beguiled
them from the simplicity that is in Christ. By insensible degrees
they were led to value these extraordinary gifts more than the
ordinary grace of God; and I could not convince them that a grain
of humble love was better than all these gifts put together. This,
my dear friend, was what made me fear for you. This makes me remind
you again and again. Faith and hope are glorious gifts, and so
is every ray of eternity let into the soul. But still these are
but means: The end of all, and the greatest of all, is love. May
the Lord just now pour it into your heart us he never has done
before."
"Fri. 9. - I was a little surprised at some, who were
buffeted of Satan in an unusual manner, by such a spirit of laughter
as they could in no wise resist, though it was pain and grief
unto them. I could scarce have believed the account they gave
me, had I not known the same thing ten or eleven years ago. Part
of Sunday my brother and I then used to spend in walking in the
meadows and singing psalms. But one day, just as we were beginning
to sing, he burst out into a loud laughter. I asked him; if he
was distracted; and began to be very angry, and presently after
to laugh as loud as he. Nor could we possibly refrain, though
we were ready to tear ourselves in pieces, but we were forced
to go home without singing another line.
"Wed. 21. - In the evening, such a spirit of laughter
was among us, that many were much offended. But the attention
of all was fixed on poor L- -a S--, whom we all knew to be no
dissembler. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one
did I never see before. Sometimes she laughed till almost strangled;
then broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped and
struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could
scarce hold her: Then cried out, "O eternity, eternity! O
that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!" At last
she faintly called on Christ to help her. And the violence of
her pangs ceased.
"Most of our brethren and sisters were now fully convinced
that those who were under this strange temptation could not help
it. Only E--th B-- and Anne H--n were of another mind; being still
sure, any one might help laughing if she would. This they declared
to many on Thursday; but on Friday, 23, God suffered
Satan to teach them better. Both of them were suddenly seized
in the same manner as the rest, and laughed whether they would
or no, almost without ceasing. Thus they continued for two days,
a spectacle to all; and were then, upon prayer made for them,
delivered in a moment."
"Mr. Evans now gave me an account from his own knowledge,
of what has made a great noise in Wales: - "It is common
in the congregations, attended by Mr. W. W., and one or two other
Clergymen, after the preaching is over, for any one that has a
mind, to give out a verse of an hymn. This they sing over and
over with all their might, perhaps above thirty, yea, forty times.
Meanwhile the bodies of two or three sometimes ten or twelve are
violently agitated; and they leap up and down, in all manner of
postures, frequently for hours together." I think, there
needs no great penetration to understand this. They are honest,
upright men, who really feel the love of God in their hearts.
But they have little experience, either of the ways of God, or
the devices of Satan. So he serves himself of their simplicity,
in order to wear them out, and to bring a discredit on the work
of God."
It is clear that Wesley was no supporter, nor vindicator, of physical
manifestations and excesses. Moreover, he was certainly no champion
of going off after "new revelation" beyond the bounds
of Scripture. This man whom Brown says "violated the dead
orthodoxy of the day", would in all probability respond to
Brown and BAG today as he did during his tenure here on earth:
"…keep in the good old way, which was 'once delivered
to the saints;'…I say yet again, beware of enthusiasm. Such
is, the imagining you have the gift of prophesying, or of discerning
of spirits, which I do not believe one of you has; no, nor ever
had yet. Beware of judging people to be either right or wrong
by your own feelings. This is no scriptural way of judging. O
keep close to 'the law and to the testimony!'"
Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask
for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it;
and you shall find rest for your souls. [Jeremiah 6:16]
As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk
in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him
and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and
overflowing with gratitude. See to it that no one takes you captive
through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition
of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather
than according to Christ. [Colossians 2:6-8]
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according
to this word, it is because there is no light in them. [Isaiah
8:20]
I also believe if John Wesley were here with us today, he would
make an impassioned plea for God's people to remember…"the
greatest of these is love"…
"It were well you should be thoroughly sensible of this, -'the heaven of heavens is love.' There is nothing higher in religion; there is, in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way."
According to Geocities, you are visitor since October 6, 1998.