Let’s talk about heroes. Everyone has a hero and if you say anything negative about his (or her) doctrine, shame on you. You are called unloving and unkind. How dare you judge him or her.
Relationships can make or break an identification to the Living God! I don’t mean to get off on a tangent, but this stuff really, really bothers me and it should make the Christians angry! Can you see Elijah on Mount Carmel using some of the apologetic methods practiced by the prophets of baal? Or, as I will show later, can you see him borrowing theology from them to make a case for God? We are not talking about exchanging baking recipes here. We are talking about the Scriptures and mingling them with hostile and antichrist doctrines.
We are instructed to scrutinize and be critical of someone who says they believe in God. I want to know what they believe about God and then their life. I want to first hear the root and then see the fruit. I want to test the spirits to see whether the person is from God or not. Is that person a professor or possessor?
For example; if a “professing” believer named Joe is dating a Roman Catholic named Jolene, then that relationship is outward proof that Joe is either not a believer or needs to be corrected by Scripture. If I approach Joe and show him that we are not to be unequally yoked and he blows me off as judgmental, I am comfortable believing that Joe is no more saved than a hoppytoad and has never been born from above.
How is it we can know that we have the truth? How can we know what to hold onto and what to discard? Very simple; Scripture must be the only source of truth.
One thing I appreciate about my Pastor is his constant emphasis to be a Berean. It is not a pseudo and carefree position he holds to. He is always reminding us that we must examine all things in the light of the Scriptures. He reminds us constantly that we must search the Scriptures to see if what he says is true or not. I believe that he is sincere. He has his Bible stretched out and is open to correction if it is warranted.
On the other hand, there is another category of people out there who are the untouchables. What I call “mustang ministers.” They are the good, the bad and the ugly.
Let’s talk about the good first. Before I speak of James White and Alpha and Omega Ministries, let me preface this with the statement, I believe he is a Christian. I believe also those ministries known as Vision Forum and American Vision have Christians on staff. However, there relationships, whether direct or indirect are to be examined. In light of this, how do they respond to us little fish who call them to account?
On January 22, 2009, James White was on a cruise with Gary DeMar. What’s the problem you ask? This hinges around a man named Douglas Wilson. I do not have the time to go into the details of Wilson’s heresies because they can be found from good and godly sources. I will write on them at a later time, but for now, if you are interested, see www.trinityfoundation.org for details. Suffice it to say that he (Wilson) teaches baptismal regeneration and this is extended to Roman Catholics!
Gary DeMar runs a ministry named American Vision. Inside the American Vision website you will find books for sale by Douglas Wilson. You will also find books by Steve Wilkins. Both these men are involved in what is known as “Federal Vision.”
Well, let me try to communicate this in a way that makes sense. If I am a James White fan (and I do own 34 CD’s purchased through Alpha and Omega ministries) and I find he is participating in a cruise and I have the funds to attend the cruise I will be introduced to a speaker named Gary DeMar while on this cruise. Suppose I do not know anything about DeMar and American Vision, but, after all, James White would not associate with a person who would provide poison to God’s sheep right? One would think so! Let me go a step further.
Suppose, having never heard Gary DeMar, I really enjoyed what he had to say and wanted more. So, I get home from the cruise and pull up his website and review the books for sale. Hmmm, there is one by a man named Douglas Wilson. Surely he is ok because “birds of a feather flock together right?” Surely DeMar would not allow any heresies to be sold through his bookstore right?
So, suppose I buy the Wilson book and I really enjoyed it. Are any of you out there Stephen King fans? Have you ever read one of his books, tremendously enjoyed it and said, one is enough? No way! You would be at the store buying others that he had written. Even if one was a dud, you would still buy his others because it is the man behind the book right?
Moving forward, now that I have read Wilson’s stuff on history, let me find his stuff on theology. How many of us know this is common behavior? How many of us enjoy C.H. Spurgeon and own only one book? Not going to happen right? Right!
So, what has Gary DeMar done? Because of a cruise, commonality was brought together and a relationship directed me to another relationship. DeMar has exposed friends and supporters of James White to a person who may have never heard of Douglas Wilson.
One might argue that White has debated Douglas Wilson. Douglas Wilson said the same thing that R.C. Sproul has said. Oh sure, you can get the CD of White verses Wilson, but why waste your money! It was more like an evening where two friends get together and have a friendly disagreement. I did not hear White instruct Wilson to repent. Nope! I heard a pleasant exchange of disagreements.
Pray tell, where do we find the Messiah or the apostles engaged with heretics in a friendly manner? Don’t read into that question. What was the attitude with the religious teachers in their day? Not those caught in sin or those like the woman at the well or other unbelievers, but specifically, what was the typical approach to those claiming to be religious teachers and claiming to represent God? May I encourage you to read Matthew 23? May I remind us that the children of Israel have been blinded in part due to the sins of the religious teachers? What were the words said by the Messiah? You will not see me again until you say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!
I don’t think we need to be reminded of what happened under the Old Covenant when a Jew taught false doctrine right? They were found under a pile of rocks. While we do not stone people today there is a necessity to remain distant from false teachers and false prophets in order to show that we are separated from them and that we belong to God. We must be proven by our relationships. If James White inadvertently and indirectly introduces us to Douglas Wilson via Gary DeMar’s ministry, then who will it be next time? Who is going to be introduced on the next cruise? Let me state to those reading that a heretic is a heretic is a heretic. Benny Hinn is no different than Douglas Wilson. One is either Scripture bound or not. One is either set apart or not. The Messiah was clear that he who is not for Him was against Him right?
Matthew 12:30; “The person who isn’t with me is against me, and the person who doesn’t gather with me scatters.
Now, I did get on the telephone and called James White. I left a rather lengthy message of why he should not yoke up with Gary DeMar and how it would lead others to the relationship between DeMar and Wilson. I also sent an email with the same complaint. Did I hear anything back? Nope! It appears I am a little fish in a big pond and because I don’t have notoriety among the masses or a Dr in front of my name I am left out in the cold. The same thing happened when I called American Vision and also Vision Forum. I spoke to a live person at both places. Again, I was not taken seriously and probably written off as a quack.
These are the relationships causing such toxicity in the Church. Oh yes, before I forget let me mention what Wilson and Sproul have in common. Both will tell you that Roman Catholic paedo baptism is valid and not only is it valid, neither of them would re baptize you if you turned Protestant. This is brought out in the conversation between White and Wilson.
Now, I hope someone who reads this agrees that the above situation can lead to a destructive end. Maybe not for the sound in the faith, but what about a new believer who listens to James white or a new believer who listens to Gary DeMar? Don’t the shepherds have a responsibility to God in protecting the sheep under the watch?
We must not align or become aligned directly or indirectly with false teachers. We are commanded to be holy. We are commanded to be separated and set apart as God Himself is separated and set apart. Jesus ate with sinners. We do not read of Him having a doughnut and coffee with the Pharisees. He came to seek and save those who are in need of a savior.
False teachers in the church want you to believe, when all is said and done, it is Jesus plus. Wilson says it is baptism that brings you into the covenant with God. And, Wilson would have you believe that you can remove yourself out of the covenant just as easily as you got into the covenant. It is about YOU in the end when all is said and done. This is declared anathema by Paul in Galatians 1!
We have looked at the good and I have tried to show danger and now let’s now move onto “the bad” category and let’s look at these relationships and how they can reveal or not reveal a separation.
I continue to be slapped verbally when I warn people to watch out for men like R.C. Sproul and Norman Geisler. Heck, I take a beating when I mention C.S. Lewis. How sick the church is when it embraces a man who believed the mass inside the Roman Catholic Church is a sacrament. Well, let me stay focused here. These men, Geisler and Sproul, have a relationship to Rome via Thomas Aquinas.
Is it me or do Seminaries just give the status of Dr to anyone these days? From what I will show, these two specific “Dr’s”may be Dr’s of demons. I would much rather have a 30 year old Spurgeon than a 60 year old Dr any day!
Let me preface this “relationship” in the words of John Robbins.
“By adopting Thomism as its official philosophy in 1879, the Roman Church-State achieved at the level of philosophy the intellectual convergence that the twentieth-century ecumenical movement reflected in theological terms.
The diabolical brilliance of this philosophical thrust may be seen in the fact that many, if not most, of the prominent Protestant theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had themselves adopted some variant of Thomism as their own, accepting Thomas’ arguments, or at least some of them, for the existence of God; and more importantly, accepting Thomas’ basic empiricism, in which Christian theology is made to rest on the greater and prior certainty of sense experience. By thus making a sensate philosophy that many Protestant theologians already accepted its official doctrine, the Roman Church-State effectively disarmed them, removing the possibility of any effective philosophical criticism of Rome. In twenty-first century America, the Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery, the Presbyterian R.C. Sproul, and the Baptist Norman Geisler were all self confessed followers of the official philosopher and “Angelic Doctor” of the Roman Church State. Though they have remained in their own communions, their philosophical compromise with Rome rendered them ineffective as critics of Rome, for they cannot criticize Rome at the root, where it is most important, for they would then be criticizing themselves. Worse, their philosophical compromise renders Rome’s theological arguments very persuasive to many Protestants they have influenced.” Foreword by Dr. John Robbins, pg 8-9 in the book called. Sacramental Sorcery; the invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism by J. H. Thornwell.
So, we have Sproul using material by Aquinas, who in his day took his material from Aristotle. It is my understanding that we are not to go beyond that which is written especially when it is written by ungodly men. Doesn’t Paul quote from a Jewish maxim when he tells us in 1 Corinthians 4 not to go beyond that which is written?
Sproul and Geisler have thousands who flock to their teachings and look past their promotion of Romanist apologetics. In the name of love, we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater right? That is what I have been told. Moshe, think of all the good doctrine Sproul has. Look past his use and promotion of Roman Catholic/pagan Greek philosophy apologetics.
We are not to walk in the counsel/advice of the ungodly! Sproul has an indirect relationship to Rome and yet, he has the audacity to speak against the ECT document? He wants to have his cake and eat it too. How many times have we heard that Rome believes in the Trinity? Big Deal! They teach a gospel contrary to that of the Scripture. They teach men need Jesus plus you.
If this type of philosophy is acceptable then why limit it to Rome? Surely there are some “philosophies” we can borrow from the Mormons and at the same time speak against Mormonism right? What about going to the Mormons for family values, but address their false gospel and their idolatry?
Some may think Ellen G. White had some good ideas concerning the practice of hydrotherapy. Why not borrow her position on hydrotherapy and at the same time continue to speak out against the false religion of the Seventh Day Adventists? How do you justify borrowing from pagans and then quoting from pagans?
How it is that Sproul can advance Roman Catholic arguments (aka natural theology) and at the same time speak out against other doctrinal areas inside of an antichrist Rome is beyond me. I have concluded, based upon his relationship with Rome that Sproul cannot be trusted because he is feeding the sheep “goat” food under the banner of Christian apologetics.
The same can be said about Norman Geisler. His name should be Roman Geisler! How it is the bulk of evangelicals buy the books of a man who graduated from a Roman Catholic Seminary I cannot understand? Does Geisler really know the gospel if he attended a Seminary that teaches another gospel? I don’t think so. He is now running his own Seminary in North Carolina.
Shame on anyone claiming to be a follower of truth who follows this man’s discernment and supports him or his university! We should pray that God will grant him repentance. We must not be ignorant and think a graduate from Loyola University will not in turn, teach much of what he has been taught. Loyola is a Jesuit University. Anyone who knows Church history knows the Jesuits were NOT Protestant friendly during the dark ages. Lord knows how many people were sliced and diced in the name of Rome’s god. It is obvious that Geisler does not honor the sacrifice of men who died breaking away from a system who’s President and CEO is Lucifer.
I don’t think we need to talk about “the ugly.” Most of should already know what ugly is. It is blatant! Let me give to you what I believe is an ugly. When Ravi Zacharias decided to bring Michael Card into the den of the Devil and bring worship music and a Bible teaching inside the Salt Lake Tabernacle he went too far! In the name of love they looked past the antichrist doctrine of the Mormons and may as well have sung kumbaya or we are the world! Along with the evangelical “dynamic duo” was a Professor of Fuller Seminary named Richard Mouw. Mouw decided to step on my God when he called the evangelicals “intolerant” and extended to the Mormons an apology. What? Here is what he said;
In November 2004 he offered an apology to Mormons for the way in which many evangelicals have treated the Mormon faith in countercult books, stating: “I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.
To say the evangelicals were wrong is to also say the God of them is wrong. First off, what are we told to do with those who come to us with contrary doctrine? Romans 16:17 tells us that if anyone brings to us a contrary doctrine, we must have nothing to do with them. It is my understanding of the Scriptures that if I were to be invited into a so-called church under the anathema of God I must say No! Do the Mormons bring to us contrary doctrine? Is the Pope Catholic?
I find it fascinating that we have this mentality that we no longer have to wait for them to come to us anymore and that we should go to them. What justification did Ravi have to bring Michael Card into the house of those under the anathema of God and sing Christian worship songs? I also find it fascinating that Christians still invite disciples of the Devil into their houses when we are told not to. If a person does not abide in the teachings of the Messiah then by default they are not of God and do not have God.
2 John 1:9-11; Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it does not have God. The person who abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your home or even greet him, for the one who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
By bringing those who claim to be Christian into our houses we support their cause. We must not permit them to believe they have the truth and this is why we separate ourselves from them as an example. Again, read the commands from the Old Testament. The Jews were not to have relationship with false prophets or false teachers.
Mouw said we were bearing false witness? Is it bearing false witness to say Jesus was the creation of both a man and a woman; an act resulting from sexual relations? What if I were to tell the reader that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit? Go and read it yourselves. Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, pgs 50 and 51. I should hope you would have a word with me right? Is it bearing false witness to tell the world that the Mormon Jesus had three wives? What about idolatry? Is it bearing false witness to tell others that men can become gods?
Does Richard Mouw live a relationship that can be identified as separated? Can you read this dung above that he told the Mormons and believe he is one of God’s?
To be continued.