Careful, Careful, Careful . . .

Let me just say that I love this site, and appreciate Brother Gregs making this invaluable mine full of treasures available to us. Bless your faithfulness brother.I have been so upset (not angry, just upset) by somethings I've read on the forum the last few months that I've simply not posted anything, and have considered pulling away altogether. However I just feel to urge you all to be careful in some of the snap judgment calls, and psedo-spiritual "watchmen on the wall" type of attitudes I've seen. Please understand my heart - I am not mocking or belittling the calling of the watchmen. I believe this is part of the calling on my life as a pastor. I'm talking about the attitude that masks itself in the garb of a watchmen by simply denying and rejecting everything that comes down the pipe line simply because this teacher was slightly influenced by thing one who was off in this area ... etc... There are some very sincere men and women of God out there preaching out of the revelation that they have that are highly esteemed in heaven because of their vertical relationship with the Father. Perhaps their are some doctrinal differences we share - however - who of us have not had sharp disagreements with out siblings? Yet did those disagreements cause us to cease being brothers and/or sisters? NO WAY! (INSERT DISCLAIMER HERE) :I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM PROMOTING FALSE DOCTRINE/TEACHING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: The Prosperity Gospel, Modern Forms of Gnosticism, Greasy Grace, Purpose Driven/Seeker Sensitive Nonsense ETC... These things and others like them should be rejected!My only warning is to be careful how quickly you label a man or a movement with strong words such as: apostate, heretical, false, etc...Who of us who long for revival could deny the powerful ministry of John Wesley? I certainly wouldn't attempt it. Also who of us could deny the ministry of George Whitfield? Once again, count me out! Yet the two of them differed GREATLY on the issue of Calvinism VS. Arminianism - yet I believe it was Whitfield (correct me if I'm wrong) when asked about whether or not Wesley would be in heaven stated something akin to, "He will be so close to the throne and I so far away, that I will probably not be able to see him." (not exact quote)This was more than a disagreement on dispensationalism, eschatology, cessationism etc... this was a disagreement on THE CORE of our faith SALVATION! Yet look at the genuine love they expressed! Both disagreed greatly but today we hail them both and set their sermons on a shelf next to one another even though the content might disagree at times! My point is that we need to be careful! I'm sure if we lived in their day there would be posts on this site going back and forth about who was the heretic and who was the man of God. In the same way Leonard Ravenhill whom we've all benefited from, ministered with John Wimber, Paul Cain, Mike Bickle, Bob Jones and others like them that many of us would call heretics - especially in light of the recent developments concerning Paul Cain. Yet Ravenhill refers to them as dear brothers. He even makes mention of a prophecy Bob Jones gave him which he obviosly received. Ravenhill also said that God told him John Wimber was a man of destiny (said in a positive way). Yet most of us would consider these men absolute heretics, Kansas-City False-Prophets - Yet Ravenhill (even if he didn't agree with them on every point) saw them and embraced them as brothers, and even benefited from their ministry!I see quotes and positive comments concerning men like Smith Wigglesworth and John G. Lake. Yet Smith Wigglesworth experienced holy laughter in his meetings on numerous occasions and employed some rather unusal methods in praying for the sick. (include what would be considered assault and batter today :) ) John G. Lake also taught what we may today refer to as "Kenyon Theology". Lake has said that we are little gods. Yet in the context of what he was saying was not heresy - but we neglect to read the context many times. Yet I've heard Brother Ravenhill praise both of these mens ministry incredibly! I love and admire these men GREATLY ALSO - I'm only pointing out that we to can praise them because they are dead. Their unusual mannerism, perhaps our sometimes differing doctrinal beliefs and the like are not as in our faces because they're dead. And like the pharisee's we build tombs for the prophets sent to our fathers but kill those sent to us. In the matter of E.W. Kenyon which came up recently... I must say that I am unfamiliar with his work only hearing others comments on it. Therfore I cannot make a fair judgment call. I am unsure of the validity of his being influenced by Mary Baker Eddy and others from her ranks - but listen, one is not guilty by association. You cannot read of Kenyon at a surface level and read ones comments that he was influenced by Eddy and say, "Well Kenyons teaching are then obviosly demonic, therefore anyone influenced by him is, and therefore anyone who holds to similar teachings today is a heretic!" Let me ask, who of us would call Andrew Murray a heretic? Not Me! Murray was greatly influenced by a man named William Law. Again who would slap the heresy label on Law? Not Me! Yet Law was greatly influenced by the famous heretical mystic Bohm! Many of the things he wrote were good, Bohm, yet he had strange and unbiblical visions and "revelations". Yet Law was influenced by him, and Murray was influenced by Law - so are they all heretics? Absolutely not! Even Dave Hunt - the famous Charismatic witch hunter - was greatly influenced by Andrew Murray!Brother and Sisters in Christ - I lovingly ask that we be careful in our words and judgements of one another! The majority of the back and forth posts I've read seem more like scriptural showdowns, a "I'm gonna show you I'm right by unloading all of the scriptural and historical proof I can! Than maybe I'll win the Doctrinal Championship Belt!" I'm sure there is Godly fellowship and the like which takes place here - perhaps I'm looking at things through a colored lens. I'm only asking that we act like brothers and sisters! Please, Please don't answer me back with a - "I'm a watchmen and must speak the truth even if nobody liks me! ROAR!" Of course thats true, if it's true! :) I've found more often than not, mostly in my own life, I use words and say things like that to hide behind. It's more of a prideful Zeal than true Godly Zeal!Remember even when Paul was rebuking the Bewitched Galatians he referred to them as his dear children, not as apostate, false bretheren. (yes I know he referred to the teachers as such, but the teachers we're discussing are not adding conditions to salvation either)I love and bless you in Jesus' Name! Please don't just read my words, but try to hear my heart! Thanks!Burning,Jeff I beg you to read between the lines and hear my heart on this matter

Thanks for the warning, Jeff. I suppose that this is why we are encouraged by Paul to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." - Philippians 2:12There are so many voices out there! If you turn on christian radio or television, you often find two consecutive preachers often preaching opposing doctrine. And lies (whether intentional or non-intentional) are ever-present -- and always serving to distort the Truth.There are preachers that I enjoy listening to. Many are dear men of God who have encouraged me to constantly strive to give my all to Christ. Men like Leonard Ravenhill or A.W.Tozer. These men have stirred my heart to desire Christ more than all that this world can give! And they have taught me that "God is true and every man a liar."But perhaps because I have had a difficult experience with a Pastor that I deeply respected and trusted, I have learned to "test everything" (I Thess. 5:21-22). It seems that there are too many believers who seem to willingly accept everything that is presented to them. Where are believers like the Bereans -- who were considered of "more noble" character because they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:10-11)?I enjoy hearing the Word preached. But the only perfect messages and doctrine are found in the Word of God. I believe that it is imperative that believers test everything -- no matter who the message is delivered by (even Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson or A.W. Tozer). Most likely, a true man of God will want you to honestly search the Scriptures in order to examine whether what they said was true. Unfortunately, there are many authoritarians today who believe that they speak for God -- and questioning their message would be the same as questioning the voice of God. It is best to stay away from "preachers" like that.Thanks for the warning, Jeff! It is timely -- especially in this day! :-) -ChrisMatthew 5:8

This so well speaks that I find it worth repeating again and have been refering to it much of late. From our friend Philologos:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Theology versus Truth? This is a copy of a posting I made on another site.In all but the basics, all biblical theology is a 'best fit' hypothesis. This may disturb the idealists (I am a fully paid up member of Idealists Anonimous) among us but it is the case. As you say Wesley and Whitfield were miles apart in some of their understanding of scripture. So how do we react to that? We can say 'well, pay your money and take your choice' but something in us says 'it must be possible to get to the truth'.Biblical theology has a built in danger in that we extract passages from various places and assemble them to prove our point. It ought to be noted that this is not the way the Bible was written; rather 'truth' is scattered through the whole and we are forced to consider each 'truth' in a context of other 'truth'. To extract 'a truth' and to isolate it from 'other truths' is the route to most of the heresies which have plagued us down the centuries.Sometimes a much respected brother will have a hypothesis to which he is passionately committed; the 'Restoration of Israel' is one which comes to mind. If another brother is unable to 'affirm' the hypothesis tensions inevitably arise and two camps are established with 'saints' taking up the banner of one or the other. This is very destructive of real 'fellowship' in the scriptures. It is interesting that although Wesley and Whitefield held diametrically opposed views on some topics their personal relationships were usually very good. Sometimes the holder of a hypothesis immediately goes into 'attack' mode thinking that you have your own hypothesis that you are setting up against his, but at times you're not. You are simply saying 'I am listening to you but I am not persuaded and I have some questions. I am putting it on hold'.I think this is where the nature of what is happening actually surfaces. Some people want to control what others believe and cannot rest until they have 'won'. Theology consequently becomes a 'battle' with winners and losers rather than a forum in which people can learn from each other. In practical terms there are some whose published views on other matters make it much more difficult to 'go with them' on a current issue. There are some who have earned your trust so that you are willing to give them 'the benefit of the doubt' in the short term. There are some whose reasoning patterns have showed themselves so unreliable that your instinct is to 'go to red alert and maximum shields'.The real conflict is often to be found not in the originators of the view but in their supporters. This was so with Wesley and Whitefield where their supporters made much more extreme statements than would have been made by either Wesley or Whitefield. I often think of the statement of Paul to the Corinthians “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”(1Cor. 4:6, KJVS)where they are puffed up not against one another, but 'for one against another'. In other words the trouble was being caused between the supporters' clubs and not the main players. Wesley clearly spotted this and advised Beware of a dividing spirit; shun whatever has the least aspect that way. Therefore say not "I am of Paul, or of Apollos:" the very thing which occasioned the schism at Corinth. Say not "This is my preacher, the best preacher in the land; give me him and take all the rest..." Do not run down any preacher. Do not exalt any one above the rest, lest you hurt both him and the cause of God. On the other hand, do not bear hard upon any by reason of some incoherence, or inaccuracy of expression; no nor for some mistakes, were there really such...We are to bear with those we cannot amend, and to be content with offering them to God. This is true resignation. And since he has borne our infirmities we may well bear those of each other for his sake. "a plain account of Christian perfection"We are required, not to change someone's opinion by the power of eloquence or knowledge, but to give an account of the faith that is in us. In this spirit I do not seek to convince holders of the 'Restoration of Israel' hypothesis that I am right, but I do challenge their assumptions and am ready to say why I believe what I believe.It does not take a professional theologian (which I am not) to do this, just someone who is prepared to think a little._________________His/yoursRon B"And on His face amazing grace is written deep in blood,The amazing price of sacrifice is stained upon the wood.Hanging high... His battle cry...Broke the gates of hell!" Graham Kendrick Oh why can't we all just get along?