Hi Ben,
I've read through your correspondence with ...
John, is it?
You asked me, "... I would like for you
to read through my replies, if you have time, and let me know if you think
I was too rude in what I said."
No, I don't believe you were rude. It's
obvious that John became very rude and had a bit of a tantrum:
John - "How foolish can you be and
still breathe? You are more of an unbeliever and heretic than I
am!"
The only thing I would suggest
is, in the future, when you correspond with a pentecostal /
charismatic, try not to be so blunt and say at the outset that tongues and
healing are no longer for today. I know exactly where you are coming from, but
this poor guy doesn't. It is a classical pentecostal doctrine to believe that
Jesus not only died on the cross for our sins, but also for our sicknesses -
every pentecostal believes this. Of course, as non-pentecostals we believe that
in a sense Jesus' death secures our physical healing, because we will one day
live with restored, glorified bodies.
So, what I would do in that context, is to
agree with my pentecostal brother that God does heal today, but sometimes it is
not God's will that everyone be healed from their sicknesses, such as the
example you provided from 2 Timothy 4:20. Ultimately, I would tell him, our
complete healing will be fulfilled when we are resurrected. After explaining all
of this, I would then focus on the claims of healing at crusades run
by charlatans like Benny Hinn, and expose the aberrant teachings on healing
by the Word Faith movement.
Regarding the issue of tongues, I'm very
familiar with the cessationist view, and still hold to some elements of this
teaching, although I am open to other views. But again, instead of just coming
out and saying "tongues is not for today", I would first inform John that I am
not a pentecostal, and then state my view on tongues. I would also
assure him that the issue is secondary and we shouldn't divide over
it.
It is obvious that John is part of the Word
Faith / prosperity movement with his claim that Jesus was rich. The scripture
support he gave in his link, "Was Jesus Wealthy or Poor?", can be easily
refuted.
After reading through John's e-mails, I began
to wonder whether we are dealing here with a "pentecostal brother" because the
classical pentecostal view is to accept all the books of the Bible as inspired
and infallible. What is very disconcerting is John's view on Scripture, which he
actually gets from twisting the Scriptures! For example, he says that every
Christian, filled with the Spirit of God, are "an epistle of
Christ ... written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on
tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart". John is
quoting from 2 Corinthians 3:3, but using this passage to say that we must
rely on the Spirit alone for doctrine, not on the Bible which is a "tablet of
stone":
John - "So Paul's epistles to specific
church are not unique nor outstanding nor are they to be used as a general
prescription to make general doctrines. Rather we are all to be dependent on the
Holy Spirit who created us to be epistles, empowered Paul to write his epistles
and empowers us to do the same!"
Ironically, John uses the same type of polemic
as the New Apostolic Church. This cult quotes from verses 3-6 and
says:
"What we read in the Bible, is it not also
God's Word? No, it is one testament of the letter, and Paul says: "the letter
kills, but the Spirit gives life" (Bruce Duncan, The New Apostolic Church:
Truth or Error?, 1969, p. 34)
Of course, the NAC and John have ripped 2
Corinthians 3:6 totally out of context. The "tablets of stone" and "the letter"
does not refer to the Holy Scriptures; it refers to the law which brings death.
No one is justified by obedience to the law (cf. Gal. 3:10-11). Instead, we are
born again by the Spirit through the preaching of the word of God (cf. Rom.
10:17).
John then mocks us as being "a
book-worshipper", and making a "fetish out of a book". He says that we,
protestants, have made the Bible into an "infallible book". He then
has a great time taking shots at Luther, Calvin, etc. Well, ironically, as early
as the 1500s Calvin had to warn fellow Christians of religious people, like
John, who rejected the authority of the Scriptures, and yet, pretended to be
under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Calvin wrote:
"Those
who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of
penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as
madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a
great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the
Scriptures themselves ... But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose
inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the
doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish."
Here's an important comment to
note:
"God
did not produce his word before men for the sake of sudden display, intending to
abolish it the moment the Spirit should arrive; but he employed the same Spirit,
by whose agency he had administered the word, to complete his work by the
efficacious confirmation of the word... [Those]
swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only true illumination consists, in
carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the Word of God ... fasten upon
any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their minds. Surely a
very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that without
the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so they are not
ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the illumination of the
Spirit is dispensed." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1962,
pp. 84-86)
Exactly! The Scriptures is the "instrument" by
which the Holy Spirit illumines our minds to the truths of God's word. This is
not what Calvin dreamed up, but this is what God's word say. The Holy Spirit
guided the apostles into all truth (Jn. 16:13) so that the words that they
spoke, and eventually wrote down, were inspired (1 Cor. 2:13; Eph. 3:3-5; 1
Thes. 2:13). And we can understand what the apostles have written down for us
because the same Spirit who revealed the word of God through them, is working in
us to obey God's word (1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Cor. 1:13-14; 2 Thes. 2:13-15). There is
an inseparable connection between the Holy Spirit and the word of God: "Take ...
the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17).
This John is sadly propagating an
anti-Christian view of the Scriptures. And in his attempt to further discredit
the authority of the Bible, he (knowingly or unknowingly) quotes C. Matthew
McMahon who holds to "sola scriptura"! (See "Re: Was the New Testament Written
in Hebrew?") In the paragraphs which John took from McMahon's article, "Was the
New Testament Written in Greek?", McMahon wasn't questioning the authority of
Scripture, but rather, presenting the arguments of those who reject Christian
docrine such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ. In the end, McMahon
writes:
"In the discussion above, both in reference to the overthrowing of
the Greek New Testament and the orthodox doctrines of Christ as God and the
Trinity as Scriptural, the following historical figures and cults could be cited
for support: Marcion, Arius, Nestorius, Eutychus, the Montanists, Gnostics,
Docetics, and a few others to mention.
These were enemies of the faith and false teachers of the church. Today many cults follow them
unknowingly, though they believe what they believe knowingly – the Jehovah’s
Witnesses are blatantly Arian heretics, the Charismatics are following the
heresies of the Montanist, the Mormon heretics follow Nestorius and Eutychus to
a great extent, the Christian Science Church follows the Gnostic heretics and
Docetics to a great point, and so on. Who do you follow and what do you believe? Hopefully it is a faithful adherence to
the word of God in truth, and under a faithful pastor who is teaching you the
orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith." (Emphasis
mine)
Why would John quote this bit from McMahon
totally out of context? I wonder if John, besides rejecting the authority of
Scripture, also rejects the Trinity and deity of Christ? I'm also wondering if
John believes that we are saved by our works, because, after having attacked
the apostle Paul for not paying enought attention to Jesus' words - can you
believe he would say such a thing? - he says in one of his e-mails, "Men
are saved not based on Paul's words but on the word of Jesus who told all..."
(See "Re: liars because you lied and your words have proved it".) John then quotes Matthew 7:21ff.
Now, a couple of years ago, a lady, who also
rejected the epistles of Paul, quoted Matthew 7:21 in order to "prove" that we
are saved by our works, and not by grace alone. She was from the Yahweh New
Covenant Assembly. She also denied the Trinity, although believed that Jesus is
God.
Ben, why don't you try and find out where this
John worships? The doctrines which he is espousing are not Christian, but
heretical.
Yours in Christ,