Reformed�or Reforming

by

K. B. Napier

Petra eBooks

2







Patchwork Quilt Theology

by

K. B. Napier









ebook Ref. No. eb/003

 2005 K. B. Napier

Petra eBooks, BTM, PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH UK



The contents may not be copied by any means or sold in part

or in whole without the express written permission of Petra eBooks.



Full terms and condition are available at:

www.christiandoctrine.net/christian_eBooks/eBooks_t&Cs_v1.htm









This book is also published in softback by Authorhouse, USA,

and is available from Amazon and other good booksellers.









Petra eBooks

Contents

3









Contents Page

Author‟s Note 4

Preamble 5

Introduction 7

Chapter 1:

Munster, Westphalia, 1534-1535 13

Chapter 2:

The Augsburg confession 20

Chapter 3:

Interpretation of Scripture 21

Chapter 4:

Are Prayer Meetings Valid? 30

Chapter 5:

Worship 61

Chapter 6:

Who is Reverend? 64

Chapter 7:

Church Membership 74

Chapter 8:

Denominations 80

Chapter 9:

Godly Counselling is not Man-Centred 84

Chapter 10:

An Anomaly – Calvinistic Arminians 96

Chapter 11

Some Final Words 105



Appendix 1:

„The Power of Prayer Meetings‟

(A critique of Dr Peter Masters‟ thinking) 105

Appendix 2:

Free-Will and the Arminian Heresy 121









Note: You will find several repetitions in headings and subjects, because the book

is based on a variety of Articles published by K. B. Napier over the past 20 years.

However, the book expands on the original material.

4







Author‟s Note

Was the Reformation a singular display of God‟s intervention,

a move designed to thwart the activities of the pseudo-religion,

Roman Catholicism? Is it just an icon to former glories, an historical

note that fades with every passing age, because it no longer has any

relevance for us today? Or, was it only the beginning, a birth and not

an end in itself?

This book claims that the Reformation was only the start, and

that God intended it to be a prompt to indolent nations, a reminder

that great things come from God, but that men must be ready to

seize the moment, just like Luther and Calvin. All Christians must go

forward, at all times, in all ages. The Reformation began what was

meant to be continued with ever-increasing vivacity…but modern

men yawn and lay on their spiritual beds.

It is now time to wake up! Rome, with its cohorts,

charismaticism and ecumenism, is poised to finally take on its

Satanic role as mistress of the world. Those who call themselves

Reformed but who do not bother to act it out in their own day, play a

game that will help Rome to achieve its goals.

Reformed men and women – is this what you truly wish to

happen? If it is not, then please take this book seriously, for it is sent

to you with a clarion call from the watchmen of the city of God‟s

people.

Since the 1950‟s I have observed the way Christians sew

together theological patchwork quilts. Like magpies, they swoop on

any theological „patch‟ that is colourful and bright and take it back to

their minds, uncritically sewing them to each other, whether or not

they match or are of the same quality. It is not uncharitable to say

that many are unable to do joined-up thinking in their Bible exploits,

yet have the audacity to call what they sew together „theology‟.

This book contains a number of examples of the „patches‟

sewn together to make reformed „theology‟. Argue as some will, they

cannot justify the patchwork beliefs they hold!



Barry Napier

July 2005

5







Preamble



“So was ended all the work that

king Solomon made for the house

of the LORD. And Solomon

brought in the things which David

his father had dedicated; (even)

the silver, and the gold, and the

vessels, did he put among the

treasures of the house of the

LORD.” (1 Kings 7:51).



Solomon built upon the work of his father, who dedicated what

he had to God. It is right and proper to build upon and to use the

foundations already prepared. The problem we have today is that,

generally, Reformed men are no longer reforming, but rely solely on

the works of a former age. Thus the stewards of the faith who have

been given an earnest by God are not using it to accrue greater

rewards. The only way we can accrue rewards fit to join those of the

Reformers, is to continue their work and expand upon it. This book is

about such expansion and increase in blessings.



“(which stood only in meats and

drinks, and divers washings, and

carnal ordinances, imposed (on

them) until the time of reformation.”

(Hebrews 9:10)



The „time of reformation‟, diorthosis, is when institutions and

actions are corrected and straightened, restored to what they ought

to be. It is implied that they have somehow become „out of line‟ or

even twisted. The term is a derivative of orthos, meaning upright or

not crooked.

Thus, the churches have to put up with all kinds of useless

traditions as a burden until they are put back to what they ought to

be. Is this what happens in many modern churches? No, they

continue crookedly, content in their „divers washings‟, imposed by

their own rules and expectations.

In the text, people had to do their divers washings as a type of

what was to come. Once the time came for change, the washings

were to cease. So, why carry on with them, as Peter tried to do with

circumcision before being firmly rebuked by Paul? Why insist on the

jot and tittle of Reformation-age imperfections, when we now have a

far better view of God and His word?

The Reformers only pointed the way, so why have we become

entrenched in the ruts made by their activities? Should we not be

forging ahead, continuing their vital work?

6





God sent all kinds of evil upon His children in order that they

should be reformed by Him. If, after being chastened, they refused to

listen to rebuke and instruction, then He warned that He would visit

them again with even worse evils.

Today, we witness the most vile of spiritual evils, the Toronto

Blessing (and all its unbiblical, charismatic children, with a myriad of

different names). As a result of not facing and fighting it, and by

allowing it to proliferate, Reformed men are being punished. Instead

of reforming their ways and putting their house in order, they hide

and pretend that the evil movement was „just a phase‟. (There are, of

course, commendable exceptions, and there are those who speak

only in private). As a result the vast but once-temporary movement

has become a part of almost all churches, and has settled into a way

of life we call „charismaticism‟.

(Of course, as one who believes in predestination and

election, I see this as a predetermination by God, a judgement upon

the churches as a whole, for remaining in their traditions and

wrongness. As such, the reformed men I speak of cannot respond

properly, being „locked-in‟ by God‟s will.

What we are seeing then, is not a reformed church that is

being circumspect, but one that is reaping the anger of God for its

laxity and inability to discern the truth, when charismaticism is so

obviously sinful, and its corrupt „gospel‟ worthy only of condemnation;

see Galatians chapter one).

Also as a result, the allied Alpha Course became an immense

success, declaring a new (Arminian) gospel, and making it, also, an

anathema according to Galatians chapter one. For these lapses of

purity and obedience, Reformed churches will reap the sins of the

things they allowed to live, and will know direct punishment from

God.

Do not think that this will necessarily be obvious - for the

worse evil that can be visited upon men is the quiet removal of God‟s

presence from the churches. Thus, whilst they grow numerically or

experience immense activity, they are rotting and dead and far from

God. Beware, for this includes those Reformed churches that pat

each other on the back!



Happily, a growing number of Christians around this small

globe of ours is willing to check what they believe against scripture,

and those who do so are excited, because what they come to see

(what I came to see after false starts) is the Lord in all His glory, and

not the meagre copy invented by men – men like myself until some

decades ago.

My thesis is very simple. It is that what we call „Reformed‟,

though well-intended, has been fossilised and made dead by those

who have no room for the Holy Spirit or the freedom in Christ that

they preach about. We need to be reforming constantly to be in

tandem with the New Testament. In this book I hope to show readers

what I have concluded and why, the whole reasoning taken from

7





scripture and not from the works of men. Read it and see if the

conclusions are right!

The book elaborates on a selection of things that should not

really be in our churches, those that call themselves Reformed. They

are not just minor points of difference, but major problems that stand

in the way of spiritual progress and doctrinal surety.

We all tend to read books through the eyes of preconception. I

invite you, the Reformed reader, to suspend your preconceptions for

a while and to take a fresh perspective on the contents. Reformed

churches have been fossilised for some time – why not break out

from their reformationism and re-enter the far more exciting world of

Christians who are continually reforming? You never know – you

might even enjoy it!

Barry Napier

Bible Theology Ministries









Introduction

The Reformation was a wondrous period and its men were

sinners like us, yet were models of courage and conviction. Oh to

see such men today, with the same kind of backbone and steel

resolve!

Though a time of immense import, the emphasis on the

Reformation and the Reformers by modern men has not been fully-

orbed, but wrapped in the smoothed-out and unwrinkled vision of our

own perceptions. For example, we forget that the Reformers were

Roman Catholics with varying degrees of loyalty to their popes.

Luther told readers “I too was a monk, and one of the right frantic and

raving papists…so besotted in papal doctrine that, out of my greatest

zeal, I would have been ready to do murder…” („Dr Martin Luther to

the Christian Reader‟, 1545).

Though their loyalty to Rome faltered and sometimes eroded

to nothing, they nevertheless retained many Romanistic devices,

practices and ideas. This does not detract from their work – it is

merely a reminder that the very best of our spiritual fathers were just

like us, capable of soaring glories as well as failure. Indeed, they

were no different from Paul, who openly admitted to his sinful failures

as well as his successes. Any Reformed man of today worth his salt

will admit to the same things!

In the light of their struggles (and, in this text, without going

into their human sins and errors), we should understand this, for their

major attack (though it was not meant as an attack) was to produce

the seeds of an exposition of predestination (and other tough truths) -

the spiritual bomb that almost completely destroyed the power of

Roman humanism in Britain and Europe, including the heresy of

Arminianism that arose after Calvin.

8





Most, at least initially, see the Reformation as a kind of reward

from God for being faithful, but this is, really, a wrong notion, for what

we had was a Roman „church‟ bereft of Biblical truth, or so twisted as

to be useless. The Holy Spirit spoke to men such as Luther and

Calvin and caused them to rethink their Catholic teachings to the

extent that they came away from that false organisation in heart,

even if, at times, they were „rough at the edges‟.

The Reformers were responding to God‟s warning to repent.

This is really what „reformation‟ is in Biblical terms…an activity that

recognises one‟s grave error and the consequences of repeating

them. In fact, this is really what proper „revival‟ is.

As such, this activity is not to be regarded as praiseworthy in

itself, for we are told in scripture that we should not expect praise for

things we should be doing anyway! No, the respect we have for the

Reformers is based on their repentance and onward thinking that led

to the Protestant movement. (There were „protestants‟ throughout

history, as there must have been, for God would not have left His

world without a true witness. Men like Luther, commanded by the

Holy Spirit to do so, merely brought the matter to fruition).

Despite the often mystical reverence given to the Reformers,

and an acknowledgement that what they did changed the world,

Protestants today continue to live out spiritual lives that are misled,

by an insistence on remaining „reformed‟ instead of being continually

reforming. In this, many of today‟s Reformed men are very much

smaller versions of their brave and outstanding early

counterparts…few of them would ever stand up and point the finger,

or publicly oppose what is wrong.

Some pretend to have knowledge they do not have, thinking

themselves to be „something‟ amongst their peers. Luther gave short-

shrift to these “self-grown doctors” who “in truth are nothing, do

nothing and accomplish nothing, are moreover untried and

inexperienced, and yet, after a single look at the scriptures, think

themselves able wholly to exhaust its spirit.” („To the Christian

Reader‟). Please note that I am not referring to academic knowledge,

but the knowledge given only by God that makes a pauper a prince,

a dunce into a professor of God!

To insist on being „reformed‟ is to be frozen into a particular

ethos of a particular time period, with all its flaws and part-born ideas.

It is to be at the preliminary stage of only just seeing God‟s warnings

about our spiritual deficits and bad practices…and then to stay at that

stage, repentant but stationary, nowhere near the „cutting edge‟ of

the age we live in.



In the Hebrew, a word is used to describe a requirement of

God that is given by God to His errant people. The word is yacar,

meaning „reformed‟.



“And if ye will not be reformed by me by

these things,

but will walk contrary to me;

9





Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and

will punish you yet seven times for your sins.”

(Leviticus 26:23, 24)



It is clear that the „reformed‟ state in this text is active and

continuous, and is given life by God Himself. Indeed, the history of

the Hebrews is one of continual calls to be reformed, because they

reformed once, twice, and more, then went back to their old ways.

Interestingly, this call to reformation was particularly aimed at the

priests*, who would, in turn, influence the people. (*Leviticus is

known to Jews as the Torat Kohanim or „the priests‟ manual‟).

As a result, God had to call them back each time or be

punished. The „things‟ that led to being reformed are mentioned in

detail, and something else that is clear is that reformation follows on

from dire circumstances. Reformation, then, is a reaction, not a pro-

active process or a planned one.

(This makes the fashion of praying for reformation very odd. In

essence it is asking God for judgement upon the churches, but

confusing this with some kind of revival. If reformation is a judgement

from God for disobedience, would it not be far better to pray for

spiritual purity and then to act it out, thus avoiding the dire

consequences that follow God‟s call to reform? This alone will bring

benefits untold!).

The Hebrew yacar means to chasten or discipline. It is a

dynamic word involving the principle of allowing oneself to be

instructed or rebuked about something. So, why was God so

adamant? What caused Him to demand reformation? The context

explains…

If we go back to verse 55 of chapter 25, we read:



“For unto me the children of Israel (are)

servants; they (are) my servants whom I

brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I (am)

the LORD your God.”



All Reformed Christians claim this to be true of themselves –

all Believers are bought with the blood of the Lamb, symbolised by

the lamb of sacrifice that „covered‟ the Hebrews before their flight

from Egypt.

As God‟s people we are likewise servants of the most high

God. A servant does not do what he wishes, and does not live his life

according to his own desires. He lives as his Master wishes and

desires. God has purchased us with the blood of His Son, Jesus

Christ, so our lives are His, through salvation. (Read chapter 26 from

verse 1)

As a consequence we may not make idols or graven images –

God is our only Lord and we must not bow to any other. Yet, as an

Italian communist leader once said to me, “You Protestants have

your own popes”.

10





Sadly, though I loyally defended the Reformed corner at the

time, I reluctantly came to see that this was a correct assessment of

the Reformed churches, who, generally, have elected their own

popes, whether it is Calvin, or Luther, Spurgeon, or Lloyd Jones. Or

the local pastor.

The very Reformed men who shout against Romanists bowing

to a pope nevertheless bow to their own idols in their own pulpits! It is

very easy for a man to allow this to happen, or even to nurture

it…and it happens throughout many of the churches around the

world. This does not mean that I reject Reformed men or their

churches – only that the Reformed churches need to sit up and take

notice…and change dramatically, immediately.

Have you heard people say “Oh, I leave theology to the

pastor” or “I‟m just a simple Christian – the pastor is up there for

teaching” and so on, including the seemingly innocuous reference to

“…us, down in the pews” – a statement that incorporates servitude

by a congregation and elevation of the pastor? This kind of pedestal-

placing is rife in every kind of structure, and it is simply not Biblical.

The Hebrews were to keep God‟s Sabbaths and reverence

His sanctuary…do we do the same? I hardly think so! How many

Reformed churches dare to taint God‟s place of worship with

irrelevant plays and concerts, or displays of charismatic sins and

Romanistic tendencies? Too many I fear. (Note: Calvin allowed plays

to be performed, but not all passed the test of the Council, and they

were never used as a substitute for direct preaching).

The Hebrews had to walk in God‟s statutes and

commandments before they had “rain in due season”. Do we walk in

God‟s way, truly? No, mostly we do not. We walk in our own way,

and ignore His commandments. If you think I am inventing this,

please read the examples in this book.

Our very safety and well-being depends entirely on our

obedience, an obedience we rarely give to our Lord. Do you wonder

why churches are quickly emptying? It has nothing to do with failing

to maintain interest or not spicing up Sunday meetings. The prime

reason is that God predestinates those who will be saved and how

many will populate His churches in any age, but another reason is

that He removes congregations from bad pastors (xxxxxx). This fact

shows us that human drives to „create‟ interest are futile.

We are reaping a very poor harvest, and rightly so. The

performance of many Reformed men when the hateful Toronto

Blessing struck the world was shocking. A handful stood valiantly to

be counted, but most hid in the baggage and became cowards. They

refused to stand and fight, or, they put up excuses they attributed to

an odd kind of Biblical piety, and so were mown down or subjugated.

By remaining silent, they became a friend of the enemy, sharing his

sins and condoning them.

In the UK only about 3 or maybe 4 fought a public battle

against the Toronto-ists, over several years, at great personal cost.

Those needed as allies stayed behind church doors and did not

support the few. Rather, they scorned or made their distaste known.

11





A great time in church history was lost – God saw our disobediences

and demanded another great reformation, but we failed the test

miserably!

As a result, charismatic error is now the major idol and mover

of the world, a stark judgement that is not even recognised as a

punishment by our churches, such is their low spiritual state. Make

no mistake, charismaticism is just as much a counter-Reformation as

was the Roman kind, if not even greater, for it now incorporates

Romanism and more!



The Bridge

Reformed men saw the false „blessing‟ as a „passing phase‟.

They shut up, thinking that it would just go away. In doing so, they

completely missed the point – that charismaticism was, and is, the

bridge Satan needed (and has already developed) between

Protestantism and Rome (a claim made by Romanists themselves).

On top of that, the movement has sub-divided into many other

charismatic perversions, which continue to sub-divide.

The bridge was erected under the noses of the Reformed, the

men who followed on from Calvin, who, in his lifetime, prevented

Romanists from even lodging in Geneva, so as to secure a Biblical

way of life for the city! (So much so, that John Knox marvelled at the

result). If the disparity were not so serious, it would be a laughable

irony.

Freedom from violence is also open to those who obey…but

we do not obey, and let evil men run amok in our nations, without

check or challenge. Time and again, unsaved populaces complain

that Christian churches are silent when it comes to the big things in

life. They are right. When did you last hear a local pastor stand and

be counted, and speak out against this or that evil? I dare say, never,

in most places. Their very silence accounts for the success of the

Alpha Course, one of charismaticism‟s „theological arms‟.

Or, what about those who have been put on national

pedestals and who enjoy an (humanly planned) elevated status

within the churches? No, they, too, remain silent. Who speaks out?

Yes – Romanists, their sons the Anglicans, and their cohorts, the

charismatics! Thus, the world equates charismatic claims with true

Christianity…and Reformed men still stay silent!



Courage

We are to chase our enemies and bring them down (verse 7), so as

not to allow them to overrun our land and peoples. This takes outright

courage, a courage rarely seen in the churches or in our spiritual

leaders. If anything, those with courage are cut down by their own

men, who fear that the enemy might turn back and decimate them in

return! (I make no apology for saying that one of my Biblical heroes is

David, the warrior king, and that I have very little time for spiritual

cowards).

If we only obey, God promises to walk with us. He says that

when He brought us out of Egypt He broke the bonds of our yoke.

12





We no longer serve our taskmaster, Satan. So, why, then, do we

constantly obey Satan by disobeying God in very un-reformed

actions and beliefs? Why do we allow sin to proliferate in our lands,

and even in our churches?

Why do we remain silent when enemies just walk unhindered

through the front doors of our churches and institutions? Why do

local pastors remain silent when Romanists and charismatics are

next door (and sometimes in their midst), proudly showing off their

spiritual baubles to a gullible public? When all kinds of pagans and

cultists open up their doors nearby? And when Islam forces its way

remorselessly through everything we have ever valued in Western

life?



Not Reformed

Most Christians who call themselves „Reformed‟, then, are

nothing of the kind! The freedom we should have is not ours. We are

still shackled to Satan and show it in many ways. By doing so we

break the covenant with God, and He responds with the application

of terror (verse 16 on), consumption and the „burning ague‟ (fever).

He will set His face against us…and who but a fool will say that this

is not so in our own day?

We will be slain before our enemies (verse 17) – and this

occurred when the Toronto Blessing strode over the bodies of

Christian leaders playing possum. Today, though the „Blessing‟ in its

many guises (including the Alpha Course) continues its destructive

path through all churches, the same „Reformed‟ leaders remain quiet.

God‟s warning is very much being enacted in our time!



A Warning

The Reformation of the Middle Ages was a warning command

from God to His people, those who were saved by grace alone, to

stand and be counted. The men called to begin that work had

themselves to be saved before they could implement a move of God

that would shake the world. The Romish heresy they fought against

was the enemy God allowed to crush His people. Then, by His grace,

He led them out of spiritual Babylon to know true freedom.

But, what happened? Despite the deaths of martyrs, the freed

churches hung on to their links with Rome, keeping Romish traditions

and teachings! That is why the Church of England is now sliding

inexorably back down the pit to join its mother, the harlot, Rome.

There have been notable exceptions to this slide from other

Protestant denominations, but these have all taken the road of

tradition and men‟s ideas. Which takes us back to the warnings given

to the ancient Jews. They had to reform or take the consequences of

an angry God.



Toronto Sneer

In modern times, the Toronto Blessing - which continues

unabated, cruelly sneering at those Reformed men who thought it

was „just a fad‟ - is equal to the „king of the North‟ kept on a leash by

13





Almighty God in the days of Isaiah until He needed to let him loose to

utterly devastate the Israelites if they did not repent. Ten years after

the Toronto Blessing itself, more „waves‟ of charismatic heresy are

due to smash their way through our churches. The churches that

thought it was „just a phase‟ will soon come to know how powerful

this ongoing movement really is!

Reformed men must, right now, repent and cast aside their

human traditions, their monolithic denominations, and their second-

best theologies. It is time, NOW, to obey scripture, God‟s word, and

His word alone. This was, after all, the legend of the Reformation and

the rock on which men of faith died and fought! So, why is this

principle being disregarded in full view?

I know that many Reformed men refuse to accept the global

historical importance and vileness of the Toronto Blessing (to which

must be added the subtle Alpha Course). In my own long fight

against this mammoth deception I have noted how leaders have

written their judgements, which are only third-hand reports based on

the reports of others. They did not have direct „fighting‟ contact, so

they completely overlooked the clues – which are plainly visible to

those who have eyes to see! Most Reformed men think it totally

impossible that they would succumb to the deceptions of

charismatics. Perhaps they ought to take note of their own church

history.







Chapter 1





Munster, Westphalia, 1534-1535



Let us look briefly at the errors of the Anabaptists. Though not

accepted by some as a true part of the Reformation, they were,

nevertheless, part of it, for good or ill, and so mention of their errors

is fair. We can think of them as we would a modern-day charismatic

denomination or cult.

In their zeal to establish the „New Jerusalem‟ at Münster, the

Melchiorite Anabaptists entered into an intolerable situation. Some

think that their behaviour was inevitable as “an extreme outworking of

some latent tendencies within reformed thought” (Charisma &

History: The Case of Münster, Westphalia‟, Tal Howard, essays in

History, University of Virginia, Volume 35, 1993).

Remember that at this time emphasis was being removed

from priests and Roman ideas of „church‟, and so, often, weird

interpretations of scripture emerged, almost as a “right of laymen”.

(Even today many reformed preachers insist on „spiritualising‟ texts,

without any kind of logical or Biblical warrant).

14





Two men, major „prophets‟ within the movement, Jan Matthys

and Jan Bockelszoon van Leiden, taking extreme interpretations as

their guide, caused mayhem socially and politically by not interpreting

properly (see later notes on the proper interpretation of scripture).

Matthys was said to have a „dominant charismatic style‟, whilst

Bockelszoon merely „bureaucratised‟ the charisma, which led to an

hideous oppressive legalism. (This is denied by the University of

Virginia, who claim that both men became extremely bureaucratic

and authoritarian. The researchers admit that identifying the origins

of Anabaptism can be „notoriously complicated‟.) Both errors can be

seen today in many Reformed and charismatic churches.

It is not my intention to refer to Anabaptism itself (and

inclusion of what they claim does not mean I accept their teachings),

but only to show that the heresies of charismatic thought were

already present at the Reformation, and this is why present-day

Reformed men ought not think of the Toronto Blessing as a remote

or passing phase. Like the herpes virus that lays dormant in the body

until a person becomes weak or sick and then erupts, so charismatic

error arises whenever the true Church is weak and ineffective.

A preacher by the name of Melchior Hoffman started to

baptise adults independently in 1530 and preached fiery end-times

sermons that „hooked‟ many thousands in his day – just as

charismatics deceive thousands in our own day with similar ploys.

His „prophecy‟ that Münster was to be the „New Jerusalem‟,

led to great unrest and the city fathers saw him as a social threat,

imprisoning him in 1533. When Jan Matthys, then a baker in

Haarlem, Netherlands, heard of this, he claimed that he was „driven

by the Spirit‟, who revealed to him that he was Enoch come back to

earth! (Not unlike claims made by some charismatic leaders today).

Hoffman claimed to be the „first witness‟, Elijah.

The Melchiorite Anabaptists were thrown into utter confusion.

Not knowing how to react to such a sudden claim by one of their

own. (Is this not exactly what happened when the Toronto Blessing

threw up dozens of „prophets‟?). Matthys retaliated against their

confusion and doubt by cursing them to hell, threatening them with

terrors unknown under the hands of demons if they did not accept

him as the incarnation of Enoch („Confession of Obbe Philips‟). This

is another sign present amongst extreme charismatic leaders today

and kept silent by the Reformed.

As is very typical when extremists preach, the man began to

gather followers. One of his disciples was van Leiden, who Matthys

crowned as the future king of the „New Jerusalem‟. Very soon,

disciples were sent out in pairs to preach the new doctrines and

prophecies. Bockelszoon and Gerard Boekbinder were sent to

Münster. They discovered another preacher, Bernard Rothmann,

who espoused similar teachings.

Originally, the „New Jerusalem‟ was to have been Strasbourg,

but this news led to a major rethink, and so Münster was named as

the new headquarters for God‟s people. As a result more „emissaries‟

were sent to Münster to baptise adults, in an effort to hasten the

15





creation of God‟s city on earth (not unlike modern charismatic efforts,

based on dominion theory).

A main writer on this period, Max Weber (a scholar well-known

to sociologists), says of the emergence of charismaticism, that it

“represents a radically different form of authority that appears in

periods of social distress”. Who can doubt that we are in just such a

period today? Who can deny that charismaticism flourishes when

true men of God show only a nodding acquaintance with God‟s

demands?

Weber continues that charismatic authority appears in the

leadership characteristics of specific individuals, or perhaps more

accurately, in the dialectical interplay between leaders and their

followers. Again, who can deny this very accurate portrayal of

charismatic (and some Reformed) leadership and activity as we see

it in our own time?

With even more chilling accuracy, Weber says “Charisma shall

be understood to refer to an extraordinary quality of a person,

regardless of whether this quality is actual, alleged, or presumed.”

This is a key sign of modern charismaticism – the presumed

legitimacy of leaders even when they are found to be total heretics

and liars.

He continues, “Charismatic authority, hence, shall refer to rule

over men…to which the governed submit because of the belief in the

extraordinary quality of the specific person…charismatic rule

is…‟irrational‟.” (The latter word used sociologically). How is it that an

unsaved sociologist can see what our esteemed Reformed leaders

cannot?

It has been said to me, time and again, that the charismatics

who lead the „Blessing‟ and its allied wild children, are somehow

genuine and ought not to be challenged. I see them as Satan‟s

envoys, placed in churches to deceive millions. Who is right? Their

fruit should hold a clue.

We see that followers are devoted to their leaders (not to God

per se). This is evident in many charismatic churches, where leaders

rule without question or challenge, and anyone who questions them

are said to be rebelling against God Himself! (Though I have heard

this from Reformed pulpits, too). The same dynamic applies to the

way the Alpha course, and not God, is praised for this or that

perceived work of God.

Weber has also said “Charisma, in its most potent form,

disrupts rational rule as well as tradition altogether and overthrows all

notions of sanctity…The bearer of charisma enjoys loyalty and

authority by virtue of a mission believed to be embodied in him…it

has inverted all value hierarchies and overthrown custom, law and

tradition.” “… to be a charismatic leader is not necessarily to be an

admirable individual”.

This is exactly what has happened in recent years! I cannot

accept many traditions, but Weber is talking here about total anarchy

against all that has been held dear by genuine Christians. And which

16





has been allowed to happen without question, even by Reformed

leaders.

Weber correctly identifies „genuine charisma‟ with revolution.

The original apostles turned the world upside down. The revolution

was of God. But today, men assume they are God‟s special men,

and so revolt not against wrong beliefs, but against right beliefs,

destroying truth in the process. It is these men who Reformed

teachers adhere to, or allow to operate without challenge!

Weber asserts that because charismaticism grows strong at

times of social distress, it is necessarily short-lived. However, today,

its influence has been widespread and generally accepted even by

those in Reformed circles (a sign of a corresponding lack of

discernment and adherence to God‟s word).

Far from diminishing in its power, charismaticism is

experiencing a rapid growth. This is due partly to its strong organic

links with Romanism (or is it a mother-son relationship?), and partly

to its swift „theologising‟ attempts – the most famed being the Alpha

Course. It is also growing fast simply because „good men remain

silent‟.

We are seeing not just a temporary phenomenon, but a steady

and hastening rush toward the end-times, when heresy and falsity

will replace most truth and reality. This charismaticism is indeed the

devil‟s work. Started as a questionable force, it is becoming the

accepted norm. “Its very quality as an extraordinary, supernatural,

and divine force, makes it a suitable source of legitimate authority for

the successors of the charismatic hero” (Weber). In other words,

what is truly demonic will become socially and spiritually acceptable.

Even in Reformed churches where pastors seem untouched

by the charismaticism of the age, the signs of rot are evident in

words. Church members now openly talk of charisma – not in any

rational or Biblical sense, but after charismatic fashion. The

movement, then, has certainly gained ground in the heart of

Reformed churches, proving Weber‟s assertion that even when

charismaticism appears to have lost its force “it still remains within

the fabric of the ascending structures of tradition and/or rationality”,

becoming a part of a group that should have opposed it.



Otthein Rammsted („Sekte und soziale Bewung‟, 1966)

depicts Jan Matthys as a „radical charismatic leader‟, no less than

any who have recently entered the religious scene. He bases this on

the fact that, like so many modern charismatics, Matthys claimed to

be directly led by God Himself, even though his claims were Biblically

preposterous. As such, his claims could not be “controlled, criticised,

or subjected to set regulations (e.g. the Bible) or traditions”. Added to

this, he claimed to have possessed the gifts of exorcism. He made

spontaneous „prophecies‟ and expected everyone to just accept them

as true, from God.

Matthys died soon after Münster was taken over as God‟s new

capital on earth. His successor, Bockelszoon, was not so wild in his

claims and did not carry his followers so easily. So he resorted to

17





authoritarianism…much as we can observe in modern charismatic

leaders in local churches. “though he did prophesy, his prophecies

were unsatisfactory to the…congregations, because they lacked the

spontaneous and irrational elements characteristic of Matthys‟s

visions.” Note here that irrationality claimed loyalty, and not truth!

Again, today, the charismatics who gather the most followers

are those who are irrational and beyond any kind of check (Benny

Hinn being a prime example). The less irrational Bockelszoon was,

the more he had to resort to domination of the people, regulating

their lives completely. Just like today.

It should be noted that the Anabaptists under their two main

leaders entered Münster almost without challenge from the reigning

Lutherans. Thus their influence and irrationality grew. Can you not

see the correlation with today‟s deceivers, and the way Reformed

men allow them to dominate the scene?

This city „take-over‟ resulted in the Anabaptists, fired by the

end-time prophecies of their leaders, taking up arms and storming

the town hall. At the same time they ran through the streets

uncontrolled, screaming to everyone to repent. Some followers then

began to see visions (notably former nuns) and began to foam at the

mouth, as they fell to the ground.

After that, the rational Lutherans fled the city and the irrational

wild ones became the legal citizens! Only those who lived in the

physical boundaries of the new Jerusalem would be saved; the rest

would be obliterated by God. This is how I see today‟s charismatic

situation. Black has become white.



What I have attempted to show Reformed friends in this

section is that charismatic fervour is not new, nor is it just a phase. It

is a Satanic thread that runs through history and which has today

become dominant. (It also immediately predated the start of

Pentecostalism, but did not start to formalise until the 1960‟s). As its

domination grows and its theologies gain ground even in Reformed

churches, Reformed men remain silent. In this way, their churches

have been breached. Remember, when enemies storm the walls

they kill those within, or take them prisoner.

Thousands of Christians have been spiritually injured by the

spirit behind the Toronto Blessing, and newly charismaticised

individuals are replacing legitimate Christians through the newer

force of the Alpha Course. Not only is the writing on the wall today, it

was written large across church history during the Reformation years.

Why, then, are Reformed men staying silent? Why are they allowing

history to repeat itself?

They do so because their own traditions and rules of spiritual

engagement are badly flawed by centuries of error and infiltrating

lies. That is how the Toronto Blessing so quickly decimated

Reformed churches and others. Where God is not absolute, sin

gathers strength and God lets the enemy overrun His people. It is

where Reformed men are right now, but will they turn and repent?

We opened with a text from the Old Testament. Remember that God

18





has brought down His people over issues of far less magnitude.

Think, and beware!



I see the error and Arminianism of Romanism as similar to, but

not the same as, that of charismaticism. According to Romanism, all

men are seen as saved by God unless they deliberately remove

themselves from His grace. Charismaticism, on the other hand,

claims that all men are potentially saved, and are finally converted by

their own choice.

Because both versions are man-led and humanly produced,

they must, of necessity, include the possibility of loss of salvation.

That is, if we choose salvation, or choose not to be within God‟s

sphere of salvation, then we can lose that salvation; “saved today;

lost tomorrow”. Both versions are false.

One error leads to another. Arminianism – the choice of a man

to either be saved or lost – automatically leads to the possibility of

loss of salvation, and these, together, utterly oppose the scriptural

truths of predestination and an everlasting salvation that refuses any

thought of losing our heavenly status.

Charismaticism is hybrid – it has one foot in Protestantism and

another in Romanism (as recent „spiritual‟ movements prove). It is

the bridge between falsity and truth, though it is a delusional bridge

that will crumble underfoot if stepped upon. Therefore, it behoves

charismatics to decide what they are: Romanists who are

charismatic, or Protestants who are charismatic?

If the former, they are lost per se. If the latter, they have a

better background but are still in danger, for they defy the open

teaching of God in His word – the rejection of predestination is a

rejection of God‟s command and teaching and an alliance with

Romanism.

The same arguments can be given for the successful but

errant Alpha Course, which is proving to be an even better bridge

between Protestantism and Romanism. As one who has observed

these phenomena for some time, I believe, strongly, that it is error to

treat Alpha as a slightly askew Protestant method of evangelism,

worthy of general acceptance but with a few „concerns‟.

Alpha is a full-blown collection of heresies and godless

teachings, masquerading as holy. One big clue is its use by Roman

Catholics. Those who continue to treat the Course as just another

slightly misused tool of God are being deluded…just as they were

deluded by the Toronto Blessing. By not hitting this evil straight

between the eyes, they continue the evil.

Evil is not to be trifled with or given the status of an equal

partner. We are not to be „balanced‟ when dealing with it, with the

lame excuse that those in error might see the light. We are not to

have loose partnerships with it. We should not be discussing it in

order to get over the „bad bits‟. We should not have „dialogue‟. We

must hit Alpha hard and fast, or we lose the moment (again)!

Nowhere in scripture does God tell us to have dialogue with

evil, whether it is a foetus-like taint, or a massive fully-grown fraud.

19





We are called to completely obliterate it and to walk away from it

fully! Those who attempt to be „balanced‟ are themselves part of the

problem, because they allow the error to continue as a „truth-with-

problems‟. Friends, in scripture, there is no such truth! There are only

full truths and full lies. If there is the slightest taint, we must throw out

what we have and start over again. Otherwise the taint remains and

grows, overtaking the whole to destruction.

Remember, one rotten apple contaminates all the others in the

barrel – the many good apples do not stop the rot or continue to be

good. They will eventually be overtaken with the same canker. Sadly,

those who play with Alpha and attempt to be „balanced‟ are one of

those good apples, and will eventually succumb.

It is often thought that if we hit Romanism hard between the

eyes, then we lose any possibility of winning-over Romanists to the

Gospel. If I had a „holy host‟ for every time I have heard that one, I

would have a storehouseful of biscuits by now! Do you not realise

that you are using Romanist-Arminian reasoning here? You are

saying that by using language or an approach that is tough, we can

actually stop people seeing truth and being saved.

This is exactly the same as charismatics (and, sadly, many

Reformed churches today) who use a huge variety of tactics to „bring

them in‟. They try to use emotion and any way under the sun to

persuade people to be saved. For them, use of a wrong tactic will

prevent the salvation of some.

Both approaches are wrong. They are Arminian and not

Reformed. They oppose God‟s teaching on predestination. If we truly

believe that God elects some to salvation and that salvation is

therefore fixed and cannot be lost, then what are we doing with such

tactics? Think very hard, reader! Are you for God‟s word or for men‟s

tactics?

Whenever a new film comes out about the life of Christ,

Christians everywhere rush to accompany unsaved friends to see it.

The films are usually made by unsaved men for profit, yet Christians

flock to them for an emotionally-hyped inoculation! What they are

doing, in cold reality, is relying on human intervention to bring about

a spiritual conclusion.

The film often produces an emotional response and this is

mistaken by the Christian for a genuine spiritual one. Even Christians

who accept predestination fall into this easy trap. Satan knows that

emotion is an easy target! He will call Christians to take their

unsaved friends to a film. The friends are touched by what they see,

and the Christian quickly dives in to the middle of their emotions to

„take advantage‟ of the unsettled state of mind. They might even

obtain a hazy „salvation‟, but it is all temporary, an illusion. It is a

charismatic tactic and is bound to fail. Why? Because it is a tactic

and is not reliant on God‟s grace and sole role as Caller of men!

(Tactics are the result of panic or desperation, not of godly faith).

God will save a man whether or not he has seen a film! He will

save the man in His own time and by His own means. The man who

is elected will be saved no matter what happens. It does not matter if

20





the man is snowed-under by bad preaching, or if he has never seen

an emotional film about Christ. If a man is saved after watching a

film, then it is his time to be saved, no sooner and no later.

It is about time that Christians stopped fooling about with

tactics and instead prayed for salvation of souls, allowing God to

save as and when He wishes – because that is what happens

anyway, in spite of our misguided notions and attempts to hasten the

process.







Chapter 2





The Augsburg Confession



Article 8 of the Augsburg Confession, delivered by Philip

Melancthon in 1530, deals with „What the Church is‟. It admits that

the Church is “the congregation of saints and true believers” but goes

on to say that “nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and

evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments

administered by evil men…” because “Both the sacraments and the

word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of

Christ, not withstanding they be administered by evil men.” (from

„Confutatio Pontificia‟, Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of

the Evangelical Lutheran Church, publ. Concordia Pub. House, 1921,

St Louis).

The apologist condemned the Donatists who said it was

unlawful to use evil men for these purposes in the churches “because

they were unprofitable and „of none effect‟.”

Personally I cannot accept the Melancthon view on this. It is

true that within the churches are unsaved men, and men of

unsavoury character. If these men happen to be pastors or teachers,

their placement is even worse.

It is one thing to accept that we can be duped by men whose

inner heart is secretly evil. It is quite another to willingly accept them

into our midst and to allow them to teach or to preach or to pastor!

We cannot be blamed for what we do not know, but we can be

blamed for deliberately placing men in offices they do not have from

God, when we know they are evil or unsaved or both.

I mention this because Reformed churches are very slow to

oust unsaved men and preachers from their pulpits. They even invite

them in as brethren. This cannot be left unchallenged.

Article 5, on Justification, briefly states the predestination

position, that men cannot be justified “by their own strength, merits,

or works”. (page 37-95). This Confession is the basis for all

Protestant confessions – so why do Reformed men today preach an

Arminian gospel, which is anathema?

21





This ties in with Article 18, which, when talking about free will,

says that no man can do anything righteous unless he is led to do so

by the Holy Spirit. (I would argue against the form of words used in

this Article, where it says that “We grant that all men have a free will,

free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason…”, for no man has

free will, whether saved or unsaved. True free will would make any

man as God, and this is impossible. See my articles on free will).

The reader might be disturbed that I argue against venerable

men of the Reformation, but my approach is acceptable, for in the

very same Article above, Melancthon argues in favour of the Mass,

substantiating my assertion (seen easily in history) that Reformed

heroes still retained Romanist teachings. Like myself, they were men,

and men can make mistakes – and can even commit gross sins. If

we can only recognise this fact, even in our own day, we will not be

duped by good men or bad. Nor will we place men on a pedestal,

thinking them to be demi-gods.

In the matter of prayer, Luther said “…whoever would pray

must have something to present, state, and name which he desires;

if not, it cannot be called a prayer.” He adds, referring to the monks,

that “None of them has ever purposed to pray from obedience to God

and faith in His promise…But where there is to be true prayer there

must be earnestness…prayer (must be) made spontaneously” (from

The Large Catechism). Such true prayer is rarely found in any

Reformed church I personally have known, and this is why a long

treatise on this matter is given in this book.

In the next chapter I outline a proper „method‟ of Bible

interpretation. It is not the only method, but it adheres to scripture

alone, and is thus commended. Once we have defined how I am

approaching the subjects in the book, we can get on with looking at

some of the problems that burden Reformed churches today,

problems that have been present since the Reformation itself and

which need not exist at all.









Chapter 3



Interpretation of Scripture

A Commended Model



The study of theology is a proper and needful exercise in the

life of every Believer. One result of the UK 1904 Welsh „Revival‟

(whether you see it as a charismatic error, or a work of God) was that

virtually everybody discussed theology. Even coal-miners, working

deep underground in harrowing conditions, talked nothing but

theology in its smallest detail! But, today? It is refreshing, but a rarity,

22





to find Christians talking theologically. Many I know think their limit is

to read popular books by famous authors, or glossy-covered

magazines on the latest charismatic heresy.

Theology has been hi-jacked by academics and has been

made to seem beyond the experience and ability of ordinary

Christians. That is far from the truth. Every Christian can at least be

a „basic‟ theologian! For our present purposes, „theology‟ can be

defined as the study of God. In scripture, God is not separated from

what He says. The Bible is God‟s word; Bible „theology‟ is, then, the

in-depth study of God‟s word, the Bible. All Believers are called to

study God‟s word diligently.

(Some theologians object to my thinking here, because I appear to be

„minimising‟ their „craft‟. This is not so. We have doctors, who study medicine in

immense detail. At the other end of the scale we have first-aiders, who are able to

assist those in peril on a more basic level. In between, there are others who are

more formally trained in medical subjects but not as intensely as doctors. All are

worthy and all are acceptable, so long as each recognises his own limitations).

Two factors can affect the level we reach in theological study:

one is the intelligence we were born with and the second is the level

of spiritual understanding given to us by God. However, it does not

follow that the more intelligent we are the higher will be our

theological understanding. The reason for this is very simple – they

are not necessarily connected. Having a high intelligence may indeed

produce excellent theology, but what the Holy Spirit does is of

greater importance.

Understanding of scripture is a gift of God. We are told that He

bestows upon all men whatever spiritual understanding they have.

Thus it may very well be that an academic genius can have a lower

level of spiritual understanding than does the „average (Christian)

man in the street‟. Or to put it in reverse order – an ordinary man

without academic qualifications can be head and shoulders above a

highly intelligent man in his theology.

God determines our level of theological understanding, NOT

us. And whatever level we reach is perfect for the way God wants us

to be. Reading and studying help enormously, but it will be

meaningless if the Holy Spirit has not given us His understanding.

Not everybody is called by God to study scripture in-depth.

Pastors need to understand scripture and God‟s will, but it does not

mean that every pastor is endowed with a higher level of theological

understanding. Being „apt to teach‟ is a term used to denote

something of secondary importance. The main point is that pastors

must look after the flock‟s well-being.

I have heard many, many pastors preach. Most of them may

be good pastors – but they do not necessarily display intense

understanding of scripture. It can be heard in their preaching. It is

not disparaging to say that they know their Bibles, but head-

knowledge of scripture is not the same as God-given understanding.

Most will tell us what scripture says…but that is an activity that

almost anybody can undertake. What is missing is interpretation.

It is all very well repeating Biblical texts – but the test of true

understanding is that the person with knowledge is able to reiterate it

23





in his own words and in a fresh way. That is, the words of

interpretation are given to him by the Lord, with direct application for

someone who is listening at that time. (Anyone, including wicked

men, can simply read out texts).

Every Christian man, woman and child, is called upon to study

scripture to the best of their God-given ability. Only some will attain to

a higher level of understanding, because that is the way God has

gifted them. The main requirement is that we do not waste our time in

superficial parrot-fashion reading.

Martin Luther said there are three main points to remember if

we are to study theology – prayer, meditation and testing. Prayer

should always be the very first action for a preacher. Sadly, in a rush

to preach two or three times on a Sunday and once or twice in the

week, many a pastor neglects a proper approach to theology. Or, to

be more precise, he is so overburdened with „doing‟ that he misses

out on self-sustenance. Even if he does not write a single word for

his sermon, a preacher MUST pray! It is through prayer that we

show our earnest intention to seek God‟s help.

Then, after prayer and maybe even during it, we alight upon

texts we are to study. We must then read and reread them until they

become a part of our current thinking. God gives His own levels of

understanding! After all that, we need to test ourselves.

Often, the best way our theology is examined is when critics

attack us. When they do, we are driven back to God to see if we are

right! And so our thinking is finely honed until it reflects only what

God says. Paul did this when he visited Jerusalem to see Peter

(Galatians 2).

Other things need to be borne in mind, too: our knowledge of

scripture and of allied Christian matters, can be legitimately

categorised as follows:



K. Knowledge which is firmly displayed in texts, without any

possibility of alternative meaning. For example, scripture

plainly tells us that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Messiah

is God. There is no other way of interpreting that statement.

In this case – as in all major aspects of doctrine – scripture

truly provides its own interpretation.

2. Next in priority, are texts that are obviously based on plainly-stated

truths. An example is that of the Trinity. Nowhere in scripture do we

find reference to „Trinity‟, but it is there anyway. This kind of textual

interpretation is also „fixed‟ and has no other possible allusion. It just

means we have to study in greater detail to discover the

interpretation. Both the plainly stated and the indirectly stated truths

are obvious and incapable of alternative interpretations.

3. Then there are texts whose interpretations can be implied from

other truths in scripture. That is, their truths are indirect, but are

based entirely on declared Truth. Many daily decisions are founded

on this. It is when we get to these (very few) texts that it is possible to

obtain alternative interpretations.

24





For example, think of Saul when he was chasing David. He

one day entered a cave to „cover his feet‟. There are genuinely two

possible interpretations for this phrase – one is that Saul went to the

lavatory and the other is that he went to sleep. The interpretation

would not harm the text either way and so the issue is not vital to

faith. (However, it is this writer‟s interpretation, given the general

context, that Saul went in to sleep. How else could David get near

enough to cut off the hem of his garment? See my commentary on

Samuel)

K. Finally, there are texts whose meanings are unclear, for one

reason or another. It is in this grey area that many cults and

sects enjoy themselves! They claim to „know‟ the actual

meanings of texts that have puzzled the Church for centuries,

but when it comes down to it, their „interpretation‟ relies more

on emotion or complex theory than on actual Biblical

evidence. In other words, it is nothing but human opinion. It

is this latter kind of interpretation that can be dangerous

(charismatics resort to this type).

It is my own practice not to waste time on expounding

something that cannot be verified. If the meaning is really unclear no

matter which way it is approached, then I usually leave it. In this

way, my own opinion takes a back seat and it cannot cause

problems.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with opinion – unless

it clearly contradicts scripture, and so long as it is identified as

opinion and not misrepresented as fact (the word „fact‟ here given its

standard meaning). For instance, the majority of New Testament

texts are crystal-clear about the meaning of „tongues‟ – an earthly

foreign language. Just one single portion of one single text could,

possibly, indicate something more „angelic‟ (a notion which I do not

accept, personally) and unknown to mankind – but only if we ignore

all the other, very clear, texts. Another example of opinion is the

Millennium. Nowhere in scripture is such a physical time clearly

shown to exist. It comes down to theory and what people want to

believe (even without adequate proof).

So long as we distinguish what is plainly scriptural and what is

opinion, we are safe (and honest!). Too many theologians and

preachers merge Biblically obvious interpretations with opinionated

ideas. Be honest and you will not go far wrong.



Legitimate Interpretation of the Word

„Dividing the word‟ has been a messy, pretentious and

unscriptural affair in the hands of dispensationalists, who literally cut-

up the word of God with abandon, giving us what is known as

„dispensationalism‟…a system of belief that bears no resemblance to

the simple teaching of God. Some folk, though, think that the more

obscure a system of thought is, the more advanced and true and

profound it must be!

(An interesting note – several days after I was saved, I bought

a Bible from a Christian book shop. Knowing nothing of versions I

25





asked the shop manager to give me a good one. I began reading at

Genesis chapter one. By the time I reached the first reference to the

serpent, I felt very uneasy and simply could not accept the footnotes

that went with it. So, I took the Bible back and asked for one without

footnotes. Grumpily, the manager gave me a straightforward King

James version, and all was well. I did not know until later that the

Bible I had been given was used by Dispensationalists. Yet, my spirit

was troubled by what I read in the first few footnotes!).

Others, less methodical than dispensationalists, also misuse

and abuse scripture. They take a basic text and then elaborate upon

it. That is, they „spiritualise‟ and give remarkable (and often

ridiculous) meanings to texts that the texts themselves cannot

possibly bear. (I was kindly presented with a full set of cassettes

containing about a dozen sermons by a world-famous preacher. But I

could not listen to them, for they relied heavily on spiritualised

interpretations of texts that simply did not hold water, so I threw them

away. Basically, they were theological nonsense, which displayed no

doctrinal purity, and no practical application value, whatever).

Yet others, possibly the majority of folk, just collect this bit of

„meaning‟ and add it to another bit, collected from a different source.

Then they sew it all together until it resembles what I call a

„patchwork quilt theology‟. The quilt keeps them warm and

comfortable, but it uses so many different cottons and materials, it

falls apart after just a few washes. These folk are magpies. They

collect anything that is shiny or different, and anything that takes their

fancy. But they do not want the truth as it is given in scripture. I have

observed over the years that even Reformed Christians do this, with

a “Yes, I hear what you say from scripture, but I prefer to think of it

this way…”.

With such a variety of ways of looking at scripture, how do we

know the best way? Dare I be so obvious as to say the best way to

examine scripture is to see what scripture itself says! Possibly, you

are thinking this really is too obvious. Well, if it is that obvious – why

do the majority of people have next to no real understanding of

scripture? Many of those I meet and communicate with clearly have

no true understanding of what God says. Theirs is a confusion or

mish-mash of ideas and half-formed theology, mostly either extreme

or popular. A patchwork quilt theology!

What is the scriptural way? It is as follows…



K. Look at the text itself. Not at what other men (no matter how

famous) say about it. To my mind, the text ought to be the

1611 King James Authorised Version.

K. Examine the words in the text, as found in the original

languages (mainly Greek and Hebrew).

K. These meanings are the basis for interpretation. Note that

almost every word can have many different possible

meanings, and the one to choose, sometimes, cannot usually

be ascertained until the context has been examined. Look for

the most direct and obvious meaning first.

26





K. Look at the text in its setting, that is, the context. All meanings

must „fit‟ the context. The text must not be twisted to fit a

particular theological theory or denominational stance!

K. Put together the meanings you have found, and interpret them

according to the context.

6. If something is unclear, only then should you look at what

others have said about the text. But, be very careful! You

might read a view that is prejudiced or wrong.

7. Even if you think you have obtained the obvious meaning, do

not underestimate the role of the Holy Spirit in this activity, for

He will give you true understanding and wisdom…these are

gifts and cannot be acquired by reading or storing up

academic knowledge.

K. The role of the pastor or Bible teacher is to do all of the above,

using his God-given gift of teaching and the understanding

given to him by the Holy Spirit. This means he will be enabled

to provide a proper interpretation which is applicable to those

he teaches. Because it is God-given it will always be relevant

and useful, and will always be correct. Once the teacher uses

his own abilities, his interpretation will falter or be wrong.

Note that even if you follow the above, the final interpretation

is given by the Holy Spirit.



By going only to scripture you get only what scripture says.

Makes sense? If you do this and you still cannot understand what the

text is saying, then you must simply leave it alone! Do not become

agitated and do not think that you must always obtain a full

understanding of every text you read on every occasion. It is quite

possible that the Holy Spirit is not ready to give you understanding at

that time. It is also possible that you will never come to an

understanding of that particular text. Just accept it. Each of us is

given his or her own „measure‟ of spiritual gifts and understanding.

God will not reveal something to us unless He is ready to do so. So

do not fight it!

It is also true that although you know all the meanings a word

might have, you will not necessarily also obtain the full interpretation

of a given text, unless the Lord is pleased to give it at that time.

Sadly, those who fall into the error of being a part of

charismatic circles, may be tempted to join so-called „workshops‟ that

claim to teach them how to interpret scripture. They are given a

„method‟ and so they use that with each and every text. This is

Arminian error, that tells a person that all he needs is to read and

apply a particular technique, to obtain meanings of texts.

Even when a person has no idea what scripture means and he

is, say, unsaved, he will be given a good, general, understanding if

God so decrees it. This can occur even if he is not yet regenerated,

because, on the whole, scripture is open and can be read plainly.

27







Example of Proper Text Examination

Read John 3:16. It is a very familiar text, but it is also a much

misused and abused one. Do you believe that this text is telling us

God „offers‟ salvation to everyone? If you do, then you are mistaken.

If the proper „rules‟ of scripture interpretation are applied, you will

discover the following…



K. The vital word to find a meaning for is „world‟. It is not as

easy as you think! Look in, say, a Strong‟s concordance.

There you will find there are at least nine different

meanings for the word „world‟. One of them is „Believers

only‟. Did you know that? Write down all the possible

meanings for the word, for the proper interpretation of the

word will affect the meaning of the whole text (and your

understanding of election/salvation).

K. Now, look at the context. What does it tell us? It says, in

unequivocal language, that God sent His Son to die for

those who would believe. Now, look again at all those

meanings you wrote down. Which of those meanings can

fit the context? You will find that the only meaning that fits

is „Believers only‟. Read the rest of that portion of scripture

and you will find that God sent His Son only for Believers.

That is, those who are already elect. He did not die for

„everyone in the world‟! Once you add the word-meaning to

the context, you have your „interpretation‟.



Of course, if you are Arminian, you will reject this proper form

of interpretation, and will instead replace it with an invalid and totally

humanistic method. The total effect is to reject God‟s election by

claiming that we can „choose‟ our own salvation. And this makes

Christ the „minister of sin‟ (Galatians 2: ).

Basically, you are either a Believer or you are not. If you truly

are saved and a Believer, then you have no right to tamper with

God‟s word. Even a football team‟s fan club has its rules and

regulations. If you do not abide by them, then you are not a member

and cannot claim to be one. If you are a Believer and you reject the

proper form of interpretation as found in scripture itself, then you

cannot claim to be acting as a Believer. Simple, really.

Now that we have a basic approach to the interpretation of

scripture, we can go on to study a variety of topics. Because the

prayer meeting is called the hub of any reformed church, we will look

closely at that first. I can guarantee that many readers will be

shocked or disturbed by what they read, but please bear with it. It is

not my intention to shock you, only to make you rethink a centuries-

old claim – that the prayer meeting is the centre of all our church life

and that corporate prayer can be regulated and „offered‟ regularly.



I have looked at internet material on interpretation and found

one site devoted to interpretation (bibleinterpretation.com).

28





Disregarding the wrong spelling of „Arminianism‟ (Armenia is a

country not a set of beliefs), in its section on „Why do we need to

have rules on Bible interpretation?‟ it says “We cannot rely on

feelings since that would be subjective. We cannot say (two opposing

views are) both right since the Bible has only the meaning the

original author intended it (to have). We cannot say that the Bible can

mean something to you, and can mean something different to me.

This would be saying that the Bible doesn‟t really mean anything at

all. What we need is a standard to evaluate everybody‟s

interpretation of the Bible.” This is sound advice, even if it uses the

NIV as a source of quotes.

It has a neat section explaining the meaning of hermeneutics,

etc., and other sections are interesting. If you want to compare what I

say with this simple site, feel free!

Another site you can use to concur with my own material, or

even to oppose it, is offered by Peninsula Bible Church based in

California. You can see what they say at pbc.org – again, inclusion of

a name or source does not infer my own acceptance of anything or

everything said by a group.

Only recently I challenged the once famed preacher, Roy

Clements (who, you may remember, shocked the Christian world by

declaring his homosexuality) on the matter of interpretation. His site

attempts to view everything through the murky glasses of

homosexuality and his articles contain evasive and distorted

statements that typify heretical stances.

So, beware when contacting any such site or reading books

by prejudiced people. Roy Clements speaks against „homophobia‟ –

a nonsense word devised by homosexuals and which is

meaningless. In this, he and those like him display

heterophobia…fear of normal sexuality! Far more meaningful than

„homophobia‟. Those with skewed beliefs and leanings are bound to

allow them to influence their thinking on all subjects.

Also beware when reading charismatic or ecumenical

material, for they inevitably twist meanings and methods to suit their

own theology. What I have tried to do in this chapter is opposite to

that – by saying you must go back to scripture itself. It would be

useful to expand on what I have said about interpretation in this

book, but space does not permit it.

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries (Ron Rhodes) gives

users a readable approach. It includes much that I have already said.

Emphasis is put on determining whether a text is literal or figurative,

for example. In my own ministry work I have come across not just

this, but also the inability of many Christians, to recognise what is

actual and what is rhetorical, especially when it comes to reading the

work of Paul. Another problem is not understanding Hebraic forms of

argumentation. So, there is much to learn when interpreting scripture!

Just be careful when choosing who to trust.

29





“And Joseph answered and said,

This (is) the interpretation thereof….”

(Genesis 40:18).



This is the pithrown, or true meaning. Said Joseph, without a

moment‟s hesitation. He had the one and only explanation for the

dreams. There was no other possible explanation, because there

could not have been any others. God does not offer alternatives – He

says exactly what He means.



“And it was (so), when Gideon heard

the telling of the dream, and the

interpretation thereof, that he

worshipped, and returned into the

host of Israel, and said, Arise; for the

LORD hath delivered into your hand

the host of Midian.” (Judges 7:15)



Gideon relied totally on one single interpretation of a dream,

and so knew that God would give Israel victory. If he had relied on

the interpretations of men, all Israel would have been lost. David had

the same experiences, time and again…remember the incident of the

rustling in the treetops? If he had tried to attack his enemy without

this very small sign, there would have been disaster. There was only

one interpretation. The wise man will know this and will listen to wise

counsel (Proverbs 1:6).



“…the great God hath made known

to the king what shall come to pass

hereafter: and the dream (is) certain,

and the interpretation thereof sure.”

(Daniel 2:45b)



Daniel was unwavering. His interpretation of the dream was

sure. The result of his assurance was that the king fell on his face

and worshipped Daniel, acknowledging his God to be Almighty.

There was only one interpretation! In Daniel 5:26 there is found the

same firm answer, “This (is) the interpretation…”…den

(Aramaic)…This!

The New Testament is no less sure – godly interpretation is

final and sure…hermeneia; what is obscure or unknown to others is

made sure by God speaking through men called to interpret (as in

the interpretation of tongues, for example; 1 Corinthians 12:10, and

in 1 Corinthians 14:26, where interpretation seems to extend to

preaching or knowledge, etc).

In 2 Peter 1:20 we come to the interpretation of scripture, a

proof that interpretation is not a matter of private musing: “Knowing

this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private

interpretation.” The interpretation here is epilusis, the „loosening‟ of

meaning from something previously wrapped up or hidden.

30





Charismatics major on vague or difficult texts and boast that they

know the actual meaning, when many before them have failed.

Interpretations abound and many do not agree with the others. This

is not godly interpretation.

Godly interpretation is always sure and firm, epiluo – it clears

controversy and settles the matter firmly. It can be done because the

teacher is called by God to interpret scripture. This is not merely a

matter of knowing Greek or Hebrew, or carefully discovering actual

meanings of words. It also includes something that men cannot

muster for themselves – Holy Spirit revelation. Without this,

interpretation is always open to abuse and misuse, which follow

when it is „private‟, idios, „his own‟ thoughts.

The point being made is that interpretation must arise solely

from scripture itself, and be attended by the Holy Spirit‟s prompting of

the one who is interpreting. This latter requirement is that of the office

of teacher and preacher, who must always be chosen by God for the

task and equipped with the spiritual gifts necessary. No theologian

with academic knowledge alone is a match for this person; nor is the

well-known preacher who is not truly called to speak by God.

What I am saying sounds exclusive, simply because it is! If a

man is called to the office of preacher or teacher, this means that

others are not. Therefore, if one is called to the office, others should

listen and take note, not pretend to have the same gifts. Nor should

they „stand on their dignity‟ and take affront. The man of God who is

called to interpret scripture has an office to fulfil and he will do it with

immense confidence, because God is with him. That is why his

interpretations will be sure and firm. Those who listen to him should

not be critical, if what he says is of God‟s word and plainly true.

Conversely, those who are false teachers and prophets must

be marked and denounced publicly, for theirs is not a calling or of

God. I can name a number of famed names who have been shown to

be false, mostly from the charismatic cults. They chose their own

paths and called themselves apostles and teachers, when they

clearly had no calling.









Chapter 4



Are Prayer Meetings Valid?



Note: Readers should understand that the prayer meetings being referred

to are those whole meetings given over to prayer, as they are today. The article is

NOT critical of prayer itself, or of spontaneous prayer meetings where all those

who pray speak with „one accord‟ (discussed later).

31





In his Institutes (Book 3, chapter 20), Calvin says this of

prayer:

“This indeed is that secret and recondite philosophy which

cannot be extracted from syllogisms, but is well understood by those

whose eyes God hath opened, that in His light they may see

light…By means of prayer we penetrate to those riches which are

reserved with our Heavenly Father for our use. For between God and

men there is a certain communication, by which they enter into the

sanctuary of heaven and in His immediate presence remind Him of

His promises, in order that His declarations which they have implicitly

believed, may in time of necessity be verified in their

experience…hence our consciences derive peculiar peace and

tranquillity; for when the affliction which oppressed us is represented

to the Lord, we feel abundant composure even from this

consideration, that none of our troubles are concealed from Him…”

C. H. Irwin wrote “The consciousness of God‟s presence was

indeed the supreme influence and dominant force in his (i.e. Calvin‟s)

life. In his letter to Melanchthon, for instance, he appeals to „God and

the holy angels who see us‟. And elsewhere he appeals to Christ as

the master of the lists, the witness and the judge, under whose eyes

we contend.” („John Calvin‟, C. H. Irwin, p111,112 Pub. The Religious

Tract Society, London 1909).

To Calvin it was the mystery of prayer that was recondite.

Today, I fear that what is recondite is the attitude of men, who have

reduced prayer to a weekly chore, a form of proof of orthodoxy. I

have no doubt that many pastors and preachers who call on others to

pray, pray themselves with depth of heart and genuineness, but I

also have no doubt that most also pray when they are not called to

do so, making their prayers „vain‟.

This observation is very true of many congregations who

bother to attend prayer meetings, and especially those who are

forced to pray „in the round‟, where everyone prays from one end of

the line to the other. These times cannot provide peace and

tranquillity because they are not true times of prayer, but are

formalised statements for the sake of peers present, not God.

Much is assumed by churches. Charles Finney, an Arminian,

said in his Lecture 8 „Meetings for Prayer‟: “I am now to speak of

social prayer, or prayer offered in company…Such meetings have

been common from the time of Christ, and it is probable that God‟s

people have always been in the habit of making united supplication,

whenever they had the privilege.”

Sounds good – but he used the word „probable‟, for there is no

real evidence for regular prayer meetings, and even if there was, this

is not in itself proof of legitimacy. Yet, Finney himself added “The

propriety of the practice will not be questioned here.” This is odd, for

his purpose was to ask if corporate prayer can obtain this or that

blessing!



The existence and validity of prayer meetings is taken for

granted. Yet, of all meetings the prayer meeting is, possibly, the

32





least attended and least appreciated. Independent Protestant

churches insist that the prayer meeting is the very core, or hub, of

local church life. Without it, they say, the local church would die. But,

where does this axiom come from? It is certainly not found in

scripture.

It is very easy for pastors to publicly blame the laxity of the

flock, or the state of the world in general, because the prayer meeting

is not attended. But perhaps this is merely to give an excuse! Does

a pastor have the right to pass-on blame in this way? Over the years

I have questioned the validity of „corporate prayer‟ as we have it

today in our local churches. It is a matter of intense personal

importance. After 40 years of being a Believer and dutifully attending

prayer meetings, I ask these questions:



“What exactly is a prayer meeting FOR?

What is its purpose?

Is it an authentic – and therefore valid –

form of worship?”



Let us face these questions with honesty. If we can answer

them, we may yet see life in near-dead churches. Without honesty,

our churches become heavy with unbiblical traditions, like a small

boat encrusted with barnacles. Sooner or later it will sink lower in the

sea of spiritual life, until it is washed this way and that, like an old tin

tub, by increasing tides of mere opinion. Then it will sink.

Spurgeon said “Prayer itself is an art which only the Holy

Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer, Pray for prayer –

pray till you can pray.” („Order and Argument in Prayer‟, Metropolitan

Tabernacle Pulpit 1866, Vol. 12, Sermon 700).

This can be misunderstood. It does not mean that we just say

anything we wish, hoping that God will then help us out. It means that

God intends us to pray, and this is what we ought to do, but when we

pray we must say what God wishes us to pray, even if this is halting.

Thus, even the „praying until we can pray‟ is of God. This is to do with

personal prayer, not prayer meetings.



A Complex Question

If the majority of Christians are honest, the prayer meeting is

usually the most boring and fruitless of meetings. In my own

Christian life I must have attended all kinds of „corporate‟ prayer

meetings – thousands of them. I have attended other types of prayer

meetings, too. Also, I have prayed in all kinds of denominational

structures…Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Brethren…just about

every kind of Protestant group you can name.

Some prayer meetings are more lively than others. But

„liveliness‟ does not necessarily constitute validity, or truth, or

holiness. How we feel about particular prayer meetings is irrelevant

to our argument. The fact that some may emerge from these

meetings feeling wonderful has nothing at all to do with the questions

being asked.

33





To put it bluntly, Satan can make us feel wonderful, as present

day charismatic meetings prove. What matters is God‟s word, NOT

how we „feel‟ about an issue. Thankfully, we can experience feelings

of true joy before, during and after prayer. This is not disputed. But

true feelings can only follow true prayer, not the false prayers that

are the subject of this chapter (false prayers can often produce

euphoric happiness, but not Biblical joy).

The sad truth is this – in all but a very small number of cases, I

cannot remember ever knowing a real satisfaction in such meetings.

That is a hard fact and a tender spot to touch. Critics could retort

that this is my own fault. But is it? Could it be, rather, that the lack of

joy was due to my practice of something that was not scripturally

valid?

This implies, of course, that most Christians are misled about

prayer – another serious statement. If that is true, it does not imply

that these Christians are fools or that their pastors are evil. No, it

simply means that some have not yet reached a point at which they

can see their error. After all, I practised and taught exactly the same

things for many years, advising Believers to do the same. Now, I

publicly denounce my error and I pass on the findings of my Biblical

examination of the topic. The aim is to help build the Church of

Christ, of which we are all brethren, in strength and vitality.

I have met with those who claim to „enjoy‟ every prayer

meeting they attend. All I can say is that they should beware of

psychological factors that can easily mask the truth. To „enjoy‟ a

sermon, or a prayer meeting, or a book, etc., is not necessarily proof

of its Biblical truth.

There can be many reasons why we „enjoy‟ something. Quite

often, we enjoy those things with which we concur! „Enjoyment‟ of

meetings is not barred, but neither is it necessarily a proof of spiritual

reality. Again, the easiest thing for a pastor to now do, is to blame

the writer for these failings!

This would be a mistake. Such meetings have never

prevented me from praying inwardly (although now I try not to attend

them at all, so that I maintain my integrity). I often met God in this

way, despite the coldness of the meeting itself. (On many occasions

there is humanly-generated „warmth‟ and fervour, but this is not Holy

Spirit warmth).

It could be said that I am merely expressing spiritual laxity or

the signs of a backslidden state. The challenge for the critic is to

show me where I am in Biblical error. If such error is not

forthcoming, then the problem must be elsewhere. Yes, hard

questions – but the answer is not to apportion blame simply because

one does not like the questions. Don‟t shoot the messenger!

Most Christians enjoy the „first half‟ of a prayer meeting, which

is usually a Bible study. But they say they are not so happy about the

second half (the supposedly „prayer‟ part) and join in only because it

is part of a longer meeting. The people who say this are often sincere

Believers: it is simplistic and derogatory to label them „backsliders‟.

34





(These people dare not admit to their boredom or dislike to their own

pastors, for fear of being labelled).

The question being raised is not an academic exercise. Nor is

it trite or ill-conceived. It emerges from a background of wrestling in

(and with) prayer in great depth. It has to be that way, for we are told

that prayer meetings are the „very core‟ or „the power-house‟ of a

local church. Thus, it has to be central in our lives and it should

challenge us all. (It is my personal belief, based on scripture, that

prayer should permeate every moment of life, and not just squeezed

into a convenient hour once a week, in a church building).

We must not hide from the issue, but must deal with it.

Whenever a Jehovah‟s Witness has doubts or awkward questions,

the leader will advise him to read more JW books and to sell more

literature. In this way, he is assured, the doubts will go away. It is

like this in Christian churches, too. Awkward questions are ignored or

treated as evidence of declining spirituality. For this reason, most

Christians will never ask the questions (publicly) in the first place, nor

will they ever admit to their doubts. This leads to the classic

„evangelical smile‟ where what is inside a man is not what is seen on

the outside. Another word for this is „hypocrisy‟.

For this reason, too, most Christians resort to clichés. They

hide behind them. Indeed, we are not expected to question our

beliefs or those traditions handed down over centuries. Clichés

provide a superficial comfort and a barrier against disapproving

fellow Believers. Just smile and say „Praise the Lord‟ and all is well!

But how is that different from brainwashing? The comfort evaporates

in private, because it is superficial and doubts or fears grow without

an outlet. This does not strengthen our faith, but weakens and almost

destroys it.

Continuous questions can sometimes be a sign of unbelief.

They can also be the sign of a sincere seeking after the Truth of

Christ and real spiritual life. The questions in this chapter are being

asked for the sake of the well-being of the saints, not for sheer

mischief value. All traditions must stand or fall on their own strengths

or weaknesses – but moreso on their validity. No tradition is beyond

Biblical scrutiny. Traditions that cannot pass this test must be thrown

out. It just so happens that the prayer meeting is now the tradition

under scrutiny.

Coming from a Welsh Baptist/Calvinistic background (but not

any longer), I know that my questions will alarm those with a similar

history. Seeking the Truth can often cause disquiet. When deep-

seated opinions are challenged, questions concerning their validity

are perceived to be a threat. But opinions are not the same as

Biblical Truth. So, to question them is not to question the Truth

(which cannot change or be altered by questions), but to question

men‟s opinions. Truth remains, whether we question it or not;

whether we believe it or not.

The topic of prayer meetings is now being discussed. This is

disturbing. It is also a complex issue – but it need not be complex.

Like so many issues in life, we can always find ways to make them

35





ultra-complex! When things we have done for years are questioned,

the questions are seen to be a threat, even if no threat actually

exists. There is only a „problem‟ if that is the way we prefer to think

of the matter. On the other hand, what one sees as a „problem‟ will

be, to others, a situation to be faced and dealt with. Thus they are

challenges, not threats.

Honest Believers, including pastors, will admit that prayer

meetings are a difficult thing to deal with. It is far easier to just carry

on holding them! But what is wrong with them? Is it to do with the

format? Or is something fundamentally wrong? Does the

membership of the local church reflect the state of the prayer

meeting…or does the prayer meeting reflect the state of the

membership? Or, does the prayer meeting reflect the desires of Man

and not of God?

For too many years, Christians in the West have lived off past

glories, almost like carrion crows. We pick at the flesh of our dead

spiritual forefathers, hoping that this will fill us with like passions and

spiritual greatness. Most of us feed off our forefather‟s greatness.

We fail to sow our own crops in our own day and rely on stories of

spiritual giants, pretending that their triumphs are our own.

We continue in activities passed down like worn clothing

through our denominational history. (Most denominationalists treat

their denominations almost like political parties requiring total loyalty).

But how often do we question them? How often do we test the spirits

to see whether they be of God? Because God worked mightily in

men in their day, it does not mean He will remain in the same

activities if we continue them today.

We cannot live our lives according to an historic pattern,

unless it comes direct from God and His word. Also, what was good

for men of one era may not be good for a man of today (we are not

here referring to obvious Biblical teachings, which prevail through all

ages, but of tradition).

It is our duty to be constantly alert to these dangers. God

worked great works through great men in the history of the Church,

but Christians today miss an important fact – that is, the local

church (which is but a microcosm of the Church universal) is as

alive and as pure as its oldest living member. In other words, the

spiritual state of any local church depends entirely and solely on its

current state and not on its past glories. That is, it is only as

Christian as its present members! The father may have been a

giant of spiritual virtues – but the son may well be an evildoer of the

worst type. If a whole denomination is only as holy and as Christian

as its present membership, we cannot live off the purity and holiness

of others in the past.

Yet this is exactly what we attempt to do if we refuse to

question our dearest traditions. They may be doctrinally justified.

But, maybe they are not. How do we know if we never face them?

36









A Typical Prayer Meeting

It seems that corporate prayer meeting is possible only

between 7.30pm and 8.30pm on one mid-week evening (or

whatever other times and days are chosen) – except where „prayer‟

is used as a „power‟ tool for dubious purposes (e.g. charismatic

meetings)! Let us see what a typical prayer meeting is like…

Enter the room. Sometimes it is cosy and warm; sometimes it

is cold and uncomfortable (some say this is „more spiritual‟). Few

people are there compared to the actual numbers on the

membership book. Everyone sits in his or her usual place.

The meeting comes to order and, predictably, there is a

„sandwich‟ of opening prayer by the pastor, a hymn or chorus, a

reading, another hymn…well, you know what I mean. Some prayer

meetings are mixed with Bible studies. In essence it is a Sunday

service, except that the men usually dress more casually…cable-knit

jumpers, etc!

(Why do this? What makes one day a „suit and tie‟ day and

another day more casual? Even TV presenters do the same thing.

Does our dress really express our intent? Or is this just another

tradition? If dress is an expression of intent, then I must be the worst

backslider of them all…but I cannot afford new clothes, or even a

suit. Does that make a difference?).

We finally get to the „prayer‟ section. Again, there is usually a

format or style. This may be determined by the pastor and because

they want to be approved by him, members follow this format or

style. They do this even if they do not agree with it, or if they do not

like it, or if they feel uncomfortable about it. Sometimes the „style‟

depends on denominational requirements. Hence the stark contrast

between, say, High-Anglican „prayers‟ and those in an evangelical,

Independent chapel.

There is no reason or excuse to ignore these questions. What

you think is what you are. If you secretly think these things – then

ask the questions! Think of this next time you „pray‟ just because

your pastor says so, or because it is „your turn‟.

God sees us as we really are and He knows if we pray out of

expectation or duty. He knows if we should really pray or not,

regardless of what the pastor or our fellow members think! Beware

of hypocrisy. Pray in public ONLY if you are led to do so – do not

dare to open your mouth otherwise.

And so the prayers start…or are they prayers, REAL prayers?

Occasionally there are impassioned pleas by some who rarely pray.

But most prayers are said by the same people, who often use exactly

the same words and language (or clichés) and the same format…first

a bit about God Himself, then something about the local church,

quickly followed by pleas for the whole Church. Maybe a few words

about missionaries we do not even know, and about their work,

which may, or may not be, Biblically legitimate. Perhaps, then, a

request for the sick and the persecuted. It is all standard stuff.

37





Some prayers are flowery. Some are quick and plain. Some

are fluent. I am not saying that each of these is necessarily

hypocritical. No – I am asking if they are of value. I am asking if they

are truly of God. If they are not, then what are they for?

Remember – a prayer that has not been prompted by God

Himself is a form of lie. I cannot accept that most of these prayers

are OF God and FOR God and FROM God…because they appear to

be vain repetition or just dutiful shows of „worship‟ without substance.

So, the regulars keep the prayer meeting going. I hear them

utter real, heart-felt pleas. But this does not make them true prayers.

They may be perfectly phrased and contain everything expected of

them. This is partly why I question them! It is as if we write our own

version of the Lord‟s Prayer and stick to it! Every week we use the

same ideas and formula, with just a small change here and there.

Essentially, though, they are always the same set of phrases and

format-words. This is never intended, but it always happens. I know

because I did it for several decades, as did everyone else I knew!

Do we realise that we pray mainly because others expect us

to do so? Because the pastor is listening? Or worse – because he

has asked us to pray and we know very well that we were not even

thinking about praying? Do you pray because otherwise others will

think you are backsliding? Or, do you pray publicly because you

enjoy it, or because you have an outgoing personality?

There can be many reasons for praying out loud…and none of

them are of the Lord. Remember what the Lord said about the

Pharisees who insisted on praying in public? Are YOU trying to

elongate your garments to appear superior to men (whether you

realise it or not)? Are you willing to question your motives?

To return to Finney‟s paper on the matter…his claim is that

“One design of assembling several persons together for united

prayer, is to promote union among Christians.” This is the opposite to

my own claim – that we must have union before we can dare to pray

corporately. On what does Finney base his claim, for I find none of it

in scripture? Finney thinks that Christians cannot help but to love

each other when they pray together. I beg to differ, as this chapter

suggests.

It is often the case, too, that a congregation will allow

themselves to be carried away with the enthusiasm of a pastor,

rather than because each and every person has been touched by the

Holy Spirit and prompted to pray in unity. Indeed, Finney allows for

this: “A minister, for instance, will often, as it were, breathe his own

feelings into his congregation.”

He then makes a case for the use of feelings (being known for

this himself) and their part in enthusing others. The conclusion of this

is the spiritual debauchery of today‟s charismatic meetings. There is

nothing wrong with emotions, but they must never rule.

Finney then touches on prayer meetings as „moving God‟, a

completely Arminian concept. At least he says openly that prayer

cannot cause God to change His mind. He means that if Christians

38





are in a right state of mind, then God will bestow His blessings upon

them when they pray.

I do not think Finney realised that he was actually

contradicting his own thoughts. Only God can give Christians the

desire to pray, and it is only when this happens that corporate prayer

is genuine. It is wrong to say that we must begin to pray, add

emotion, and then we shall somehow achieve genuine prayer. Again,

we see a natural end to this thinking in the charismatic practice of

uttering rubbish in order to gain „tongues‟.

Another aim of prayer meetings, claims Finney, is to convict

and convert sinners. Again, this is not found in scripture, for the Holy

Spirit must firstly regenerate sinners before they can even bother to

listen to the Gospel! The exciting of sinners is found in abundance in

massive charismatic meetings designed specifically to whip up

emotions. Is this a genuine godly movement? No, it is not.

What I mean by this latter argument is that to hold a prayer

meeting particularly to excite sinners is a mistake. It is true that any

activity of God can begin the work of grace in a person (so long as

the Spirit has firstly regenerated him, that is), but the prayer meeting,

if it must take place, is an activity only for Believers. To have a prayer

meeting specifically to excite sinners is like designing Sunday

evening meetings to speak to the unsaved…meetings should be

aimed at saved men and women, not at unbelievers, because a

meeting of the church is just that.



Prayer Content

What do prayers really say? Is there a purpose behind them

(in a prayer meeting, that is), or are they forgotten once said,

because they are just for the public and not from the heart? Only on

rare occasions have I come from a prayer meeting with the distinct

impression that something spiritual has happened.

Needless to say, such occasions have always followed my

own bouts of inward, secret, personal prayers. They have rarely

arisen from the meeting itself. At these meetings my prayers were

almost invariably silent. When I did finally pray out loud it was often

the result of „psyching myself up‟ because I „ought‟ to pray. In other

words, they were false prayers. So, the prayer meeting itself made

no difference…and I know that all this will strike a chord of

recognition in many readers.

Pastors should research this matter: are the feelings in a

prayer meeting to do with spiritual movements within one‟s own heart

– or do they arise from group encouragement, fostered by

psychological factors? Exactly the same process makes a cohesive

group out of soccer fans. Are these signs of God‟s prompting? We

all take too much for granted: have we ever wondered if our

„marvellous prayer times‟ in public are really of God? Or are they

products of human phenomena?

A „sincere‟ prayer is not itself proof of spirituality or of a

spiritual motive. On the other hand, no prayer at all is not necessarily

a sign of backsliding. Many people who are heretics or apostate can

39





„pray‟ fluently and with great passion. Yet, their prayers are of Satan

or of their own minds. The fact that prayers sound „balanced‟ (how I

dislike that idea!) makes no difference, either.

What sounds a beautiful offering to us, may be a stench in the

nostrils of our Holy God. The vilest of men can sound good in

prayer. So, if a pastor, or anyone else, judges a man‟s Christian

state by the content or construction of his public prayers, there is

something seriously wrong.

Similarly, I have heard pastors boast that they can “know a

man from his bookshelf”. It seems to me that every man is an

amateur psychologist – I defy anyone to „know‟ me from my

bookshelf!

It is about time that Christians stopped using this phrase and

„method‟…I have even witnessed pastors snooping in a person‟s

bookshelf so as to form their opinion of him. Thus, the pastor bases

his whole perception of a man on a browse through his books!

This is dangerous practice…on my shelf there are Mormon

„bibles‟, Hindu holy books, reports on pornography, letters from

homosexuals…I can hazard a guess as to the perception some

would have of me! All they would see are the titles – they would not

bother to ask me why I have them. I know this is true, because it has

happened.

To me, all books (not including the Bible) are only for

reference and practical study purposes. I have no time for novels, for

the time is short. But if all you „see‟ of me are the titles, then my

reputation is lost!

In the same way, listening to a man‟s prayers cannot be an

accurate way to sum up his spiritual state. Of course, good men can

pray good prayers – I am merely saying that we must be

careful…silence in a prayer meeting does not mean someone is

backsliding and „sound‟ prayers do not guarantee high spirituality.

Let me put it this way, in the cold light of day – I know of

pastors who have prayed „soundly‟ in public just hours before beating

up their wives or before they had secret sexual meetings with other

women! People can pretend in any sphere of life, whether it is

spiritual or not.

I rarely pray in public, in a prayer meeting. I certainly never

appreciate being told to pray. Yet, if I take a meeting, I am willing to

pray (although there have been one or two exceptions). Leading in

prayer on behalf of the congregation is well-documented in scripture.

It is not the same as the kind of prayers spoken in corporate prayer

meetings, or in private.

In a prayer meeting I am very aware of being in front of God

Himself – as I am anywhere. People claim to come together with the

express purpose of speaking directly to God. Therefore, I am very,

very careful. This is why I rarely pray in public. Although all

churches insist on this public, generalised, getting-together-to-pray,

there is no real point to it. It is relatively easier for some to pray in

public, when everybody else is doing it (group dynamics again). But

is the result „prayer‟?

40





I remember the times I have responded emotionally to the

prayers of others, even though I am not the easiest of persons to

respond in this way. Indeed, I am known for the control I exert over

my emotions. Now, if I, who am able to well-control his emotions, can

respond emotionally – what about the thousands who easily respond

emotionally? They will quickly „join in‟ the emotionally-charged

situation and become a part of it.

Many, many Christians respond emotionally and not

spiritually. This is observable. Many Christians base their beliefs on

their emotions and will attend prayer meetings because of this

emotional „need‟. This can be witnessed when things they cherish

the most are challenged or upset – it is then that their real beliefs (or

not) can be seen in action. It is when we reach our weakest points

that we see if our beliefs can stand the test, or if they are just

superficial.

In prayer meetings, I often used to pray silently with others

who were praying. That is, I mentally repeated what was said. But

how valid is this? We all do it, but is it acceptable to God? Later we

will look at praying with „one accord‟…but the example above is not

praying with one accord! Can I be so busy hearing and repeating,

that I do not have time to digest and understand? Can I legitimately

„borrow‟ the prayers of others and apply them to myself (i.e. the

„carrion crow‟ syndrome)?

Whenever I left a prayer meeting I always took out what I took

in – my own fears and doubts, my own requests and my own private

pleas to God. There is no way I could have shared these thoughts

with others. More importantly – God does not want us to do that,

either.

In many ways, the Finney we have already quoted previously,

made sensible comments on prayer in the article quoted. He points

to the practice of the „leader‟ reading a portion of scripture before

prayer begins. Rightly, he says that this should only consist of apt

texts that are given by God and are short. If none comes to mind of

the Spirit, then it is better to shut up. On that I can agree! He says

that to read a text just as a “matter of form” is an “insult to God”.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly.

He said that the leader should explain what prayer is before

the session starts, together with reasons to pray, listing them before

the people. He bases this on the belief that we must concentrate our

thoughts before we can pray effectively. He says that this is the task

of the leader.

Remarkably for an Arminian, he adds “It is of no use to stay

there and mock God by pretending to pray, when they have nothing

on earth to pray for.” Quite right. But, he does not seem to realise

that by prompting the people with his own list of topics, the leader is

supplanting the work of the Spirit. Either the people gathered with

one mind and with the same reason given by God, or it is all useless

and their prayers are worthless. True prayer is not produced by

„concentrating‟ thoughts, but is the product of God‟s mind permeating

our own.

41





Finney says “One reason why prayer meetings mostly

accomplish so little, is because there is so little common sense

exercised about them. Instead of looking around for some solid

footing on which to repose their faith, people come together and pour

forth words, and neither know nor care whether they have any

reason to expect an answer.” Yet, this is what people do all around

the world every day – they collect for „prayer‟ because the rota says

so, and they „pray‟ without any true conviction other than emotion.

Finney‟s paper encompasses many of the points I raise in this

chapter, but sadly his thinking is not the same as my own in many

ways. This does not mean that people who think differently are

inherently wrong. It means that he raises the proper queries but

answers them wrongly.

For example, he says that the leader should designate who

should pray, calling on the “most spiritual” to speak first, so that his

example will cause others present to „catch‟ the emotion. This is not

true prayer, but mere emulation of another human being. And, as I

say elsewhere, those who usually stand first are those who pray the

same things every time, fluently but without God‟s calling.

It is evidence not of God, but of human arrogance with a silver

tongue. I could continue with Finney‟s paper in detail, but it would not

serve a purpose in this book. I can say that his paper covers many

vital points and asks the right questions, but fails because his mind is

set on human endeavour. It would have been interesting to have

asked him to consider my objections, to see if he would have re-

thought his conclusions!

Calvin was very aware of the need to be spiritually-minded

when praying and said “Let the first rule of right prayer then be, to

have our heart and mind framed as becomes those who are entering

into converse with God.” (Institutes). Exactly. Most I have heard

usually enter into converse with each other, mindful of who in the

room is listening.

“Foreign and extraneous cares must be dispelled” adds Calvin

as he warns not to bring “any of those things which our blind and

stupid reason is wont to devise” into the presence of God. He spoke

of leaving aside our own vanity and to “rise to a purity worthy of

God.” Without doubt, I would say that if Reformed men really

adhered to their reformation heroes, they would pray with purity!

Many years before, Origen said “it is necessary not merely to

pray but also to pray as we ought and to pray what we ought. For

even though we are enabled to understand what we ought to pray,

that is not adequate if we do not add to it the right manner also.”

(„Origen on Prayer‟). Whether or not a Christian accepts the work of

Origen, what he says here is right.



More Questions

What has been said above are the thoughts of countless

Believers, but they dare not articulate them within their own

churches. Are they all lax or backslidden? I doubt it very much. If

42





prayer meetings should exist, then we must ask several pertinent

questions:



K. Should they exist on a regular basis?

K. Should they be convened for special reasons only?

K. Should they exist as separate from other meetings

or as part of them? And should these other

meetings

be regular (i.e. repetitive) anyway?

K. Should public prayers be made only at the prompting

of the Holy Spirit, when necessary? (If so, then we

must all learn what ‘prompting’ really is! So often,

we attribute something to the Holy Spirit, when it is

no such thing).

There are many more questions.



I find it difficult to understand, you see, how prayers can be

„ordered‟ for one hour on one weeknight (except for public holidays!).

To me, this is superstition and not praise or prayer. When I once

suggested to a good friend that the prayer meeting should be

discarded his appalled retort was “But if we do that, what else can we

put in its place?”

That was no answer at all! When I replied “Nothing” he just

disagreed and walked off! Why should something replace the prayer

meeting, if it should not exist anyway? It is a very mechanistic way to

live a Christian life.

This attitude treats prayer as though it were something apart

from life; as something one only does at certain times (as in Islam).

It does not comprehend what true prayer is, or the constant

communion (in all its variety) we must have with God.

I have walked around my home chatting to God in prayer,

complete with nods of the head and waving of my arms, as though

walking next to a person. That‟s because He is „walking‟ next to me!

I have exclaimed just one word in an emergency, because there has

been no time for anything else.

There have also been even more critical times when I have

been unable to think straight because of a pressing situation: in these

times the Holy Spirit promises to step in and mediate on our behalf,

saying those things we cannot speak.

Thus, prayer need not be vocal and need not be known in

terms of thoughts…when God accepts prayers we are not aware of

sending. This is when our spirit communes directly with the Holy

Spirit. (Read Romans). Yes, prayer takes on many forms – some

unknown to many Christians.

Prayers-to-order are not true prayers and have no worth,

except as human therapy. Yet, Christians are made to feel inferior if

they cannot muster prayers at a prayer meeting. Some do not attend

for this very reason. (Pastors and leaders may not intend to make

people feel this way, but they nevertheless do so by inference).

43





Others may attend because it gives a feeling of spiritual

superiority. Again, this may not be the intention, but it is certainly

projected. This all suggests that „prayer‟ can be a magical rite or a

social norm. It is definitely not open and honest communion with

God.



Corporate Prayer

In all the Biblical references to „prayer‟ and to similar words

(pray, etc.), I cannot find substantial – or even flimsy – evidence to

support prayer meetings as we know them today.

There is much evidence for prayers being used as a part of

other activities, though. The overall picture seems to be that of

individuals talking privately to God, their prayers being first prompted

by God. Thus anything else must be sheer garble.

In prayer, as in any other spiritual activity, there is no such

thing as a „cavalier‟ action – we cannot just „have a go‟, or „try our

best‟. The suggestion that “We should just start to say something

and the Lord will fill our mouths” is not Biblical (in this context). The

idea is not mature and it ignores the mind and the spirit. It forgets

that the devil would just love us to simply „open our mouths‟, for he

has plenty to fill them with!

It is a mindless activity…if we rely on it we may as well rely on

Christmas Cracker verses, or those boxes of ready Bible texts where

we pick one out at random and tell ourselves that God is speaking to

us! We may as well spin a Buddhist prayer-wheel! No, all this is

spiritual deadwood. It sends us toward Satan, not toward God.

A prayer is real only if it is first given to us by the Holy Spirit.

Otherwise it must be either of ourselves or of Satan. If it is not of

God, then He will not listen to us. „Having-a-go‟ has no place in the

Christian life, whether in prayer or in any other activity (e.g. door-to-

door work, witnessing, etc.).

I simply do not understand what our churches mean by

„corporate prayer‟. And, I suspect, neither do they! I know what I

have been told it is and what I have read about it in books. But that

is as far as it goes.

I have no firm Biblical understanding of it from scripture, which

is why I am so suspicious of it today. We all refer to it and all talk

about it and many of us do it. But very few of us have thought about

it. We accept the existence of prayer meetings because we have

always done so and for no other reason.

In scripture (the AV) seven words directly refer to the subject:



Pray, Prayer, Prayest, Prayeth, Praying, Prayed, Prayers.



Together, these words appear 510 times in the Old and the

New Testaments combined. A breakdown of their uses is given later

in the Article. (There are other references to prayer that do not use

these actual words, but they also appear to follow the same pattern).

We must never pick out texts that „prove‟ our beliefs and reject

those that do not. We must see if the meanings of texts are

44





supported by other texts, or if these other texts oppose the meaning

we have given them. Apart from that, we must also check the whole

ethos of the Bible. This gives us the atmosphere or setting of our

texts. That is, their context. In all this I find nothing to support

modern-day ideas of corporate prayer.

What, then, do we base prayer meetings on? Yes, there are

texts that speak of getting together to pray, but these texts do not

support the use of modern-day prayer meetings.

The majority of uses for the word „pray‟ are found in the Old

Testament and these uses have nothing at all to do with our idea of

„prayer‟! Instead, it is used as an ordinary form of greeting. There

are rare exceptions to this. At no time did it refer to prayer-

communications between a group, or between a group and God.

It is hard to see how personal prayer can be „shared‟

corporately. Even a public prayer made on behalf of the

congregation by a pastor is not a personal or a corporate prayer, but

is a formalised prayer, representative of the congregation, but with no

other application.



Biblical Warrant

An example of texts that refer to prayer but that do not use

any of the usual seven words referred to above, is found in 2

Chronicles 20. This is typical of prayer made by a leader on behalf of

(not corporately with) the people. It cannot, then, be used as

evidence in support of corporate prayer. There are many more

examples like this. Most Biblical examples of praying refer to prayer

made on behalf of others, or made in private for a very special

purpose.

So where, then, is our Biblical warrant for prayer meetings?

There is certainly no direct evidence of commands to meet together

for corporate prayers in the form we now have them.

In scripture, texts that tell of prayer between God and a man

usually assume a highly personal form, such as „beseeching‟ or

„pleading‟. This cannot be done, week after week, in a roomful of

people whose spiritual states and temperatures differ so widely from

hot to near-freezing! How can wayward hearts possibly „join in‟ the

true prayer of an earnest heart? It is not possible. Nor can a

personal, earnest, prayer be shared.



Wonderful times Are Not Proof

A reader may retort that he has had „wonderful times‟ in prayer

meetings. I cannot deny that, of course. But, having a „wonderful

time‟ is not necessarily proof that something is of God. People have

a „wonderful time‟ getting drunk, or of being high on drugs, or by

indulging in orgies of illicit sex! Satan can counterfeit anything,

including having „wonderful times‟ in prayer meetings…and even

prayer itself.

Another problem I have with corporate meetings is the way the

Holy Spirit is „called down‟. All of us who preach have done this at

45





one time or another, almost as a matter of course. We have all

prayed for “The Holy Spirit to come down amongst us”.

If you think about it, this is nothing more than ordering God

around for our own convenience and is akin to the „calling down‟ of

Christ by Roman Catholic priests during the Mass and, more

recently, like the evil practices of charismatics. It also neglects the

fact that the Holy Spirit is already in each one who is saved. To say

that He „comes down‟ (and by implication, goes „back up‟ again) is

not theological truth.

It is true that we feel the presence of God more keenly at

certain times. This, however, appears to be more a sign of our

spiritual awareness and spiritual state than of the Holy Spirit „coming

down‟. He is always with us, even when we do not realise it.

Otherwise, we are really saying that God is NOT WITH US, except in

prayer meetings when He is „called down‟. There are serious flaws in

the act and attitude of „calling down‟ the Holy Spirit.

In the past I have been in meetings (particularly those very

large American-evangelism, or Pentecostal-type meetings) where it

has been claimed that the Holy Spirit “moved in a mighty way”…but

where I was distinctly unmoved! How can this be explained? By

going back to the old „backslider‟ charge? No – let us question things

more closely…such as the hyping of the audience, especially

amongst charismatics.

Anticipation is heightened and emotional excitement is

fostered by use of music and carefully constructed speech. Ever

tried „proving‟ that Father Christmas visits children? It is fairly easy to

convince them that Santa is on the roof…hear the bells? Hear the

clatter of reindeer hooves on the roof? Hear the soot falling down the

chimney?

Oh, look! There goes the sleigh in the night sky…see it kids?

Yes, they do see it…there it goes…wow! Such is their expectation,

they actually „see‟ the sleigh and „hear‟ its sounds! They believe it

happened because you have carefully built up their expectations.

When similar tactics are used in large meetings, I have no

time for them. If God is there, then He is there – no need for hype or

emotional charging! It is strange that some „feel‟ the so-called

Presence of God at these meetings whilst others, sincere Christians,

do not. To claim that it is due to their coldness of heart is not

sufficient, or fair.

On the Day of Pentecost the room the disciples were in shook

with God‟s Presence! Things were blown about by the wind

accompanying His Presence. There was no mistake about it, it was

so obvious. Yet, power-preachers insist that the Holy Spirit „comes

down‟ in a mighty way amongst us…yet leaving many untouched?

This is not acceptable. (We must not swing the other way – meetings

held by the heretic Benny Hinn contain many examples of movement

and mass influence, but not of God).

Satan can invent a spiritual response in us (particularly if we

never question what happens). I am sure that this is what happened

in those meetings I attended, where the name of Jesus was chanted

46





again and again, like an Hindu mantra. Then, after this repetition,

„He comes down‟!

This is credulity stretched beyond normal limits. It is nothing

less than auto-suggestion/self-hypnotism dressed in dubious

„spiritual‟ clothing. At such times I feel the chill of evil in the air. This

can happen in the most sincere of Christian meetings, so even a

prayer meeting must be discerned.

Feelings have their place in worship and in prayer, but they

must never rule these activities. Unless the feelings are direct from

God, they prevent true prayer taking place. It is better to be silent

than to „pray‟ a non-prayer under the guise of public prayer.

The greatest giants of the Church have all spoken of the

toughness of prayer and of their inner traumas when praying.

Personally, I do not understand those who say it is „so easy‟ to pray.

Yet, many Christians today say they always „enjoy‟ prayer as though

it were some sort of game. They have a prayer for every occasion,

tailor-made.

This is a danger pastors should watch out for…because a

prayer is „always‟ done at a particular point or for a particular event, it

does NOT mean we must always pray. A holy silence is better than

wrongful prayer in public. I am always wary of those who find it

„easy‟ to pray. It should be repeated – Satan is a Master-

Counterfeiter!



Does Intent Matter?

In law, much depends on the intent of the accused. If he is

found guilty of a crime his intent does not absolve him from the

penalty, but it can affect the extent and the severity of the penalty. It

can sometimes lead to a dismissal of the penalty or some other

judgement of mercy. But he is guilty whether or not he intended to

commit the crime.

Does this principle apply here? Does the validity of a prayer

meeting depend on the intentions of the people who pray, even if the

outcome is not as holy as the intention? We are told that where two

or three are gathered together in His Name, then that is where God is

to be found. However, we should examine that text again, for it does

not refer specifically to prayer meetings at all. Also, this promise is to

those who gather „in His Name‟. It is not a promise divorced from

intent.

I have attended prayer meetings where the pastor or some of

the members were bitter, where human feelings were obviously to

the fore. In no way can they offer true prayer at that time. Also, the

promise (re two or three gathered) cannot apply if many of those

present are unsaved or if Christians are cold toward Him or toward

each other.

What happens in a meeting if only ONE person is in a right

state to pray (or is there a „fit state‟?)? What if he alone is properly

communing with God and all the others are cold or spiritually

rebellious? Does this mean that God is NOT in their midst but only

with that one man? In that case, such a meeting is invalid and

47





should never have taken place. If such coldness continues, should

that one man keep returning to such a barren place – or should he

come out, like Lot?

On the other hand, is intent a side issue? Is the real value to

be found in coming together – even if everyone is cold? That is, will

God bless meetings simply because everybody is meeting together?

Is mere duty blessed? After all, many prayer (and other) meetings

are attended out of duty, not love.



Prayer Menu

I am not the only one concerned. I know there are pastors

and others who are just as concerned about the same thing. Why,

then, is the situation carrying on? Could it be like the Annual

Congress meetings in the time of Stalin? When he finished his

speech everyone had to stand and clap, whether or not they wanted

to.

The clapping went on for many hours, because everybody

was afraid to be the first to stop! Those who stopped first were

reported and were subsequently sent off to a labour camp. The

same mentality occurs in our churches (but in „love‟ of course): no-

one wants to be the first to raise an issue, for fear of the

consequences of being branded an heretic or a backslider!

In many churches pastors, realising a need for change, issue

what amounts to a „prayer menu‟ of priorities, thinking it will help.

Others say “Don‟t pray-around-the-world tonight – we must pray

for…” and a list of items is issued. This, however, is wrong. The

pastor is substituting one formula for another. It is mechanical and

not Spirit-led.

How can a pastor tell a group what to pray for, or how to pray?

Maybe the Holy Spirit is telling the pastor himself what to privately

pray for, but that does not mean everybody else must pray for the

same things.

A menu can be false. It removes individual discernment and

prompting. At one meeting, we were told exactly what to pray for – a

special meeting to be held the following year. A team of „evangelists‟

were to visit to help „soften-up‟ the locality for our own „big push‟.

Then members were asked to vote on what was already a decided

issue…and afterward to „pray about it‟.

But pray about what? Some of us refused to do so, because

we felt it was unbiblical. We were asking outsiders to do our own

work, thinking that somehow everything would be wonderful after

they had left. What would we have? We would still have a church

full of cold and unresponsive Believers, who would then be expected

to provide „back-up‟ for the departing team.

Thus the whole church „prayed‟ for the event, except for four

of us who dissented. If the issue being prayed for was invalid – then

surely the whole prayer meeting itself was invalid? In this case the

„prayer menu‟ was just a tool of manipulation, to guide members

along a predetermined human path of action. That is shoddy and

underhanded and not of God.

48









The Prayer Meeting

When a person prays in a prayer meeting, is his or her prayer

representative? Is it said on behalf of all others present? We must

remember that each person stands alone before God. Can, then, the

prayers of a righteous man „cover‟ all those others whose intentions

are impure and unrighteous?

If we say that the prayers of a righteous man do cover others

of bad intent, then we fall into the Roman Catholic trap, who use

priests as intercessors (or, rather, as stumbling blocks and

interferers) and as absolvers of sin. This is very close to the setting

up of hierarchies (which almost every church informally has

anyway!), where one man is supposed to be „holy‟ and whose „faith‟

covers the failings of everyone else. „Leaders‟ should not, therefore,

try to force a congregation along a desired path – there are too many

errors of presumption and pride to fall into.

If an individual prayer cannot thus „cover‟ everyone else, then

what is a prayer meeting (where prayers are said in public) actually

for? Let us assume that everyone in a room prays. I have not

personally attended a meeting where a single theme is adhered to, at

least not to the same degree of earnestness or even with a show of

real interest on the part of many. Rather, everyone „prays‟ exactly as

he or she wishes and much of what they say can be deemed „private‟

to the person who prays.

Others DO „pray around the world‟ without ever being specific.

These „universal‟ prayers say everything and yet nothing and, frankly,

I see no justification in saying them: they are bland and impersonal,

reflecting the fact that the person has nothing really to pray for!

Instead, it is easier to „pray‟ generally, using a format, than to pray

from the heart as led by the Holy Spirit.

If each real prayer is personal, then what is the reason for

coming together in the first place? If each of these prayers is

supposed to be a personal encounter between an individual and

God, then where do others fit into the picture? Where is the

mandate? I strongly propose that „corporate prayer‟ does not exist,

but is just a play on words, a fumbling through traditional activities, a

pretence of corporateness stretched over a layer of individual

agendas.

A dangerous concept now enters the scene. Frequently, I

have heard the suggestion that gathering together „concentrates‟

prayer and its „power‟ (as though the act of prayer itself had power,

rather than the power coming from God). Let us be rid of this

superstition.

At its extreme it is heresy. Exactly the same idea is found

amongst witches in their covens, mediums in their trances, cult

priests in their rites, Hindus in their group mantras, and so on. When

we say that prayer is more „concentrated‟ or efficacious and made

more powerful by geographic proximity, we are in immediate danger

of making prayer occult, magical, mythical. This is the sum total of

charismatic groups who travel to a particular geographic site to

49





„concentrate‟ prayer against demons they claim are „in control‟ of the

area (so-called „territorial spirits‟).

We thus limit God‟s power and God Himself, to one spot on

the globe and to one group of people who have the power to control

Him. None of this is in the minds or hearts of those who thus pray

(except for charismatics) – but it is definitely in their actions, intended

or not.

God is omnipresent. It is absurd to imply that we can pin Him

down to one place on earth. Or, that He cannot hear us too well

unless we all pray together physically. Placing our bodies in close

proximity does not make our prayers more potent! The prayers of

one righteous man alone in his own home, is worth more than the

fervent pseudo-prayers of 100 men packed into a small church room.

The power of prayer is vested in the Holy Spirit, not in physical

proximity, or in meeting once a week at a particular time.

We must not be like occultists and cultists. We do not need

physical concentration for prayer to „work‟. The only workable

prayers are true prayers…where God first prompts us to pray, then

we pray the prayer – God hears it because we „pray aright‟ and

because it was prompted by Him in the first place. Anything else is a

delusion and is sin. It is only this authoritative prayer that works and

has power.

The Lord does not just know what we are praying tonight, but

He also knows what we will pray tomorrow. He knows our every

thought, even before we start to think it. So, why do we try to limit

Him to a single weeknight service and to meagre, dutiful, human

words? The simple, individual prayers of righteous men all over the

world are a „prayer meeting‟!

There is no guarantee that God will prompt people to pray

simply because they have gathered together for what they call a

„prayer meeting‟. If God does not prompt people to pray, does this

mean the meeting is a failure? Any „failure‟ is on the part of men, not

God. So, how can we honestly meet together for the express

purpose of „praying‟, when there is no prompting of God to meet, let

alone to pray? Should not prayer be a part of meetings – and only if

those who pray are genuinely called to do so?

I know of people who gather in very small groups to pray.

They believe that their desire to pray is somehow thwarted by their

churches. But, what are they really doing? Are they truly praying in

unity? Is there some serious and all-pervasive reason to thus pray on

a regular basis? No, there is not. They just feel better by praying.

But, if prayer meetings (of any size) have no Biblical mandate from

God, their meeting, though well-intentioned, is of no value and can

even be a sin.



Meanings of „Prayer‟ in the Bible

Emphasis and actual meaning of each word depends on

context – the texts and the situations they are used in. However, in

most cases there is a general unity in their meanings. As an

50





example, some of the possible meanings of the word „pray‟ are cited

below:



OLD TESTAMENT

 Incitement and entreaty, e.g. “I beseech you”, “oh”.

(Note: The word most used for „pray‟ is nâ‟. It is usually used as a

request between two persons, in the same way as we might say

“Would you please do me a favour?” Therefore, it has nothing to do

with prayer meetings or with prayer as we know it today)

 To judge; intercede; make supplication.

 Used as a wish, e.g. “I would that”, “I pray thee”, “would God

that”, etc.

* To stoop to kindness to an inferior; to favour, or to bestow; to

implore; grant graciously; be merciful, etc.

 To be weak/sick/afflicted, or to grieve or to make sick. Make

prayer or be sorry; woman in travail; be wounded, etc.

 To impinge by accident/violence, or by importunity; to come

between; cause to entreat; make intercession; intercessor;

meet together; come upon; reach/run, etc.

(Note: The word used for „meet together‟ above is pâga„. It occurs

only once, in Job 21:15, when the question is asked “What profit

should we have, if we pray unto him?” Thus, this term cannot be

used as a proof-text for corporate prayer meetings).





NEW TESTAMENT

 To supplicate (pray to God); worship; to pray earnestly.

 To beg/petition/beseech; pray to; make request to, etc.

 To call near; invite; invoke; call for; exhort, etc.

 To interrogate/request; ask.

 To wish/pray to God.

It can be seen that New Testament meanings are close to Old

Testament meanings.

The various derivatives of „pray‟ (prayer, etc.) have virtually

the same meanings. Note, also, that certain words are used

interchangeably. An example is pâlal, which is used for „pray‟,

„prayer‟, „prayeth‟, „praying‟ and „prayed‟!



Usage

Interesting as such facts may be, meanings cannot be

separated from their usage. That is, how words are used in their

contexts. Thus, after examining each of the 510 texts that contained

the seven words shown above, I then examined how they were used.

The following headings or categories were used.



P+P Between human person and human

person, e.g. two people talking to each

other, or similar.

P+A Between an human person and an angel.

51





P+G Between an human person and God the

Father.

P+J Between an human person and Jesus.

P+P(J) Reported speech of Jesus, e.g. as He

prayed to God the Father.

J+G Between Jesus and God the Father.

(Note that none of these refer to groups of

people)



Perhaps the reader thinks I am merely playing with words. Let

me explain…I am looking for support for prayer meetings, or

evidence against them. To this juncture, the actual meanings of the

words „pray‟, etc., do not provide conclusive proof either way. So

now I am looking at these same words in their contexts; the

situations in which they were used.

If they are used in situations we can call „corporate‟ then we

can deduce there may be a place for modern-day prayer meetings.

The following, then, is a brief analysis of the various usages. Not all

usages are shown, but I can assure readers that nothing important

has been missed out. (To avoid duplication some usages have been

grouped together):



Classification No. Times Used (Approx.)

Old Testament

P+P 188

P+A 6

P+G 25

New Testament

P+P 100

P+A 1

P + P (J) 42

J+G 3



From this analysis we can see that when „pray‟ is used, it

mostly refers to two human individuals (P+P). In the Old Testament,

the main usage is in the term “I pray thee”, which has nothing to do

with corporate prayer. In the New Testament, this same terminology

is used 100 times.

The other usages follow a similar pattern. Most of them

(nearly all) refer to just two people talking to each other and include

Jesus talking with an individual and Jesus talking with God the

Father.

Where speech from Jesus‟ lips is reported it usually refers to

Him speaking to God…ALONE. Throughout, then, we are reading of

personal encounters and not of corporate situations. This means we

cannot appeal to any of these words to support corporateness in

prayer. It would seem, then, that support comes from tradition only.

52







Possible Exceptions

There appear to be exceptions to all this, that might refer to

corporate prayer. These are shown below. Not all the cases are

given – just sufficient to prove the point. Remember that these

usages are the exception in scripture.

Look at Numbers 21:7. Here people are gathered in large

groups, but only one man prays – Moses prays on behalf of the

people. The closest parallel today is when a preacher prays a

benediction or mid-service prayer.

The form of „pray‟ used in the Moses example is pâlal,

meaning a one-to-one prayer. The same kind of thing is seen in

many other situations, such as in 1 Samuel 7:5, where Samuel prays

on behalf of the people.

Later, in verse eight, Israel begs him to pray for them (it

means exactly the same thing). This is NOT corporate prayer as we

perceive it today. Indeed, I believe the word „corporate‟ is a

stumbling-block.

It is misleading – it is impossible to pray corporately, unless

every person uses exactly the same kinds of words and the same

concepts and has the same frame of mind and heart at exactly the

same time! Even if this happened, if it was executed regularly it

would be „vain repetition‟ and would not be true prayer.

We find that Jesus usually took Himself away from people to

pray. Even when the disciples accompanied Him, He took Himself a

little further away from them so that He could pray alone. The only

time He appears to have prayed publicly was when He performed a

specific task, such as a public miracle.

When we come to the prayers of the publican and the

Pharisee, although they are both engaged in prayer, they are not

praying corporately. Even in 1 Corinthians 14, it is not clear if

corporate prayer is alluded to, even though the text does speak of

„meeting together‟.

We certainly are commanded to meet together, but we should

not thereby assume that this means we must pray together, or to do

it regularly. To do so would be to make the classic mistake of

projecting a specific instance into a general concept. What

happened in one instance does not necessarily apply to all instances.

An extreme example would be to say that we can all raise the dead

because Jesus raised Lazarus.

If we followed Jesus‟ example, then we would never hold

corporate prayer meetings. I remember the Christian who read the

original draft of this article some years ago and said “I agree with

what you say…but what do you put in the place of prayer meetings?”.

The answer is simple, but it eluded him – we put NOTHING in

its place! We have no command or justification to fill a space in the

local church‟s social week, just for the sake of it. Nor are we to install

another „meeting‟ to take the place of a meeting that was invalid to

begin with!

Another vital clue is found in Matthew, where we are told not

to use vain repetitions (Greek: „empty words‟!). James 5:14 speaks

53





of elders (pastors) praying together AS ELDERS, ON BEHALF OF

OTHERS (in this case, sick persons).

Again, this is a public prayer but for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

On the other hand, it does not say whether or not other Believers

were present. In this passage, the elders were called together just

as the old leaders called together the tribes of Israel, for particular

purposes and not just out of habit!



We must be careful how we read texts, too. In Acts 20:36, for

example, we are told that Paul “prayed with them all”. At first sight, it

seems that he prayed in a prayer meeting. But the Greek text puts it

this way: “Kneeling down with all (of them) he prayed.”

Now, this could mean either that they all prayed together, or

that Paul prayed on their behalf. (The latter appears to be the most

appropriate). Therefore, this text cannot be used in support of

regular, corporate prayer meetings, either.

Matthew 6:1-8 provides the most striking picture of prayer. In

verses five and six we are told to pray where others cannot see or

hear us! How do we reconcile this with prayer meetings?

The passage begins with a warning about giving and

continues with the same warning when discussing the matter of

prayer. In both cases a public show is deplored and rejected by

Christ.

The word used for prayer here is proseuchomai, meaning to

make supplication to God and to worship Him. The word comes from

pros, which effectively means to „draw near to‟. It is also linked with

the word euchomai, which speaks of the wish to pray to God. All of

this is highly private.

The word proseuchomai occurs only in this passage. The

word „secret‟ (kruptos) used in this text entirely supports the idea of

personal, private prayer. Kruptos means „concealed‟ or „private and

hidden‟ or „inward‟ (possibly referring to silent prayer).

This word comes from the root verb „krupto‟, meaning „to

conceal oneself; to cover; to hide oneself and to keep secret‟. These

words are strongly distinct and cannot be interpreted in any other

way.

It must be remembered that Jesus Christ said these things.

How are we to take it all? Obviously, Jesus meant His words to be

taken exactly as they were spoken, as law or command. Our task,

then, is to see if the concept of corporate prayer can reconcile itself

to this unique command of Jesus Christ. Again, I must repeat, the

words for „prayest‟ and „secret‟ cannot possibly be interpreted in

various, alternative ways, because they have pre-defined, specific

meanings.

So, we are commanded to pray in private, in our own closet or

room. The reason for this has already been touched upon – God

does not like hypocrisy. Hypocrisy includes praying out of mere duty

and praying so that others may hear us being (outwardly) pious.

Thus, whoever deals with this matter of prayer meetings must

first deal carefully with this direct, unambiguous command of Jesus

54





Christ. It cannot be ignored. Some have agreed with the general

tone and content of the above arguments, but the same readers add

“I do not necessarily agree with all your conclusions”. Interestingly,

they do not tell me what parts they do not agree with! Is this because

of a regard for tradition or because of sound theological reasoning? I

have been very specific – it is reasonable to expect that critics should

be just as specific…or is their objection only emotional?



In some of the instances above and in other cases not

mentioned here, the words „we‟ and „brethren‟ are used. But this is

not an indication that people must gather together to pray as a

regular matter of course.

In Acts 1:14 for example, we see that disciples met and

prayed together “with one accord” (homothumodon). This does not

necessarily mean that they all prayed together in the same room.

Homothumodon means „unanimously‟ or „with one mind‟. That is,

they were all in agreement!

But there is far more to it than that – it means that the Holy

Spirit had filled their hearts with exactly the same message and

prompting. Thus they all prayed about exactly the same thing, at the

same time. It was as though the whole group had the „same (single)

mind‟ but still had their different bodies. There is no way we most of

us can honestly claim this has happened in any prayer meeting we

have ever attended!

(To return to Origen again…”Such are the prayers, which are

really spiritual because the spirit was praying in the heart of the

saints…they are full of unutterably wonderful declarations”. “these

are prayers which, because (true) prayers (are) made and spoken

with the spirit, are also full of the declarations of the wisdom of

God…” Chapter one).

Homothumodon comes from the word homou, meaning

„same‟. It is similar to the word hama, meaning to be „close to‟. In

these several meanings there is also the element of physical

proximity. But, taken as a whole, they refer to the gathering together

of Believers for one specific purpose and with one spiritual mind.

This is further supported by another root of homothumodon –

thumos – meaning „passion‟. The depth and reality of this passion is

seen in the root of thumos itself, which is thuo. It refers to killing, or

sacrifice, or breathing hard! Do we see this kind of intensity and

passion in modern prayer meetings? (In some there is plenty of

passion – but of an human kind, generated by emotions). No, we do

not.

Finally, the words discussed above are all linked with the word

„spirit‟ (psuche), which takes us right back to Matthew where Jesus

says we must pray in the spirit (privately). Taken as a whole, then,

praying is an intense, private activity, between one person and God.

Even if, after the evidence shown, we are still keen to maintain

prayer meetings, we should note that everywhere (to my knowledge)

that praying-together is mentioned in the Bible, the above facts hold

true – that people prayed together for specific purposes and in the

55





deepest and most profound of spiritual senses (i.e. they were of „one

mind‟). Note that “with one accord” can include the concept of

praying with the heart, i.e. silently or inwardly.

From all this readers can see why I question the whole idea of

corporate prayer as we now know it. There are only one or two texts

that might refer to corporate prayer, but they are open to other

interpretations.

These exceptions are unlikely to refer to open, public, audible

prayers made by everyone in a meeting. They certainly DO NOT

refer to regularly-held „prayer meetings‟ (that deal with almost every

topic under the sun). Nor do prayer meetings rest easily alongside

the command of Jesus Christ in Matthew. There is absolutely no link

between the two.



Conclusions

I have seen (and felt) the coldness of prayer meetings. My

questions arise out of concern. If prayer meetings exist according to

scriptural definition – THEN WHERE ARE THEY? Everyone claims

to attend or to hold the best prayer meetings!

Everyone claims to hold prayer meetings of the kind I never

see (I don‟t intend attending them to find out…I‟ve already done that,

too many times)! Everyone claims that their prayer meetings are

truly of God and are filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit…they

have even claimed this in meetings I have attended!

In many cases such claims have been the result of personal

opinion and emotional ecstasy. Take away the emotion and there is

nothing left. Such bias can grow out of loyalty to the local fellowship,

or from a prejudiced view of what spirituality is…it is all personal

opinion, not scriptural fact or true evidence.

What we feel in a prayer meeting is not necessarily proof of

Holy Spirit involvement or of Biblical Truth. Ultimately, it is irrelevant

how „wonderful‟ our prayer meetings are, or how „blessed‟ we think

we are by them – if prayer meetings as we now know them should

not exist, then that is the end of the story; how we feel about it is

beside the point and superfluous! It is all personal opinion and no

more.

Readers are reminded that Satan can manufacture or

counterfeit „spiritual‟ atmospheres and that many cults claim

marvellous things for their prayer meetings.

To this point in time, then, I cannot find proof in support of

prayer meetings as we now know them. I would add the following:



 There is no evidence in support of regularly-held meetings

that are convened especially for prayer, or for prayer-

sessions within any other kind of meeting (e.g. Bible

studies) that are held on a regular basis.

 Of all the references I have studied concerning prayer in

the Bible, there are no evidences to suggest that prayer

meetings were ever held except for specific purposes and

“with one mind”.

56





 Jesus Himself tells us to pray in private.



I do not presume to have all the answers, because I know I do

not have them. It is now up to the reader to check what has been

said and to come to an honest conclusion. We cannot rely on our

feelings, or (especially) our traditions. The Bible is our only and

ultimate source of authority. Even if prayer meetings are a product of

tradition, so long as that tradition is solidly based on scripture, then it

is valid.

Our traditions, then, must be in concert with the whole of

scripture. We must not use isolated texts, or favoured interpretations

that contradict original meanings, just to support our own ideas. That

is what cults do! With prayer, we must face the fact found in Matthew

– that Jesus tells us to pray in private.

We must examine what we mean by „corporate‟. If it simply

means that people gather together because they are expected to,

and they all pray about different things (with varying degrees of

sincerity) then I am firmly against that. It is a pointless exercise – we

can do that in our own closets.

So, does „corporate‟ mean something else? Does it mean to

pray as Samuel did, on behalf of others? In that case, everyone

listens and assents with „Amen‟. But that is not „corporate‟ prayer – it

is representative prayer. (Note: the term „corporate‟ prayer is not

found in scripture).

Even if this is what „corporate‟ prayer is, it must not

degenerate into a weekly event, because that would not fit the

Biblical pattern. It does not fit the Biblical pattern because there is no

pattern! Rather, prayers were ad hoc when done publicly. They

were never unclear or ambiguous and always had a single, specific

purpose – unlike our rambling and erroneous prayer meetings today.



By implication we should ask similar questions about all our

other meetings. We are commanded to meet together, although we

are not told exactly what to do when we meet. But all these questions

get us nowhere. We need action on this issue. I am sure that God

prefers to see sincere, flawed action to perfect inactivity!

If we suspect or know that something is wrong and we do

nothing about it, then we are guilty of sin. Possibly drastic changes

are necessary within our churches. But can we face up to them?

Surely God is praised and glorified by such discernment? Surely, it

is a sign of vital, committed Christianity? And it is also possible that if

we threw away our useless traditions, God would then place upon us

true „one mind‟ prayers that legitimise meeting together for prayer –

fairly often, but not regularly.

We must not change things for the sake of it, nor must we

make changes to be „modern‟. We must change to be closer to what

God wants us to be. I do not wish to „go back to Apostolic days‟ (as

some groups wish to do), because those days are past.

But, what we have today is dead, or almost dead. We carry a

dead body called „prayer meeting‟ and we need to bury it. When will

57





we come out of our stupor? Spiritual lives are groaning under the

weight of a false church life. What are YOU going to do about it?

Knowledge brings responsibility. Now that you know the

argument made in this book, you must face the consequences. This

is a deliberate operation of the Holy Spirit – we cannot be told of

something and then ignore it or „forget‟ about it because it raises

difficult issues. Talk deeply about this topic. Look for the Biblical.

Forget your traditions or your emotional ties to the prayer meeting.

God says that He honours those who honour Him. Do we

honour Him in our prayer meetings? I do not think so. If, after you

have checked my argument, you come to the same conclusions, then

you have only one course of action open to you – change! It is

change for the good and to the Glory of God.



Recommendations

Firstly, readers must understand what „criticism‟ is. Criticism

is often regarded as being destructive. So, critics are thought to be

bad people, only out to destroy. This is a misinterpretation of the

facts. True criticism is always constructive, even if it comes to

conclusions we do not like.

Destructive criticism is really a contradiction in terms. True

criticism examines, observes the facts and arrives at reasonable

conclusions based on those facts. In itself this is not destructive,

even if some of the conclusions are „negative‟. „Destructive criticism‟

is really another term for „prejudiced reasoning‟, whereby a person

ignores the facts and only looks at the matter with an opinionated

view!

Churches and individual Christians must never be afraid of

true criticism. Christian criticism is an evaluation of spiritual facts.

This is a legitimate role of theology and it is constructive. It is a

function of discernment and is given to us by authority of the

command to „test the spirits‟.

Well, I have critically examined prayer meetings. The reader

must now respond by asking a number of questions:



 Is the prayer meeting valid?

 If it is, then what form should it take?

 If it is invalid, then is attendance also invalid?

 If attendance is invalid, is it also sinful?



Pastors, too, must honestly face these questions, just as his

(God‟s) flock must support him as he attempts to grapple with these

and other weighty issues. We must all examine the content and

„style‟ of our meetings…and must ask the same question as before –

are they valid?

These questions are not the sole property of theologians, or of

pastors and deacons. Every Believer has the right and the need to

ask questions – and to want answers. The sheer formality and

structure of many meetings dampens vigour and probably frightens

off newcomers to the faith. Even those churches that claim to be

58





„free‟ or „spirit led‟ and informal tend toward a rigid structure after a

short while.

Thus the need to question is always present. Where is

spiritual life? Where is the attractive magnetism of open, overflowing

power and love? No, I am not talking about the glazed-eye

romanticism found amongst certain brethren who claim certain gifts,

where frenetic activities take the place of true spiritual growth!

There should be more spiritual informality (not chaos or

anarchy, where everybody leads: there can be no such thing as

democracy in churches)…the kind that comes from allowing the Holy

Spirit to do as He wishes. After all, the local church is not a business

with bosses and workers, even if that is what it looks like! It is a

congregation of equals, pastor included.

The pastor need not always lead, because that is not his

function. He may, along with others called to do so, oversee

proceedings to ensure that the flock do not harm themselves. There

will be many occasions when his leading is not required or

necessary.

Most pastors assume a breadth of role not apportioned to

them by God. How often have I heard pastors say that others do not

recognise their authority – but they are not in a position of absolute

power, nor are they bosses…although that is how many Christians

treat them.

This writer believes prayer should be a part of life in a general

sense. That is, prayer should be made as and when needed

(„without ceasing‟), not according to a fixed calendar of meetings.

Public prayer should be specific and only made by those called by

God to pray.

When public, prayers should be representative…but a „round‟

of prayers should not be sought, for this brings the danger of

unsolicited, improper prayer, which is not prompted by God and is

not desired by the one praying.

Public prayer must be clearly prompted by the Holy Spirit.

How do we know the difference between prompted prayer and

human prayer? The difference is overwhelming and unmistakable!

Indeed, if you have to ask the question, then you have never known

true public prayer.

The pastor or other person who may offer representative

prayer should only do so if prompted by God. If not prompted, then

do not pray. It is as simple as that.

There must be more, real, inter-relating; fellow Believers must

get to know each other properly (Believers should have no continuing

social contact with unbelievers – we should find our friends amongst

other Believers). God‟s rule must flow into every sphere of our lives,

including church, work, play, politics, social activities and so on.

People must be encouraged to voice their legitimate doubts

and fears; we must all examine Truth together. Pastors and teachers

must not expect or seek blind obedience, nor should they expect to

talk and then sit down. The congregation have the right to ask

59





questions and to make comments, whether it is a Sunday sermon or

a mid-week Bible study.

Pastors should not think of sermons as though they were one-

way, one-man performances, without comebacks! There is

insufficient communication between pastor/s and others. Any

psycho-social study would reveal a definite hierarchy of so-called

authority in almost any church – pastoral aloofness is just one sign of

it. Do not expect fellow Believers to simply sit and listen.



The Christian life is dynamic and full of power. When it is lived

according to scripture (God‟s word) it is also full of authority. We see

so little of these factors because we do not allow the Holy Spirit to

live through us and we do not follow scriptural teaching. Dynamism,

power and authority, can all be ours because it ALREADY IS OURS!

If prayer meetings must be changed or cast aside, then let it

be done, NOW. Do it and follow God, not self or tradition. If prayer

meetings should not exist, then do not attend them, for to do so

would be sin. Do not attempt to put something else in its place, for

then you are being false.

Live your Christian life as it ought to be lived – in the power

and authority of the Holy Spirit, and know freedom in Christ. It

should not be a continuous round of engagements and meetings, all

with different names and days on which to attend them.

We are not called to develop a full programme of events, or to

cleverly devise special meetings that will „appeal‟ to youngsters, or to

carefully „balance‟ meetings, etc. Let God do it all. If He wishes you

to hold this or that meeting, then let it be so. By devising all sorts of

meetings to cover every day of the week, you actually exclude God

and His power, no matter how much you think the Holy Spirit is with

you.

It is our Christian responsibility to praise God first. Everything

else, including meetings, must come second. Even witnessing

comes second to praising and obeying God. He will develop any

meetings He wants you to have…usually you will be the last to know

it! To fill-out the week for the sake of it is to invite spiritual disaster

and local church deadness.

The glory of God is of greater significance than a gap in our

local church calendar of weekly events! Why not have short Bible

studies instead? They would do far more good than the weekly,

sterile, prayer meeting.

When looking at the thinking of countless groups who meet for

prayer it is obvious that they are sincere in the desire to pray. But,

their mistake is universal – they believe that because it is legitimate

to pray, that corporate prayers are automatically legitimate at any

time, anywhere. They believe there is a logical link between prayer

itself and the holding of regular prayer meetings, even though they

do not adhere to what scripture actually says about praying together.

This is why, like Buddhists who stuff prayers written on bits of

paper into crevices in statues, many Christians are able to send their

prayer requests not straight to God, but to ministries that offer that

60





service on their behalf! Even by email over the internet. But they are

simply using similar techniques to Roman Catholics, who pay priests

to „pray‟ for their dead relatives, or Jews who also stuff bits of paper

in the Wailing Wall.

The Humanistic/Arminian nature of prayer meetings is seen

easily in the „Second Awakening‟ meetings at Fulton Street, USA

(1850: as sourced in „The Second Evangelical Awakening in

America‟). Guarding against disorder and disharmony, and wanting

freedom, the elders insisted on the „five minute rule‟, which, though

meant well, was the antithesis of freedom!

“Please observe the following rules (seven rules are then

given for the outline of the meeting, followed by reference to a large

placard hanging in a prominent place which said)…”Brethren are

earnestly requested to adhere to the five-minute-rule. Prayers and

exhortations not to exceed five minutes, in order to give all an

opportunity. Not more than two consecutive prayers or exhortations.

No controverted points discussed.” Yet, the book describes the

meetings as „spontaneous‟! Similar „rules‟ are commonplace in many

churches today, and they have no scriptural authority or place.

The Mennonites (source: Mennonite Historical Society of

Canada) have the same view as others, when they say “corporate

prayer was practiced by the early church”, quoting the usual Biblical

texts. The texts do NOT support the idea of corporate prayer as a

regular meeting, or in any way guided by human leaders or

structures or „rules‟.

The Mennonites refer back to their organisation in Russia in

1860, after following the preaching of a Pietist, Edward Wüst. He

established prayer meetings and „prayer cells‟ (another modern trend

without scriptural basis). Throughout their history the Mennonites

experienced controversy concerning prayer, but they still insist that

corporate prayer is acceptable as a regular activity.

In many churches worldwide, the idea is to „revitalise‟ prayer

meetings, and books proliferate on the subject, in which authors offer

a variety of „methods‟ to inject each church with life. Inevitably, this

involves human intervention (example: „Biblical Patterns for Powerful

Church Prayer Meetings‟, Greg Frizzell). They give „practical steps‟

for the “building of prayer meetings that make a difference‟, plus

“instruction for format, how to involve the youth, how to involve the

lay-leadership…” All of this is Arminian, through and through! It is not

of God, but of human interference.

Though Watchman Nee‟s work is now held in suspicion by

many, he taught correctly when he said “The Lord wants all of us to

pray in harmony, not with different tunes. If we can be in harmony,

then whatever we ask, God will accomplish…The basic condition is

to be in harmony…We should not pray capriciously with everyone

still holding to his or her own idea.” (from „Collected Works‟ Set 3,

Vol. 48, 203-204). In harmony – of one accord. This is above and

beyond prayer meetings by rota or „guidance‟ given by leaders.

We could gather many examples of bad teaching and wrong

interpretation linked with poor logic (e.g. prayer is Biblical, therefore

61





so is the regular prayer meeting). I believe that this chapter has given

plenty of food for thought on the matter. It is now up to the reader, if

he or she is honest, to examine his or her own heart.



(For a criticism of the views I have set out above, plus my

response, see the Appendix, or Article A/130, Publications‟ List, Bible

Theology Ministries. Also see my criticism of „Prayer Meetings‟, an

article written by Dr Peter Masters).



Next, let us take a brief look at that weird activity labelled

„worship‟. Weird not because it is Biblical, but because it is not, and

because those who practise it can be very odd indeed, for they do

not understand what it is anyway!







Chapter 5



Worship



Introduction

In 1667, John Owen wrote and published a catechism entitled

„Introduction to the Worship of God‟. At first, it did not bear his name

or that of the publisher, because of fear of retribution from the priests.

Today a similar condition is in force, except that whilst today I will not

be imprisoned for speaking out, those who consider their office to be

unassailable will castigate me and make sure that I am not listened

to!

Owen spoke of a “making to ourselves, an inventing, a finding

out ways of worship, or means of honouring God, not by Him

appointed, that is so severely forbidden.” And “Believers know what

entertainment all will-worship (is to God, Who says)…‟Who hath

required this at your hand?‟ and „In vain do ye worship me, teaching

for doctrines the traditions of men‟.”



Worship?

Certain churches hold what they call „worship‟ services. This

chapter wishes to ask a genuine question – what do they mean by a

„worship‟ service? Personally, as a Believer, I do not understand

what exactly such a service is supposed to be, or what function it is

supposed to serve. I understand the term „worship‟ – but not the term

„worship service‟. (All „services‟ should be „worship‟ services).

The term „worship‟ service has become prevalent only

recently, so, in a way, it is a fashion statement rather than an

historically-based term. This is one reason I question it. (It does not

follow that a lack of historical background necessarily means

something is invalid, but it may hold a clue).

62





Another problem is a very simple one – the term has no

immediate understandable meaning. If it had an understandable

meaning, then I would not be asking these questions! Again, the fact

that I personally do not understand the meaning of „worship‟ in this

context does not necessarily imply that such an observance (of a

„worship‟ service) is wrong. It just means that I do not understand

either the meaning given to it by men today, or its relevance to

Christian life. Thus, my own ignorance of these matters could be the

problem!

As always, we must go to the scriptures to see if we can find

the solution. This should tell us if a „worship‟ service is valid, or if it is

required, or if it is relevant. We will find no less than nine clearly

differentiated Bible words for „worship‟. As is usually the case for

almost all Biblical words, these words themselves can be traced back

to roots (that is, other words on which the „main‟ words are based).

Three of these „main‟ words are found in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, „worship‟ usually means to bow in

homage before a superior, God, angels, or before false gods. The

word may be used either literally or figuratively (therefore we may

legitimately say that this word can be used to refer to one‟s inner

desire toward a superior/God, etc.). Another word means to shape or

form or copy. Thus one may shape oneself to be like a superior (i.e.,

God) – this being itself a form of „worship‟.

In the New Testament, „worship‟ can be taken six distinct

ways, depending on context (which partly determines the

translation/interpretation). The Persians displayed profound

reverence by kneeling and touching the ground with the forehead. In

New Testament times a person would kneel or lay prostrate to show

obedience and respect and/or to seek favour. This was done in

homage to God, the risen Christ, or to angels (whether holy or

demonic).

To „worship‟ also means to revere or to be devout, or to hold

an opinion of someone (good or bad – although, in the New

Testament, the opinion is always a good one, resulting in praise,

honour, or the glorification of a person, e.g. God). The same word

can also refer to the splendour of the moon and stars; the dignity,

grace and excellence, etc., of God; God‟s majesty as Supreme Ruler

and of Christ and the angels; it refers also to a glorious state, the

risen Christ‟s state before God, and the condition of true Believers.

„Worship‟ can refer to the service of menials (that is, „practical‟

worship of a superior) or, to performance of sacred services/offering

of gifts; to perform the rites required by God (e.g. performed by

priests) and those things which glorify Him.

It can mean to show piety or to act reverently – toward God, or

toward anyone/anything to whom/which, such reverence is due. Then

there is another word for „worship‟, which refers to misguided

worship. That is, worship/observances invented by men to suit their

own ideas. Thus, it is not true observance, or true holiness. Such is

common today in many churches, especially charismatic, pro-

charismatic, mainstream Anglican, etc.

63





So…which of these words is being referred to when we talk of

a „worship‟ service? Can the reader see the reasons for my genuine

query and caution? Look at the meanings of the Biblical words

above. None of them can adequately be taken and applied to the

modern use of the term. Indeed, the true meanings of the words

render the modern use nonsensical.

We see that virtually all the various words refer to one‟s state

of heart toward God (or toward any other superior being or object).

How that can be applied to an external form i.e. a church service, I

cannot tell. Hence the serious query.

Sometimes these services are also known as „praise‟

services…but I do not understand what exactly is meant by that,

either. It seems that certain valid aspects of Christian attitude have

somehow been taken from their context (in this case, the context is

the individual‟s heart-desire) and re-formed into a physical type of

meeting. But to what purpose? The purpose is, we suppose, to glorify

God…but how is this done? If the way we glorify God is not

prescribed in scripture or, more importantly, it is not even based on

scriptural example, etc., then is it valid?

This reminds us that one word for worship means to

misguidedly invent a self-made, invalid obedience which is, by

definition, disobedience and sin. I do not doubt the sincerity of those

who initiate or attend „worship‟ services. Nor do I want to denigrate

them in any way if they are my brethren in the Lord. I simply ask

what it is all supposed to mean! If „worship‟ merely consists of

throwing up arms, having „glazed eyes‟, and shouting „Amen‟ – then,

in my view, it is not worth anything.

We have seen what true worship really is. Why, then, do we

need „worship schools‟ and classes invented by men? The New Life

School of Worship is quite typical of modern reliance on human

invention. It offers classes on a variety of „worship‟ subjects, as

though this is Biblical! Inevitably, the School is charismatic and

strongly emphasises music. Unfortunately, more Reformed churches

are following its example, because of the inroads of charismatic

heretical thought into all church life.

Worship.com is a website that is “more than music – a way of

life”. Thus, music is first, worship comes out of music. It is a „worship

resource centre‟. As with prayer, man is interfering in what God

begins and makes worship an act of works and not obedience to the

Holy Spirit. It begins with man and not with God.

John Owen admits that a church has authority to institute

forms of worship, but warns that this must always be based on what

Christ has instituted. It is the ignoring of this principle, he says, that

“lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry of all the

confusion, blood, persecution, and wars…” („Communion with God‟).

As I have taught many times – Christian life is simply living!

We get up in the morning; we work; we rest. We meet together and

we study God‟s word. All of this is, strictly speaking, „worship‟. But,

men have to make it something elusive and to be studied in a paid-

64





for course. Do we find elements of this in the New Testament? Of

course we do not!

Before you again attend a „worship‟ service, ask yourself the

questions above and do not be fooled by emotions or by peer

expectations, which can often be off-beam, if not sinful. In particular,

do not attend charismatic „worship‟, for the very basis of

charismaticism is heretical.









Chapter 6



Who Is Reverend?



The title „Reverend‟ is given to (and accepted by) clergy and

ministers, especially if they have completed an approved theology or

Bible course (approved by whom and by what authority is another

matter!). That is, men – and even women – are „ordained‟ by a

denomination, by a college or, by another „ordained man‟; they are

„ordained into the church‟ or „ordained into the priesthood‟, etc. A

number of relevant observations should be made here:



 No man, denomination, or college has the authority to

ordain a person for purposes of priesthood. Post-New

Testament priesthood is an unbiblical concept which

opposes God‟s plan for the pastorate. In God‟s word, the

priesthood as a physical entity does not exist because it

has been abolished.

 A person has no right to call himself a „priest‟ in the clerical

sense. The word „minister‟ is also misused and

misinterpreted.

(c) A person is not „ordained into the church‟. To claim to

be so ordained is to admit to a poor understanding of

what the church really is…no human being can

ordain another human being „into the church‟.

 The „ordained‟ person does not „enter the church‟. The

very notion suggests that the Church is a corporation with

a life of its own and that we may apply to join! This is

Arminian, not Biblical, for the Church is the living Body of

Christ – made up of other human beings. We enter this

Body by being a part of it – and every Believer is a part of

the Church, through salvation.

Therefore, to say that only a „trained‟ person may „enter

the church‟ is nonsense.



In the 15th century pastors – mostly of the Roman Catholic

cult, but also of the new Reformation group – were given the epithet

65





„reverend‟ as a show of respect. Note that the word was first used in

the 15th century for the so-called „clergy‟. The word is not found within

the true Church before that time. There were no historical precedents

and there are no Biblical precedents or commands which require

such titles…not even when referring to pastors.

In the 17th century, „reverend‟ was used as a title, in much the

same way as „doctor‟ or „captain‟ was used in other spheres of life.

However, by that time it was not so much a sign of respect, as a

declaration of rank. This idea of rank is clearly seen in the various

sub-titles given to clergy: „Most Reverend‟ for an Archbishop; „Right

Reverend‟ for a Bishop and „Very Reverend‟ for a Dean. (The titles of

„Archbishop‟ and „Dean‟ are not Biblical. Nor is the title of „Bishop‟ as

it is used today).

Therefore, is the adoption of the title „reverend‟ without

scriptural authority? The term „reverence‟ is used in certain

circumstances (see later notes) but, such circumstances appear to

be mainly lacking today. Many men (and women) use the title as a

badge of self-induced honour, requiring others to give them credence

simply because they bear the title.

Such see themselves as „professionals‟ with a similar status

to, say, doctors, social workers, or teachers. This is in complete

opposition to Biblical principles concerning the place and role of

pastors and the place of the Church as a whole.

One man, a local preacher/pastor known to this author,

continually berated and belittled the well-earned public honours and

titles of others…titles bestowed by university degrees. However, he

now parades under the title of „reverend‟ without, of course, saying a

word against himself!

The title was „awarded‟ to him for his „long service to

preaching‟ and he proudly bears it, ensuring that it is displayed on

the local church notice board and in advertisements. Yet, he still

berates the titles of others, even though they are earned and quite

legitimate. In other words, the man is an hypocrite.

Another young preacher/pastor, who already bears the title of

„reverend‟ (because he has attended a Bible school), displays

another form of hypocrisy and pride. He said to one elderly Christian

lady, who refused to pander to his pride: “You MUST treat me with

respect – I am a Baptist minister!” He expected the lady (who hated

all forms of pride and hypocrisy) to bow the knee in subjection to him,

simply because of a false title given to him by a Bible school; he

demanded reverence. God forbid that he should ever get it!

Others, good men, use the title, even though it is not scriptural

to do so. Normally, these men would shun any idea of sin and pride

in their lives – so why insist on retaining a man-made title? These

men often say that the title means nothing to them, but that it serves

as a focal point when people meet them. They say it is easier to

speak to others when they use their title.

This begs the question…why, then, did the Preacher of

preachers, Jesus Christ Himself, call Himself the servant of all? Why

did He not insist on a title, such as Rabbi? And why did He not

66





command future pastors to use a title? Why did Paul not give titles to

the pastors he trained, or to himself?

Jesus allowed some to call Him „lord‟, because it was a matter

of fact – firstly, „lord‟ was used commonly to denote a man of worth

and honour; secondly, it was used of God – Who He, Jesus Christ,

really was. But „reverend‟ applied to preachers and pastors? I

suggest it may not justified. Let us see why…



The Word „Reverend‟

This word has never been used in scripture to refer to a mere

man. Indeed, this word has never been used in scripture AS A

TITLE. The word „reverend‟ was used only once – to refer to a

quality of God Himself. Can the reader see, then, why it should

never be used as a title by men? The reference is found in Psalm

111:9.



“He sent redemption unto His people: he hath

commanded his covenant for ever. Holy and

reverend is his name.”



The word „holy‟ – qadowsh – means sacred, Holy One, saint.

Thus, it may speak of either God or a holy man; qadowsh is rooted in

qadash, meaning to be hallowed, to show oneself sacred or majestic,

to be treated as sacred, to observe as holy, to be consecrated, to set

apart, to keep oneself separate etc. In the context of the text, it is

obvious that „holy‟ can speak only of God Himself.

It can refer to a saint…but if we look at the meanings of „saint‟

here, and if we are brutally frank, how many men can have the words

of this text applied to them: “reverend is his name”? I do not know of

any. I know of good, Christian men. Quite a number of them are

pastors. But, in all truth, none can have this accolade paid to them.

The word „reverend‟ or yare, means to fear, to revere, be

afraid; to stand in awe of, to honour and respect; to cause

astonishment and awe; to be held in awe; to inspire reverence/godly

fear/awe. Again – how many men can this be applied to? Few that I

know of. I certainly respect them, but not many of them cause

astonishment or awe in the scriptural sense.

As for „name‟ in this text – it means a reputation, fame, glory.

THE NAME (ie God). So, if we put it all together in this verse, we

can see that no man can match God‟s glory. Indeed, the verse tells

us “reverend is HIS name”…not anyone else‟s name! Can the

reader see what I am trying to say?

Yes, there are men in history, and in our day, who were/are

head and shoulders above most other Believers when it comes to

godliness. But, how many of them can honestly lay claim to this

word „reverend‟, when we see its context. In context, it shows us the

God Who gave us redemption, not a mere man who can only point

the way to the Redeemer.

It is true that a man may be revered, in the sense that he can

be held in utmost respect. But that is not like having a title of

67





„reverend‟. Apart from that, it is utter foolishness anyway, for the

word „reverend‟ is not even a title…it is a descriptive word, not a

subject! Thus, as a title, the word is ungrammatical.



What About „Reverence‟?

In Leviticus 19:30 we read



“ye shall keep my ecidedl, and reverence

my sanctuary: I (am) the Lord.”



This is repeated word for word in Leviticus 26:2. In chapter 19

verse 30, the word for reverence is yare (that is, it is the same as the

word „reverend‟ in Psalm 111). But in chapter 26 verse 2, although

the English word „reverence‟ is used, the Hebrew is actually shachah

meaning to bow down; to prostrate oneself before a superior in

homage, or before God in worship. (It may also refer to bowing down

before false gods or before an angel. It depends on context again)

The word „angel‟ is greatly misunderstood – it can be used of

men, as well as of spirit creatures or even of Jesus Christ. However,

in this text, it can only mean to bow in homage before Almighty God.

Further, there is no way that a pastor, no matter how holy, can allow

others to bow in homage before him, as though he were superior. It

is, simply, the opposite to his role in life…to be a servant and an

under-shepherd.

This is emphasised in the text by the phrase “I (am) the Lord”.

The „Lord‟ here is Jehovah or „the existing One‟; the proper name of

the one true God. Its structure is almost exactly that of the name “I

AM” – a positional title used by God about Himself and which cannot

be used of any creature.

The words “I AM” and “I am the Lord” are probably the most

profound statements-of-being ever to be uttered. There is no way,

then, that pastors may legitimately use the word (reverence) which is

applied to “I AM”. That is, there are few, if any, circumstances in

which a mere man may (like the young, brash pastor mentioned

above) claim the word for himself!

Others may want to use it with reference to him, but he cannot

claim it for himself or insist on its use in his presence, even for formal

purposes (e.g. on a letter or at a function). Nor may he insist on

being called „reverend‟, as though he were God. Only a sense of

self-importance and pride will allow a man to use the word „reverend‟

as a title. Those good men who currently use the title will examine

themselves and, hopefully, drop the title. Such is their holiness and

godly intent.

The argument does not mean that pastors and others cannot

be revered by others. But, a pastor who allows others to openly

show this reverence or deference, in their presence, without feeling

humility, can do so only in a spirit of pride. No pastor may actively

seek reverence, for if he does so (by using a title) he loses it in the

sight of God.

68





If some men allow its use for themselves, then they are very

subtly giving themselves honours. If others see them as „worthy of

double honour‟ then that is another matter…but if they tell others in

word, title, or attitude, that they are worthy of such honour, then they

are worthy of none at all.

There are instances in scripture when kings were reverenced

(treated with deference because of their status); 2 Samuel 9:6 is an

example, where the word for „reverence‟ is translated as „bowing low

before a superior, a king‟. Bathsheba similarly reverenced David,

because of his earthly status. None of this can apply to a pastor.

The pastor has no earthly status or position.

In the New Testament we can find several uses of the word

„reverence‟. In the account of the husbandmen in Matthew 21:37 we

see the word entrepo – to regard or reverence someone for their

status. This is used to speak of Jesus Christ, of course.

In Ephesians 5 husbands are told to love their wives and “the

wife (see) that she reverence (her) husband.” The word for

reverence in this case is phobeo – to treat with deference or

obedience. In this text, the age-old law of God is in operation, that a

woman is subject to a man, for that is the order of creation decreed

by God. It is not a title or something a man may flaunt or use as a

sign of power…it is just a statement of law.

In Hebrews 12:9 we see reverence (entrepo) for earthly

fathers, because children must show respect for parents. But in

Hebrews 12:28 the word for reverence (referring to serving God

acceptably) is aidos, meaning respect, sense of shame and honour,

modesty, bashfulness, regard (ie with downcast eyes). When we use

the word „reverend‟ as a title for ourselves, we overturn aidos and

replace it with pride and self-bought honour, which is far removed

from aidos – godly piety and humility.



General Thoughts

Scripture tells us that pastors who genuinely serve the flock

should be treated with double honour and with respect. A man who

calls himself to the pastorate (as the majority appear to do) or, who

ignores the qualities required of pastors, is not worthy of any honour

at all. Scripture does not tell us that a pastor can insist on being

honoured or that he can refer to himself as one to be revered!

Further, as the word „reverend‟ is used only once in scripture

to refer to an attribute of Almighty God, Christian logic and

conscience should tell us that it is the height of pride and

haughtiness for a mere man to use the same word as a title for

himself, a mere created being.

To their credit, many who have been „ordained‟ prefer not to

use the title „reverend‟, but they still use the word „pastor‟ as a title.

Their thoughts are well intended, but they are still not fully developed,

scripturally!

To use the word „pastor‟ as though it were a title is also a mark

of pride, even if such is not the intention, for we are just substituting

„pastor‟ for „reverend‟. „Pastor‟ is a reference to a role and a function

69





in life; it is not a title. Once we use a title, we deliberately make

ourselves different in status.

Whilst various academic or professional honours have their

place in society, because they state a specialism or an earned role,

there is nothing in scripture which allows us to use titles to give us

spiritual status. We are all one in Christ; there are no levels of

superiority.

We all have different levels of understanding and knowledge –

but as these levels are all given freely by God and are not self-

earned, there is no way we may lord it over others by using titles or

self-made honours. Nor is the pastorate an earned role. It is a role

assigned by God and maintained by Him. There is nothing in us to

warrant self-honour or titles, for it is „all in Christ‟.

It has been argued that the title „reverend‟ may be used by

theologians and others who are not pastors, merely to distinguish

them academically. This, however, is not a valid idea. Graduates who

earn basic degrees do not have a title before their name.

Even if they then earn a higher degree (e.g. MA, MSc, MTh

and so on), they do not bear a title. Only those who earn their

doctorate have a title – „Doctor‟ – before their names. Some choose

to use the title and others do not…but such use is legitimate.

Use of a so-called pastoral title („reverend‟) by pastors is,

however, not legitimate. A pastor who has earned an academic

doctorate, on the other hand, may refer to himself as „doctor‟,

whether his higher degree is in theology or some other discipline.

But he may not use a title to indicate his pastoral role.

In balance, then, I am saying that because they have

assumed „Reverend‟ as a title of status, men have no right to it.

However, some, because of their humility, a proven calling by God,

and obvious spiritual power, may be revered by others. These, it

would seem, may have the word „reverend‟ attributed to them by

others because of its description of their character, but should not

use it as a title.



Pastors and others are requested to think seriously about this

matter. By losing their thoughts of self-esteem, true pastors will

genuinely gain God‟s blessing and the double-honour due to them as

servants of the Saviour.

Many godly pastors use the title „reverend‟. This chapter is

not meant to belittle them or their work. Today, what is good is being

swamped by what is evil. The presence of pseudo-Christians almost

obliterates the presence of true pastors. It is a mistake to think that

the way forward is to pander to the thinking of the world.

If using „reverend‟ is thought to be an answer, then readers

are asked to think again. Under-shepherds of Jesus Christ bear no

pastoral titles. To God, „reverend‟ applied to His creatures is

meaningless, except as a way of seeking human status…unless their

character is truly one of reverence.

70





Note: Like all preachers, Spurgeon had his flaws. On the matter of

ordination, though, I concur with his views (from „Spurgeon‟, by

Arnold Dallimore, p47-8, Published by Banner of Truth) given below:



“On ordination he (Spurgeon) did not

believe this was a scriptural practice and

that he did not need it to validate his

ministry. The blessing of God, he

declared, was the divine seal upon his

holding of the office. Man could not add

anything to it.”



And



“Similarly, Spurgeon rejected the title

„Reverend‟ (though he did succumb to its

use very early in his pastorate). He said it

was a remnant of Romanism, that the

Reformers ought to have dropped…(he

urged his students to use the more

scriptural term „pastor‟)”



When it comes to titles used to denote spiritual office, I remain

adamant and concur with Spurgeon and others. If strangers refer to

me as „reverend‟ in a letter or on first meeting, I ask them not to use it

again as a title, and I explain that pastorship is not a title, but an

office. To use it as a title is to become an „officer‟…but I am not an

„officer‟, I am one who performs an office or task.

Therefore I neither want or allow such title for myself, which

tends to elevate one above his fellows. If others believe a pastor is

humble and of double-honour, then there may be a case for using the

word „reverend‟, but only as a description. Far safer not to use it at

all!

Finally, what of the use of clerical „dog‟ collars? Are they

valid? It all depends on what you think about paganism, for the dog

collar represents sterility or purity and is a symbol of the sun, worn by

sun-priests in pagan religions since 1000 BC. Like many other pagan

symbols, it was adopted a long time ago by the Roman „church‟. So,

wearing a dog collar is not so innocent as it seems.



Pastors

Most nursing home and hospital nurses have a little game

called „Guess Who‟s at the Door‟. A man arrives on a ward or at the

door of a Home, usually outside normal visiting times and the staff try

to guess what he is by his dress. It seems that ministers almost

always wear black suits, dark ties, white shirts and polished shoes! It

is not unusual to get them mixed up with the undertakers!!

Have you ever asked yourself why many ministers (or

correctly – „pastors‟) should dress this way? One big reason is so

they can fulfil the expectations of onlookers…which is a fairly weak

71





reason, but that‟s how it is. Pastors are „supposed‟ to look very

serious, as though they are attending a funeral.

Even young pastors fall into this trap of not being

themselves…I remember seeing one young man sitting outside his

church study, in the open air, on a blazingly hot day, complete with

long sleeved shirt, tie and flannel trousers. He was obviously very hot

and uncomfortable. Here was I in a teeshirt and shorts and there was

he trying his best to look solemn. He just looked uncomfortable!

He was probably not aware of the rules, which state that

ministers may (but only rarely) unbutton the top button on a shirt (no

more than that) and may roll sleeves up twice, but below the elbow!

Apparently, if a pastor dresses any other way, his spiritual state is in

doubt. (This is no joke…I‟ve heard similar charges!).

Another reason for this sombre facade is that pastors, almost

without exception, see themselves as „professionals‟. Amongst

independents and evangelicals, this is not spoken out loud – but one

can tell by attitudes that this is so. They see themselves being of

similar „status‟ to, say, solicitors, or doctors. This is a throwback to an

older age, when most preachers were the product of university

divinity faculties. Today, few pastors have had an higher academic

education…nothing wrong with that, but their perceived equality with

a doctor can hardly be in academia. So why the status notion?

Another thing about pastors is that most of them receive a

„stipend‟ which is, in other words, a salary. It seems that „stipend‟

sounds better than „salary‟, even though that is really what it is!

(Interestingly, many pastors receive more in real terms than fellow

members in their local church…what with free fuel, free housing,

expenses and „stipend‟. Giving cash to pastors is okay – but we

must be very careful not to equate it with „professional‟ status or

commercial salaries.

Now let‟s get to the real issues…Firstly, a pastor is the same

as an elder – he is an elder according to scripture! Yet, how many

churches have an hierarchy with the „pastor‟ at the top, „elders‟ below

him and „deacons‟ below them, followed by other lesser beings, such

as Sunday School teachers and finally, those “down in the pew”.

There are differences in this „pecking order‟, depending on

denomination, but the hierarchy still exists! It seems that one must

work his way „up‟ from being a deacon to being an elder – but unless

one attends a full-time Bible college course and is „ordained‟ by the

college, there is no step-up from „elder‟ to „pastor‟.

Many variations of these intricate „rules‟ exist. For example, a

large church sent off one of its members, who was to become pastor

of another church. But, he had not been Bible-college „ordained‟ and

so he was „not allowed‟ to call himself a pastor. Instead, he was

called a „teaching elder‟!

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS UNBIBLICAL! A pastor is the same

as an elder and, wait for it, the elder is the same as a bishop. They

are interchangeable names for the same office (though this is

sometimes argued over by various reformed men).

72





But, a deacon is not the same as an elder. He may become an

elder if called by God to the office, but a deacon is simply one who

attends to the practical and often mundane tasks in the local church,

such as looking after the money, visiting the sick, and so on. The

idea is to leave the pastors free to attend to their spiritual roles.

There are no hierarchies in the Bible and no „promotion‟ systems.

Furthermore, a pastor is equal in status to the deacon and to

the „lowest‟ member of the congregation. The pastor is merely

another member, but with a defined task to perform. He is an under-

shepherd who has no authority of his own…it is all of Christ. He is

not a „boss‟ and need not always lead at every service or be on every

„committee‟. (And his wife is not necessarily called by God to any

„management‟ task – so why is she usually the „head‟ of women‟s

meetings, etc?)

The pastor is chosen by the Lord, not by the people. He is not

elected by the diaconate or by a show of hands. He must do his work

as directed by God, not by diaconate preference or pressure. It is up

to the other members to recognise his calling, but not to elect him. An

elder is not „voted in/out‟ of office! Once an elder, always an

elder…unless he offends God‟s laws in such a way as to forfeit his

office. Or, if he has to move away from his local church.

Pastors should not be youngsters – especially if they have

gone straight to a Bible college from school or university – but must

be proven within their own local church. Thus pastors (note – more

than one!) of a local church should be „home-grown‟ and known well

to all the people. Theoretically, there is no limit on the number of

pastors in any one church.

No Bible college can „ordain‟ a pastor and no pastor has any

real right to be called „Reverend‟ – for this is a word used only of God

Himself. Think on these things. Let us forget pride and tradition and

see what the Lord says.

…...................................................................................



When I first mooted these notes in an article, certain folk were

outraged! One told me I was a Marxist who only wanted to

undermine and destroy the pastorhood! But I am myself a pastor –

and everything written in these notes applies to me also (doubly so!).

The purpose behind the notes, and all others, is to show what

the Bible says and to help Christians understand what is really at

stake. When it comes to pastors, we must recognise that whilst all

pastors, without exception, are equal to other members of the Church

of Jesus Christ, they tend to be very isolated (and, often, lonely)

persons. This is mainly because other members do not realise the

pressures on them. They usually push a huge „work-load‟ onto the

pastor‟s shoulders…some even think this is justified because they

pay him and so he must have a full day!

A true pastor is „worthy of double honour‟. Yet, he is also the

„servant of all‟ the members. The two go hand-in-hand. When the

pastor has the humility to be the servant to the flock entrusted to him,

73





and he discharges his duties with love and in truth, then he must not

be discounted as a mere „employee‟ of the local church.

The pastor is never an employee, even if he is being paid.

Rather, he is God‟s man in that place. He takes his orders only from

the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit and God‟s

word. There may be times when the pastor requires words of

guidance, but that is not the same as being dictated to. The

members should obey the just and Biblical injunctions of the pastor,

as of Christ, Whom he represents…not because of who he is, but

because of Who he acts for. Paul exemplifies this in his letters.

I know that there are many excellent men who are pastors.

They are genuine and sincere. They work tirelessly for those they

shepherd and they love them all. Even so, with so many false

pastors and false ideas amongst true pastors, it is necessary to

speak in plain terms. Not for their downfall, but for their good and

well-being. Their task is vital to every local church – hence the need

to know what is legitimate and what is not.

We are told to hold to the truth. This is a strict and

unwavering command. We cannot have communion with

unbelievers. Neither can Christians commune with each other in any

real way, if they all hold the truth on an individualised basis, as they

see fit. Truth is Truth, no matter what we think! Few texts in

scripture are open to personal interpretation, which is why it is vital

today to speak of such truths. If „God says so‟, but men resist, we

must still say „God says so‟, whether or not our listeners like what

they hear.

We can certainly discuss these matters, but, there is no room,

finally, for personal views where God has made Himself crystal-clear.

Those who do not understand these notes should beware not to fall

on the side of negative-critics who only have self-interest at heart or

a stubborn adherence to the ideas of men. Even amongst those who

call themselves „reformed‟ there can be errors. There are certainly

things we are not told about pastorhood. But this lack does not make

much difference to the issue. The main thing is to remain true to

what we are told. God will supply wisdom for the rest.

One source, referring to the single use of the word „reverend‟

in scripture, calls what I have said “just silly” (Nazareth Resource

Library, a Catholic web site). It is said to be „silly‟ because it “hinges

on the use of the terms in the King James Version.”

The criticism goes on to say something very strange: “(such

an interpretation) ignores the fact that there are a lot of individual

terms that appear in the Bible only once, and some of them are in

passages which apply them to God. This does not mean that in every

day life we may only use those terms in connection with God. We

don‟t have to build a wall around these single-use terms in our

language.”

But, I am not referring to words about cooking pots, or

anything not linked to God per se. I am talking about a word used by

God Himself about Himself!

74





Part of the criticism is that the title „reverend‟ should be used,

even if the person using it is a „thorough scoundrel‟. Again, what an

odd thing to say. A man is either worthy of respect and honour, or he

is not. If he is not, then he is not to be revered…though this objection

is said to be “due to an overly legalistic reading (of) scripture.”

Finally, the writer says that certain passages of scripture

“require us to show reverence for validly ordained

ministers…(therefore)…it is perfectly appropriate to call them

„reverend‟.” This is not a logical statement to make. We can revere

men for their spiritual stature and work, but that does not mean they

may use a term that scripture only used once for God Himself.

Amusingly, the criticism is aimed at „fundamentalists‟, even though

my ministry has no basis in fundamentalism!







Chapter 7



Church Membership



What is church „membership‟? Is it scriptural? Is it valid?

Every local church has its „members‟ and every denomination has its

„member‟ churches. But what does this membership really mean?

Normally, a person has to comply with certain conditions

before he can take communion, for example. He must usually be a

„member‟. The process of becoming a member can be very different,

depending on denomination, locality, country, culture etc. It may

require a letter of commendation from a former pastor or, proof that

he is baptised.

Other churches will ask for a brief interview – at my own

interview (by a deacon, I may add – not by the pastor!), in one

church, I simply had a chat! The interviewer was almost apologetic

and said that the rules demanded an interview…but he never even

mentioned my Christian status – was I saved, or not, or, what did I

believe?

Sometimes a pastor will have a kindly chat; sometimes his

deacons; sometimes it is put to the vote of the whole church or of the

diaconate. The idea, rarely upheld, is that some can be barred from

„membership‟ whilst others may be „welcomed into the church‟.

One of the latest church membership „schemes‟ I have come

across is as follows. It was received as an email:

“Our church has formulated certain laws

regarding church membership. In order for an

individual to become an acting member, he or she

must first attend and complete 5 courses. These

courses include a course on prayer, one on “how to

read the bible”, etc. These courses are absolutely

sound in their doctrine.

75





Then, once these courses are completed, the

individual will be put into a small group setting which

meets every Wednesday night. (Membership is ONLY

FOR those who belong to a “mission group”). The 5

course are approximately 2-3 months in duration

each.

If, for some reason, you are unable to commit to

these home group meetings, ( though there is a bit of

grace allowed for certain situations), you will not have

the privilege of membership. As well, if you are

already a member and discontinue your involvement

with your home group, your membership is revoked.

As I stated earlier, the doctrine associated with

our church has always been sound. There have

recently, alongside the membership issue, been

discussions on the topic of baptism. There is a couple

in our church who hold to baptismal-regeneration. I‟ve

brought this to the attention of the pastor and he held

a church service on a Wednesday night with all the

home groups attending. This was his message…

Baptism is not only a public declaration of the

work already done by the Holy Spirit in the heart of a

new believer (he has now crossed over from death to

life). It is that, but it‟s more than that. God‟s grace is

somehow transferred through the very act itself. (I

guess he means something similar to the teaching of

the Roman Catholic church and the sacraments). He

explained his understanding of this by comparing our

conversion to a novel.

The front cover of the novel is belief and the

back cover is baptism. When he was asked then if he

believed one needed to be baptised in order to be

saved, he hesitated and then said, “No….but it is a

part of the conversion process and is necessary

before certain blessings from God can be given.

God‟s grace is dispensed through the act of

immersion.

I personally believe he is a bit muddled in his

understanding of justification and sanctification. And

what are the spiritual ramifications of their take on

membership? Is this a step too far in the area of

control?

What is the historical take on church

membership? What principles from scripture can I

apply to my situation? The Questions go on and on,

and I‟m sure that once I‟ve done my research, I‟ll

have a few more questions to e-mail you.”



In this case, the church has always been „sound‟ in its

doctrine. Yet, despite this, it is obviously being led down a wrong

76





path by the pastor. His hesitation in answering a direct question is

indicative of his personal break with what is sound. Not only is he

making membership a very strict human code of requirements, but

he is certainly moving along a Roman Catholic route, in talking of

„grace‟ being given by God for something that is, in Biblical teaching,

the simple and uncluttered practice of baptism.



What is Membership Worth?

So, what does it truly mean to be a member? Well, the main

„advantage‟ (??) seems to be that you can then have „voting rights‟

and you can stay at special „business‟ meetings. In reality, outsiders

know exactly what has gone on in a special members-only meeting,

by the same evening – and many more know by the next day! So

what‟s the point of it all?

As for „voting rights‟…vote for what? To appoint a new pastor

or deacon? No membership may vote-in a new pastor. Only the

Lord can do that (see section on pastors). It is dubious if deacons

can be elected, either. What else is there to vote for that requires

such secrecy? Whether or not to spend money on installing new

central heating? Who to send a donation to? Hardly worth the effort

of secrecy, is it!

It has been said that membership is more for „eventualities‟

than for everyday use. By this is meant, the right of a local church to

get rid of someone it does not like. Thus, if there is a rule that allows

a person to be thrown out, then it is there to be used. (Read my book

on this, „The Left Boot of Fellowship‟. Details given later).



Is Membership Valid?

No, it is not. Can a person be asked to leave the church if he

does not attend prayer meetings regularly? Can he be barred from

taking communion if he has missed more than three consecutive

Sundays? According to some, this can be done. Yet, even if we look

very hard in scripture, we do not find justification for membership or

for the rules applied to it by local churches.

Where does membership come from? That‟s easy to answer

– it comes from the human need to interfere with what God has

provided! A local church building is merely a place where a large

number of people can meet without crushing each other. The people

who meet together inside the building should all be Believers if the

place is called a Christian church. (Sadly, virtually all local churches

are a mixture of saved and unsaved people…even unsaved people

are made members, and remain, whilst true Christians may be

thrown out, or forced to leave).

The Church of Jesus Christ can be defined as „all who have

been saved, are saved, and who will ever be saved‟. That is the only

qualification to be a member of the universal Church, whose Head is

the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He did not ask for a vote or for a

letter.

He knew, from before the world was formed, exactly who

would be saved and when. He knows exactly where they are at any

77





given time and He knows exactly what local church they are visiting.

He places no membership conditions on the saved person. This is

because once a man is saved, he can never be lost, no matter what

he may do in the future to offend others.

Therefore, no local church has the right to impose rules on

fellow Believers that have not been instigated by Jesus Christ. Does

that mean we may do as we please and a local church does not have

the right to throw us out? No, it does not.

A local pastor has a certain authority, delegated to him by the

Lord. The local church as a whole also has limited authority, in

certain instances. Every church must apply discipline. This is not

confined to throwing people out of a church…discipline is concerned

with much more than that. Discipline involves everyday living as well

as Bible study, prayer and other aspects of Christian existence.

The Bible tells us things we must do, so that we may grow as

Believers. It tells us what to do if things go wrong. It also tells us

what kind of thing constitutes a serious offence and how we must be

very careful if we are to apply the extreme act of casting-out from

fellowship (see „The Left Boot of Fellowship‟). But nowhere does it

tell us we must have local church membership as it is seen today!

All Believers are members of each other. If I walk into a local

church in outer Mongolia, I am automatically a member. There are

no physical barriers to my membership, because none are set by the

Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. He provides the Church with

sufficient „rules‟…we do not need to apply even more of them.

If folk wish to move to another local church, well, there is

nothing much we can do about it. If they wish not to meet for a few

weeks, that is up to them. If they do not have communion for a while,

it is their loss, not ours. Yes, we may enquire to see if there are

problems…but we do not have the authority to cancel their

„membership‟.

Certain things (including prayer or preaching meetings) may

go on inside a local church building…but none of them are

mandatory. We do not even have to preach on a Sunday! If we

wish, we may just sit around and talk, or have a cup of tea. Not to

understand this is not to understand the nature of the Church itself.

We invite the reader to examine the subject of church

membership. What purpose does it serve? Human reasons will

abound…but the Bible is silent on membership as we know it today.

Did you know that computer companies sell „membership

control‟ computer programmes for churches? Does this say more

about the minds of those who use it, than about the Biblical basis for

membership? I think so, just as charismatic „workshops‟ on „how to

build up your membership‟ speak not of the Holy Spirit, but about

good commercial marketing.

Some, wrongly, link membership with a perceived „need‟ to

have „organised religion‟ and with all kinds of doctrinal statements,

when no such links exist in scripture. One ministry (The Gospel

Way), using this system of thinking and showing false linkages, and

referring to those who do not see membership as necessary, says:

78





“…folk say…that one can be saved without being a member of the

church.” Its answer is to ask a question: “Will Christ save people

outside the church?”

Such an answer shows a completely wrong attitude and

definition of „church‟. It implies that one must be in the „church‟ before

he is saved! It links salvation with being a member of a local church,

when scripture gives no link of this kind. Salvation is separate from

membership, though it must precede it.

Michael Bunker gives an interesting slant on the matter in his

web site (michaelbunker.com), when he says that individual

Christians will be held responsible for the corporate sins of any

church they belong to…so be “careful what you join.” Interestingly, he

also claims, as I do, that Protestant churches have a „Rome-friendly‟

hierarchy, with their own popes (e.g. pastors who elevate their

status).

Bunker says: “Church membership is not mentioned one time

in all of scripture. We are not authorised to „join‟ a church, a

denomination, or a cult.” His reason is that we may not join with an

harlot, a definition I am not fully happy with. However, he has a point

when saying that membership of a sect means, really, NOT being in

membership of God‟s true Church. Also, he cannot see (as I cannot)

the link between the spiritual Body of Christ and an humanly-

demanded membership list with all that it implies. Despite some

definitions and links I would not make, it is worth reading his

arguments just as a source of stimulation to thought.

If you want an opposite view, then go to bibletruths.net, where

church membership is claimed to be taught in scripture. Like many

Protestant groups, though, it then spoils its approach by giving „other‟

reasons for membership, which have no real Biblical context. It also

thinks that the existence of local churches MUST mean membership

rites are acceptable. Again, there is no logical link.

Throughout this group‟s arguments no concrete scriptural

proof is given for the need for physical membership. Read what they

say anyway, just to taste how this kind of argumentation manifests

itself. The site presents a typical set of Protestant-style arguments

based on tradition and perceptions rather than on scripture itself.

I have nothing against what is „Protestant‟ – only against its

human devices. One such device is the way some Baptists (of

„seeker-friendly‟ churches) are starting to use „covenants‟ that compel

members to do this or that. Matthew Henry said of such oaths or

covenants: “The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths;

the better they are, the less there is need for them.” So, instead if

imposing rules, local churches should encourage holiness and love

for each other (See 1 Thessalonians, chapter 3, for example).

A commentator (Paul Proctor, of newswithviews.com) says:

“When a church becomes dependent upon carnal mechanisms for

spiritual motivation, rather than the power and conviction of the Holy

Spirit, contracts become fashionable amongst frustrated pastors, who

find it necessary to coerce members into carrying out the church‟s

79





ministry. Those who are led by the Spirit of God don‟t need to sign on

some dotted line…”

Brian Schwertley, a Reformed writer, claims that membership

is valid. In his arguments he says that those who do not accept

membership rites fit into one of several camps…the trouble is, I am in

none of them. My objection is not against membership, but against

the formality that goes with it and what membership infers. Yes, we

must belong to a local fellowship, but not if it is cultic, heretical or in

any way corporately defying God.

Schwertley gives us the same list of objections to membership

that appear in many other reformed works. He also presents

typically-reformed arguments for membership, saying that Biblical

evidence is “abundant and overwhelming”.

I beg to differ, for, like others, he makes tenuous deductions

without using proper interpretation of texts, adding that those of us

who object „claim‟ to be Christians and are „ignorant‟. Immediately,

this makes readers think that we must therefore NOT be Christians. It

is what I call „naughty argumentation‟, because it stirs mischief

instead of relying on mere facts. The same author also refers to us

as „hedonistic, self-centred, materialistic…and do not want any form

of authority‟ over us!

Also typically, he refers to „church hoppers‟, without thinking

that they may not settle for very good reasons other than the ones he

has mentioned. It is true that many „hop‟ because they do not want to

be under authority. Only recently one of my own congregation left the

fellowship for this very reason, after being disciplined. So, yes, it

exists. But do not relegate all under this simplistic banner.

The writer ought to remember that the term is a double-sided

coin. On one side are his arguments, but on the other is the side

usually kept quiet by critics – the heresy or hatred of pastors and

members, that force a genuine Believer from his spiritual home, often

after spending many years there. (Again, see „The Left Boot of

Fellowship‟). The more often he meets this kind of situation, the more

discerning he becomes, and this can lead to a very wary view of any

church. Then, the writer adds that not being a church member is

equal to rebelling against God!

Schwertley admits that there are no direct references to

membership in scripture, only those that „infer‟. He says that God set

up „church officers‟. I object to this, because there are no „officers‟ in

the Church, only those who have an office. I am not playing with

words here, but trying to define as scripture does. There is nothing in

scripture on church government that says we have „officers‟.

With this kind of view, I am not surprised when he then says:

“The existence of ecclesiastical rulers, governors or overseers,

presupposes there is a group of people to be governed.” We can see

from this what the writer really believes about church government. It

is no different from the monolithic structure of Rome!

There are no „governors‟ in the Church! Christ is the only

Head, and He delegates authority to some, such as pastors. But they

80





are not equal to Him, nor are they „officers‟ – positions that belong to

the Jewish religion rather than to Christian fellowship.

The writer presupposes that elders have a „rule‟ over people,

therefore, this means membership is acceptable. But this is not what

the texts on „rule‟ tell us! They simple state that elders have a duty of

care over other Christians in their local church. Why does this need

formal membership? The texts on elders having oversight do not

necessarily link with „membership‟.

Brethren are supposed to obey those with oversight. True.

But, again, nothing in scripture links this with membership, or the

need for it. There is also an unbalanced view of discipline. Because

discipline exists, says Schwertley, this must mean that membership

is scriptural. Yet another false link. It is my view, from scripture, that

any Christian is potentially under discipline from any pastor or other

minister, whether known to each other or not. This fits the Biblical

model of a spiritual body far more than the model of an ecclesiastical

hierarchy and membership. It is also what we see in the work of Paul.

In my doctoral thesis I mooted the point that a local church

can excommunicate a Christian who has not been dealt with properly

by his own church. How is this possible? Well, if we are all members

of the same Body of Christ we are all affected by the failure of other

parts. And, as one Body, each part of that body has a „say‟ in how

the others operate, for the effect is on the whole body.

When, then, a man who claims to be Christian requires

excommunication but it is not acted upon by his own church, any

other church has the right (by familial relationship) to apply discipline.

In the same way, a man who has been legitimately excommunicated

by one church may not join another church unless he has undergone

proper acts of repentance, etc.

The writer, time and again, resorts to implied terms rather than

express statements. He interprets texts in a way that they cannot

bear. This is because there are no rules of membership in

scripture…if we imply, we must accept that others can imply also, but

in a different way. This is because there are no rules or fixed

statements.

I have no wish to attack this man, or to derogate his views.

Nevertheless, I protest at the way he turns implications into

authority…it is how cults operate! There are no rules in scripture

demanding formal church membership. I can happily attend a local

church and commit my services to it, without going through a formal

procedure.







Chapter 8



Denominations

81





In 1986 there were a staggering 21,000 denominations in the

world! By 1997, a further 7,000 had been added to the list! (From

„The Christian Sourcebook‟). How can Christians justify 30,000

denominations?

Even at the time of the Apostles, some were “of Apollos” and

some were “of Paul”. So, denominations are nothing new! They even

existed in the time of Jesus – the Pharisees (to whom Paul once

belonged) had some beliefs that were similar to those of

charismaticism today. Though powerful in the Sanhedrin and in state

affairs, their influence grew less until they disappeared and new

sects appeared.



What are Denominations?

One dictionary defines a denomination as a „class of people‟

or „religious sect‟. The latter description is about the best, for every

denomination is sectarian. That is, it attempts to set itself apart from

other groups of Christians (who are in different denominations), by

declaring a particular set of beliefs. It does this because it thinks its

beliefs, or range of them, are better than the beliefs of all other

denominations.

No doubt members and leaders of denominations will say this

is not the case; in no way are they saying their own denomination is

superior. This causes a question to be asked…if it is not superior,

then why belong to it? Another question arises…if a denomination is

not superior but is the same as any other denomination, then why

have different denominations?

Members of denominations are fierce in their loyalty. (There

are exceptions of course). Just try saying that some of their

denominational beliefs are not valid! Does this loyalty reflect the

superiority of a denomination? Superior in which way?

In practice a group of people decide that certain facets of

doctrine are not being properly taught or upheld within a

denomination. So, they leave the denomination they are in and start

another one, in order to teach what they believe is missing.

Inevitably, those in the other denomination think those who

have left are majoring on their „new‟ favoured teachings, but are not

placing enough emphasis on certain other beliefs. This is really the

basic difference between one denomination and another – the

emphases placed on certain beliefs above all others.

Another form of denominationalism is that which goes beyond

differences in beliefs and which ventures into matters of irrelevant

practices etc. Whereas many denominations began as a way of

placing emphasis on favoured Biblical teachings (or, what are

perceived to be teachings needed to be a „good Christian‟), some

add layer upon layer of totally irrelevant requirements not found in

scripture.

Two excellent examples of this are the institutions of

Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. (Roman Catholicism is an

example of a non-Christian system, but Anglicanism is a very close

second, because it is framed on similar lines). In these two major

82





denominations, large numbers of non-essential and non-scriptural

„rules‟ are insisted upon.

Also, many unscriptural teachings have been introduced. In

the case of Roman Catholicism, such teachings outweigh or deny

scriptural ones, making it an ungodly cult outside the definition of

„Church‟. All of this is a sign of faithlessness, not of faith. Layers of

material not found in scripture indicate man‟s attempt at being

supreme. By calling their efforts by denominational titles and by

insisting on non-scriptural rules, they set up a completely human

edifice, similar to the Tower of Babel.

The New Testament knows nothing of denominations. Indeed,

it inherently opposes them! Denominations, to a greater or lesser

degree, intentionally or not, place Man before God, human rules and

devices before Holy Law. Even the „free‟ or „independent‟ churches

are guilty of this, for nearly all local churches segregate themselves

from others for non-essential human reasons.

There is only one Church…and every individual Believer,

past, present and future, belongs to it. At the very least,

denominations are irrelevant structures built by Man; at their worst,

they are power-bases founded on the shifting sands of men‟s sinful

pride. We must bear in mind that God‟s word does not suffer either

silly irrelevancies or crude attempts at displacing God‟s order of

things. Simply, denominations should not exist, because they are not

of the Holy Spirit.

What of the very real ignorance concerning baptism that

spawned the Baptist church (for example)? Surely our forefathers

were right to bring attention to these things? Yes, they were certainly

right to do so…but we must return to a very simple fact – there is NO

SUCH THING AS THE BAPTIST CHURCH! Or the „Anglican‟ church,

or the „Roman Catholic‟ church, or the „Presbyterian‟ church etc. (The

actual denominational name does not matter).

There is only ONE CHURCH and it belongs to Christ alone. It

cannot and must not be split into arbitrary chunks, to suit our whims,

or even our well-meant concern. Every church must be self-

governing and must have no higher human authority or consortium.

And, it is the duty of every local church to teach the whole doctrine of

God, not just the parts preferred.



Demolish Babel!

The Tower of Babel lives – but under the name of opposing

denominations! The time to demolish them is TODAY…but who has

the spiritual maturity to do the work?

Some call for us to shun denominational Christians or

churches. This is neither fair or Biblical. If those we know in

denominational churches are genuine Believers and they hold to

those teachings we know to be „major‟ parts of doctrine (such as

concerning salvation by grace, etc), then we have no right whatever

to shun them! They are our brethren, not heathen or cult members.

If we look at, say, the Baptist Union churches, we can

correctly question the dues they pay to the Union itself. Why?

83





Because part of it is paid to the World Council of Churches, which is

not a Christian organisation. This does not make members of such a

local church „infidels‟…it just means that they are misled or

misinformed. It could even be that members want their money to go

to the WCC…even then, they are still our brethren – though they are

in error. We can also question their more recent affiliations with

charismaticism. Even so, if they are saved by grace alone, they are

brethren.

Similar errors occur in other denominations, which, in

themselves, do not warrant shunning or castigating. Such errors

must be pointed out – but this cannot be used as an excuse to act in

an unloving way toward the local church or its members. If their error

is more fundamental to the Christian message, then that is another

matter.

Where the issue is serious, there is no option but to cut-off

from the denominational church, until its members repent (the same

applies to non-denominational churches). Denominations are not,

then, required or needed by God. They are not found in scripture

and serve no real purpose. So – why do we retain them? Think on it,

friends.

“Denominationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon”

says mb-soft.com, and the distinctions arose when Puritans

disagreed between themselves as to the organisation of local

churches. Is this reason for splitting and making denominations?

“The eighteenth century revivals associated with Wesley and

Whitefield greatly encouraged the practice…” and “Although a true

denomination (author: apart from Roman Catholicism, that is) never

claims to be the only legitimate institutional expression of the church

universal, it frequently thinks itself to be the best expression, the

most faithful to the Scriptures and to the present activity of the Holy

Spirit.”

As the site correctly adds, “Had it not thought so…why else

would it have gone through the trauma of separating from…an older

denomination?” This is simply partisanship in action, sectarianism. It

is not the sign of one indivisible Church.

The people of Calgary Church, Canada, have formalised their

opposition to denominationalism in an article. It says “Today, those

who profess to believe in…Jesus Christ, call themselves by other

religious names, instead of just wearing the name „Christian‟…there

is no unity in faith, doctrine, and practice, seeing that denominations

teach and practice different things that contradict one another, as

well as things that contradict the „apostles‟ doctrine‟.” (Jerry Vinson:

„The Way of Christ without Denominationalism. Can this be

possible?‟).

The fruit of denominations, says Vinson, include division,

atheism, and confusion. He says that we can either ignore all this, or

“we can have the courage to stand against denominationalism and

follow the way of Christ (only)”. Do you have this courage?

About 100 years ago, Richard Niebuhr wrote

“Denominationalism… represents the moral failure of

84





Christianity…before the Church can hope to overcome its fatal

division it must learn to recognise and to acknowledge the secular

character of its denominationalism.” (Quoted from „New Life for

Denominationalism‟, Hartford Institute for Religious Research, from

Christian Century, March 15th, 2000).

The Hartfield Institute did a survey over two years and found

that denominationalism in the USA was most obvious in rural areas. I

am not sure if this is the same for other countries, but this is almost

the spiritual equivalent of inbreeding. What I mean is this – where

people do not meet with others, they will be quite content to look

inwards. The survey found that almost half of all congregations had

previously belonged to other denominations. It concludes that this

makes all denominations very fragile entities. This, to me, is

inevitable, for they are not required by God anyway.

The survey referred to a Presbyterian minister who claimed

that if he did not constantly talk of predestination, then his

denomination would suffer. This is a weird thing to say; surely we

should talk of those aspects of doctrine that are in scripture, simply

because they are there? The denomination is inconsequential.

However, the whole report is interesting to read.

Dr Dave Miller (quoted in „Is Denominationalism Scriptural?‟,

Apologetics Press Inc) says that the religion expressed in the New

Testament is blurred by Satan, who wants to fudge the distinctives

God demands. “Denominationalism occurs when religious

people…divide…on the basis of…different doctrines.” “(In John 17)

Jesus…prayed against religious division…” In Corinthians 1:10 is a

text that says “denominations (should) not even exist”.

In „What Denominationalism Does to Christ‟ (bibletruths.net)

we read “This may sound shocking to many but the concept of

denominationalism…is not taught or sanctioned in the New

Testament. Jesus promised and did build „one body‟ or church…The

concept of many different churches was absent in the First

Century…Denominationalism is division personified. The essay goes

on to give a number of problems that arise from denominationalism.

Cecil Willis („Denominationalism‟, Truth Magazine, vol. 10)

says: “Denominationalism is a synonym for division”. And “If one man

were to attempt to preach everything that denominationalism

teaches, he would be adjudged insane, so inconsistent are the

doctrines of sectarianism. These inconsistencies and divisions, says

Jesus, result in infidelity.”

There is much written against denominationalism, yet I know

that most Reformed men refuse to accept that they belong to a

denomination. A denomination is a group that separates from

another group, in order to practice its own distinctives. To do so, it

leaves aside a number of other distinctives and so it becomes,

inevitably, unbalanced. Reformed churches are joined by the same

overall pattern of beliefs, and they reject patterns taught by others.

Therefore, Reformed churches belong to a denomination, whether or

not it is named. That is why they must take notice.

85









Chapter 9



Godly Counselling

is not

Man-Centred

(or, the „Have-a-Go‟ sub-culture)





“We must get down alongside the person” says the counsellor

(whether Christian or not). “We must begin with where he is. We

must understand his problem and his situation, before we do

anything to help” says the same counsellor. Sounds okay? Of course

it does.

But do you remember the old Greek mythical tale of the

Sirens? They had such beautiful singing voices, they were able to

lure hapless sailors to their doom as they listened spellbound. Their

ships smashed against the rocks and sank, along with all on board.

What sounds good is not always proof of quality or of usefulness to

the Christian!

Much of modern Christian „counselling‟ is, really, godless

theory wrapped in good intentions. Certain aims and practices are

against Biblical truth. But, often, many good Christian folk who „want

to help‟ others are led by their emotions and not by what God

demands.

It reminds me of my early nursing days, when we would

protect a patient with diabetes by giving him or her the proper

medication and a strictly controlled diet. But relatives (or undertrained

staff), thinking that the patient was having a rough time of it, would

sneak in sweets and cream cakes, saying it was a „treat‟! What they

were doing was measuring the other person‟s well-ness against their

own preferences and ideas of what was good for the person. The

result was a wildly fluctuating bill of health for the poor patient,

frustration on the part of the people who were really helping…and a

scenario which could easily lead to death!

Let us look briefly at the rule of Christian counselling. Really,

there is only one major rule, which determines the boundaries of

Christian helps. It is, simply, that we do what God wants, not what we

want. Then, we are not hampered by emotions and by what we think

is best. We do what God wants. A few short definitions will guide us

in this matter…

Everything God says is „law‟. Because He is God and is

Perfect, His commands and requirements are also perfect.

Therefore, what He says must be Absolute. (Because God is not a

part of His creation, He Himself is above Absolutes). God cannot

change His mind, make a mistake, or act in an impromptu way,

86





because He knows everything, including what happens in the „future‟

(to God there is no time).

Now, for human beings, God‟s word is found in the Bible.

Everything in it is absolute, because it has been uttered by Almighty

God. And what do we find? We find that God begins with Himself.

Not with Man!

We cannot go into detail in this short introduction, but we can

put forward several guidelines for Christian counselling.



 We must always start, continue and end with what God says.

2. We do not waste time analysing a person‟s anxieties or wrongs.

Instead, we start bluntly with God‟s Word (everything in the Bible

is „doctrine‟ and is for our guidance). All else is secondary.

3. There is no such thing as „non-directive counselling‟ for the

Christian. Where we see sin, we must warn against it. We do not

take long periods to „get alongside‟ a person. Rather, we say

“God says…”. That is always our starting point. It is our duty to

bring a person back to God, not to beat about the bush and swim

in his own errors and human mess! If all we can offer is to jump

into the very same human thinking and to struggle alongside, then

we have nothing to hope for!

 Once we have said what God wants, there is not much more

to it. The „details‟ and the „situation‟ of any case can be

endless and humanly complex. What God says is clear and

unequivocal. So we start with God and leave the rest to the

Holy Spirit.

 When God‟s requirements have been set forth, He expects a

person to comply. If he does not, then he is out of God‟s will

and is disobedient. And so his situation gets worse. It is

essential for the person to (a) know what God wants and to (b)

do it straight away. Let us assume that, in the midst of „getting

alongside‟ a person, he dies. That would mean that we have

discussed „meaningful‟ (human) things but we have not

brought the person back to God!

 If God requires immediate compliance with His commands,

then what is a

counsellor doing when he „gets alongside‟ and spends many

hours, weeks and months trying to unravel the mess made by

relying on human feelings and ideas?



Once a Christian has declared God‟s word he has to retire

from the situation until the person he has counselled comes back to

God. There is no more he can do except pray and guide, and be

there to help when the person wishes to repent.

Is all this harsh? No – just an outline! The above is merely an

introduction to what has become an incredibly complex matter.

Counselling today falls far short of Christian honesty and godliness,

because it is centred on Man and not on God.

The crux of it is very simple – what does God want? Once we

have satisfied what God wants, all else will fall into place. There may

87





be various „details‟ to sort out, but these are nothing when put

against complying with God‟s commands. Sin is the basis of most

counselling problems.

Lack of sympathy? No, quite the opposite! It takes a real friend

to face a person with his or her sins and with God‟s commands. This

is because we are ourselves prone to sin and can fall foul of our

feelings. That is why it is imperative that we begin with God. We may

have sympathy in a limited sense…we can acknowledge that we,

too, could be in the same position because of our humanity and

sinfulness; we can offer help when such a fall must be „sorted out‟.

Some counselling does not require directing a person to God‟s

commands – it may require pointing him or her toward God‟s

promises. Even so, His promises are inextricably linked with His

commands, so the process is very similar…God first, then Man‟s

„problems‟ after. There is nothing worse in counselling, than a

counsellor who refuses to direct or who does not clearly tell a man

what God requires. Yes tell, you do not „advise‟ or „discuss‟ or

„debate‟ the absolute Truths of God!



Amateurs Let Loose!

-why we don’t need ‘church counsellors’

If a Christian has a specialist problem with, say, finance, or a

spot of bother with paying bills, he might legitimately go to see

someone at the Citizen‟s Advice Bureau…local churches do not

always have the expertise in their membership to be able to cope

with such immediate and pressing problems. Obviously, if there is

such expertise, then we ought to use it, rather than go outside our

Brethren.

But, when it comes to the need for counselling, the situation is

very different. Those who are familiar with my writing will know that I

am against the sending of Christians to the psychiatric profession for

help, because psychiatry is based on humanism and eastern

religious theories.

This refusal has often landed me in strife from Christians who

cry hot tears, demanding relief from their emotional symptoms. This

merely strengthens my resolve, for I do not believe in the existence

of so-called „mental illnesses‟ either…only in sins that produce

certain types of behaviour that the world calls „mental illness‟! (Note:

There are, however, a limited number of conditions caused by brain

abnormalities, that manifest as „mental‟ problems – these are not

included in my criticism).

Mental illness exists because theorists grandly reject the idea

of sinful Man. They have to explain-away the behaviour of their

fellows who act strangely, so they come up with mental „illness‟!

To deal with this massive trade in emotional cover-up, there

must be professional dealers – therefore, we have a huge band of

people ranging from rank-and-file nurses, to social workers, to

consultant psychiatrists, all dedicated to „relieving‟ a mythical

category of human ills. People sometimes need emotional help – but

they can do without being „made ill‟ by well-meaning „experts‟, who

88





insist on saying they are patients, rather than ordinary folk whose

emotions have got the better of them.



Professional Talkers

Amongst these professionals are those called

„psychotherapists‟. Some are nurses or social workers who, already

working in the invented world of psychiatry, wish to specialise in this

„talking therapy‟. They have a driving desire to „help‟ people…though

their actual motive might be rather more basic. That is, some folk are

naturally garrulous. They will talk and talk, to anyone who will listen!

Others have a natural sleuth‟s mind and love to unravel

emotions and problems. Others love the idea of having people in

their power – and when someone is vulnerable because they are

„spilling the beans‟ to a stranger, they are very vulnerable indeed;

there is actual power in being the „counsellor‟ in these situations. And

some just like to be nosey.

As one who was a „professional‟ in this field, I was more than

able to manipulate people, their emotions, their minds and their

resolve. When I realised the reality behind my activity, I stopped and

would never return to such a „profession‟ again. At first I excused

myself by hiding behind my professional title. Then, I came to see

that my „profession‟ was of no value in God‟s eyes and my activity

was all a sham.

I was not being „Christian‟ at all – I was just being one sinful

human-being using sinful means to promote even more sin. (I will

explain that later). Thus, with greatest respect, I urge Christian

churches not to employ the ways of the world.



Amateur Meddlers

Now we come to another category of „professional‟ – the

person who „trains‟ to be a counsellor outside the usual psychiatric

setting. A large number of training institutes have been set up to offer

training in psychotherapy and counselling, including those that are

„Christian‟. Some are based, directly or loosely, on the work of Jay

Adams. I am very familiar with his work, and the work of other

Christian counselling „experts‟ (the subject of my Master‟s degree).

Much of what they say is acceptable and good.

Many churches now insist that their counsellors be „trained‟. In

terms of their acceptability amongst other, psychiatrically-trained

counsellors, these „outside‟ counsellors are amateurs. Those within

the psychiatric setting are the „professionals‟, because they work, day

in and day out, with the hard-core „mentally ill‟.

Within the terms of this profession they are perfectly correct.

For my own part, for example, I trained for three years in a

psychiatric hospital on all kinds of wards. This was „hands-on‟

training backed by continuous on-site advice and practical

experience given by senior staff. And regular block release in nurse

training school gave me sessions from senior nurses, psychologists,

social workers and psychiatrists, supplemented by my own intensive

and extensive reading and activity.

89





On the wards we had daily case conferences where the

condition of patients was debated and discussed in detail, alongside

drug and therapy regimes. When qualified, this intensive training was

topped up by training in psychotherapy, again in actual settings with

psychologists and psychiatrists alongside. In my time at the hospital I

was exposed to several major psychotherapeutic theories.

Now, put the „training‟ of home-based „counsellors‟ alongside

that, and there is no comparison! One is a paid therapist working

daily amongst all kinds of „mentally ill‟ patients with continuously

updated information and training. The other is, for example, a

housewife who sees her friends now and then and thinks a bit of

occasional „training‟ will do the same job. It will not, for very obvious

reasons.



I‟m No Advocate!

By now, the reader will have come to the conclusion that I am

advocating in-depth full-time training for counsellors. He or she might

also think that because I am trained I wish to see others equally

highly trained. You would be very far from the truth! In the context of

psychiatry I was „highly trained‟…but in what? I was highly trained in

humanistic theories that covered an invented category of human

failure. In Christian and Biblical terms, all of that was worthless.

The only thing I can point to of worth was the learned ability to

speak openly and honestly, and a logical approach to problems. But

even this only helps me in academic work. I also encountered people

who had shown and experienced the full range of sinfulness, from

incest and lies to murder, and an even wider range of signs and

symptoms. It is for this reason I once referred to psychiatric hospitals

as the devil‟s playground.



Want to Help? Why?

The housewife‟s wish to „help people‟ simply does not bear

comparison with such a gamut of experience and knowledge. Yet, all

that experience and knowledge does not help in the churches!

Though I went on to gain psychology degrees, none of it aided the

churches. Yes, I could reason and talk in depth. Yes, I could use

logic and observe with a trained eye. Yes, I had knowledge others

did not have. And yes – folk would approach me as if I had

something wonderful to help them with. But, I did not! God works by

His own rules and they do not include the mumbo-jumbo of

humanistic psychiatry. I had nothing to offer.

I therefore stopped playing the game taught by psychiatry.

God was not in it. The „housewife‟ (symbolic of all in our churches

who want to „have a go‟ at counselling) who „trains‟ in counselling in

order to „help‟ her fellow Believers is, it must be said, merely an

amateur in Satan‟s profession! She is dabbling in an area she does

not really understand and can do untold damage. Earlier, I said that I

was being used to promote even more sin. Let me explain, for even

our housewife counsellor comes into this statement.

90







Playing Satan‟s Game

When „counselling‟ on a professional or amateur basis, we are

doing what Satan wishes. By learning human techniques and human

answers to human problems, we are grounding everything on

„training‟. Because such training uses theory and techniques it is not,

by definition, of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit deals quickly and gives

immediate results.

Whenever we use techniques and human resources we are

playing Satan‟s game, in which he is the ultimate professional. Thus

all who try to be „counsellors‟ are just bumbling amateurs who are

complying with his wicked deceits, unaware of the part we play in

expanding his hold on sinners.

Whether we use the highly detailed work of Jay Adams, or of

lesser known experts, we are unwittingly falling in to a trap. The trap

is that in an attempt to „help‟ others we are using the ways and

means of other human beings. It does not matter if this gives you a

„certificate‟, or affiliation to a „professional‟ organisation, or not. It is

still human beings following human beings. Adding scriptural texts to

our line of chat is irrelevant.

In my own writing – including this chapter – I ask readers to

think for themselves and not to rely on me. Whatever I have done

was for my own life. There might be something in that life that might

help others. But, not necessarily. What I have written on counselling

is a warning not to follow other men and not to put technique above

Holy Spirit guidance, which requires no training, only a humble

reliance on Him, and holy discernment.



The Human Approach

It would be very easy for me to develop a „Christian‟ approach

to counselling, a system to be copied, and then to open some kind of

institute, which would offer „training‟. But this would not be

appropriate in a Christian world already bursting at the seams with

„professional‟ and other „training‟ opportunities that are, really, of no

worth unless they only serve as pointers and not as actual remedies.

I do not set myself up as a „counsellor‟, even with such a

wealth of training and experience behind me, yet I have counselled

folk Biblically for many years. Over those years, I have watched with

dismay as fellow Christians have attended their training sessions in

counselling, because I know that by doing what they are doing, they

are already proving they have not been called by God to counsel!

How can I say that?

It can be said because I have gone through the same self-

deception, which told me that I had something to offer people. The

desire to help is nothing like the calling of Almighty God, through the

immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit. The lowliest, meanest,

poorest, least articulate Christian, can turn another life around,

whereas the highest, mightiest, most trained person cannot. The

difference is the Holy Spirit.

I know many who think they are „counsellors‟. Some have

„trained‟ and some have not. And I also watch as people flock to their

91





doors, crying bitter tears and spilling out the most intimate details of

their lives. Friend, if YOU are in this position and people come to you

for help, please take stock of what you are doing. Let us look more

closely at the situation…(and I hope that pastors who read this will

take note and gently stop their fellow church members from acting

out an ungodly activity).

The one who people flock to for counselling – look at that one.

One woman who people turned to, was, in truth, just a busy-body.

She pretended her illness was severe, when it was not, to elicit

sympathy. She spent all her time gossiping and prying into the lives

of everyone in her church. By prying she got to know many

details…then she proceeded to „give advice‟.

Sadly, this „advice‟ was taken to be genuine „counsel‟, when it

was nothing of the sort. It was simply a gossip feeding her own

information-bank and ego! People often were heard to extol her

„virtue‟…see how she selflessly helps others when she is in so much

pain! See how people turn to her! But, when people were not around,

she was „miraculously‟ not in pain and acted normally! And she

talked about everybody behind their backs, spreading gossip and, at

times, malicious lies, all in the name of „counsel‟.

That person was NOT a „counsellor‟ by any stretch of the

imagination, yet that is the kind of person who is accepted in many

churches as the one to go to with their problems!

In my own case I never offer counselling, but if others came to

me needing help I would give it if the Holy Spirit prompted me to do

so. Otherwise I would not get involved. I am NOT a „counsellor‟ – I

am just another Christian who might, at times, be given a word of

wisdom or encouragement to pass on to others. I can also, at times,

be given a word of rebuke, for both are part of the Christian‟s daily

practice.



The Cult of Selfism

I have also observed another type of „counsellor‟. This one

also has people turning up at her door. She (again, „she‟ is

representative of all Christians in this position, male or female) also

eagerly offers counsel. This eagerness is a clue to any pastor to

beware. I am very wary of giving counsel and certainly will not jump

forward to offer myself, or to „give advice‟ or „counsel‟, even if it is

hedged around by apt scriptural texts!

The person who thinks she is a „counsellor‟ will delve deeply

into the person‟s past, looking for „reasons‟ for present emotional

disorders. She will keep on searching until she feels she has found

the answers. She will talk about the person‟s „body language‟ and the

way she looks or speaks. Then, she will patch-together all this

observation and come up with „counsel‟. (In reality her „observations‟

are actually her own interpretations, which are coloured by her

theories and chosen therapy‟s background influence).

Friends, none of this is evidence of God‟s help! It is yet

another example of someone „having a go‟ – and badly at that.

Christians ought not delve in to the life of another to winkle-out past

92





sins and to expose them. If there are past sins, then the Holy Spirit

will deal with them, privately, not the avid „counsellor‟. Such a

counsellor is very intimidating, for she always boasts to others how

she can tell this or that from body language, or from the way

someone speaks or acts. Such a counsellor is very forward in telling

everyone she has the ability to counsel! Immediately, that makes her

the least qualified!

Christians are just like anyone else and are easily swayed by

the claims of others. They will accept as true the claim that a person

is a „counsellor‟ just because he or she says so, and appears to be

able to delve deeply in to their lives. Thus they will flock to that

person for advice and counsel. It is inevitable and it is wrong. It is

nothing but prying, to delve deeply to uncover hidden sins…just

another priest in a confessional! If there are sins, then let God deal

with them, not the „counsellor‟.

On many occasions those who wanted my help have actually

offered to give me many secrets of their lives, including sexual

information. But I refuse to listen. At times, such information is a way

of off-loading guilt on to the listener. It can also be a way of feeding

information that is really not needed. Or, it can even be thrilling to the

counsellee to tell another person of his or her most intimate sexual

activities.

Others make a habit of „confessing‟ – this, too, is wrong, as

the person continually „confesses‟ to sins but rarely ever does

anything about them. The false counsellor cares nothing for these

facts. She just loves to take people‟s lives apart so that she can re-

assemble them in her own image!



All Christians Can Counsel

What I am saying, then, is this – pastors truly called by God

are automatically given the office and gifts to counsel in a godly way.

All Christians are given wisdom and knowledge to help their fellow

Christians.

It is a fallacy that there must be „special‟ people set apart as

‟counsellors‟. You will not find anything of this kind in God‟s word.

Rather, you will find ordinary Christians who help each other. Thus,

today I will be used (by God through the Holy Spirit) to counsel you.

Tomorrow, you will be used to counsel me. That is God‟s very simple

way of dealing with matters within the churches.

It is true that some Christians will be gifted especially to help

others. But, this is a gift and calling, not simply a desire to „help‟.

Such gifting is done quietly and without fanfare. The one used will not

go around her church telling everyone about body-language or deep

sins that need probing and bringing to light! That is just human

interference and sinful pretence.

Beware, pastor, of allowing such folk to meddle with the flock

of Jesus Christ! They are wolves, even if they are Christians. They

are promoting Satan‟s ideas, and are not acting out the will of God.

And they intimidate others, making them afraid to open their mouths

93





in the supposed „counsellors‟ presence. They can even cause others

to stop attending meetings.

Beware, fellow Christian, if you have such an one in your

midst. Do not give credence to the person by letting her convince you

of her own worth! Do not let double-talk about body language,

counselling, therapy and solving mysteries of the mind, persuade you

to think of that person as being an „expert‟. She is an amateur in

Satan‟s own profession and she is being duped, just like you are for

listening to her!



Don‟t Feed Satan

Do not feed that „counsellor‟ with information. Just cut short

any conversation in which she tries to illicit personal details from you.

Tell her that body language cannot be divorced from many other

details, such as personality, state of mind, level of knowledge and

education, general intelligence, and a multitude of other factors she

is very unlikely to understand or know about.

The one who continually tells others of her counselling skills is

the very one to avoid if you have a problem! Better to keep quiet and

suffer than go to her. Seek God‟s counsel and He will either show

you by way of His own word in the Bible, or He will point you toward

the pastor, or he will arrange things in such a way that you will

suddenly be introduced to the Christian who will help. And that

person will NOT be the local church‟s self-proclaimed, humanly-

trained „counsellor‟.

A church that has a „trained‟ counsellor is acting very

unwisely. God works His will through the office of the Holy Spirit and

NOT through trained counsellors. King David, like Samuel and the

other prophet-leaders, sat at the city gate to listen to problems. They

were guided by God Himself to make answer. But, Absalom, David‟s

son, desired to be the one at the gate. He wanted others to flock to

him with their problems. That made him the least useful of men to go

to.

If you need counsel, turn to God, not to men (or women). Ask

Him for His help and He will provide the right person…and it certainly

will not be the self-confessing „counsellor‟ who reads her popular

psychology books, scrutinises your body language and insists on

knowing every intimate detail of your life, including sexual behaviour!

If you give her all this information, you are then in her power

and will always feel an unhealthy attraction to her, like that of a

hostage to her captor…or a penitent to her local Catholic priest. Yes,

we are talking about fellow Christians, here, not about pagans or

cultists.



Trained Counsellors Not Needed

The answer is very simple – local churches should not have

trained counsellors. They should have a people open to, and

obeying, the Holy Spirit. In this way every Christian is a counsellor at

some point. God does not devolve His power and authority to one

person in a church. He does not require her (or him) to train in

94





human means, even if those means have been developed by

Christians.

Not so long ago I received a letter crying out for help, from one

of our newsletter readers, involving a wayward son who was then in

a mental hospital. There was an immediate resonance in my spirit to

reply so I prayed for the wisdom to write back, which I did that very

same hour. The letter was very brief and did not really take much

notice of the various sordid details. It also called the son to

repentance and a change of life. The letter was shown to the son and

he immediately complied with the word of God in spectacular fashion,

for God had spoken, not me.

The son is now back in his church and is doing fine. None of

this was my doing, even though it was a dramatic answer to his

parent‟s prayers. God pointed them toward me for help. I then

pointed them back to God and His word, ignoring the huge variety of

human sins that led to the son‟s failure.

You see, the sins we commit are not the things we ought to

focus on. We need to tell the one sinning to stop his sins. He must

repent and turn back to God. This requires no knowledge of deep

past sins and intimate details. (If they are needed for some reason,

then God will bring them forth, not the counsellor).

The most dramatic „deliverances‟ I have seen are those that

were straight from God, immediate, and used few words. When

people think they can „counsel‟ and resort to such things as body-

language, and in-depth examination of intimate details, there might

be a temporary relief of sorts. But it will not be the triumphant

success given by God Himself.

Let me say it yet again – if you need counsel, the one you

ought to avoid is the one who claims to be a counsellor! If such a

person has to tell others he or she is a counsellor, then this is proof

that he or she is not giving God‟s counsel.



Let God Do It!

Local churches should never encourage a man or woman,

though Christian, to be known as a „counsellor‟, or to train as one.

That is because every Christian is a „counsellor‟, used as and when

God sees fit. That means he or she might be used today to counsel

someone, but will not be used tomorrow. A highly visible, spectacular

„success‟ with one person, might be the only time God will use a

particular Christian.

Today, I give counsel, tomorrow you give counsel. God uses

every Christian to counsel every Christian. That is how it works.

Forget the books and the courses. Instead, read scripture and pray.

Meditate on God‟s word and do not seek out opportunities to

counsel. If you are to counsel someone, God will ensure that the two

of you meet at the right time…no need for drawn-out meetings and

structured discussions. So, stop that „counsellor‟ nonsense

immediately, or you sin!

Most concerns do not need counsel as such anyway.

Christians usually seek „counsel‟ for emotional problems, and these

95





are mainly caused by sin, either in one‟s self or in others. The answer

is very simple and intimate details are not required. Can you see

what I am saying?



Counselling Is Satan‟s Domain

Churches who have counsellors are playing Satan‟s game

without knowing it. Satan is watering-down God‟s word in minds and

hearts by off-loading people on to „counsellors‟. By using human

techniques, they effectively declare that God does not have the

answer to everything. This leads to men and women taking over what

God should be doing. In other words, they are sinners, promoting sin

in those who need deliverance from their sin! They are leading

Christians away from God, not toward Him.

Often, they do their counselling because they are busy-bodies,

or because they have a vaunted belief in their own abilities, or

because they just love to find solutions, or because they want power

and like to manipulate. I repeat – these are sincere Christians we are

talking about, not charlatans or obviously sinning pagans out to „get

you‟.

To counsel others is a privilege and a duty, but it ought not to

be sought out as a desired permanent activity by well-meaning (and

not so well-meaning) Christians in the local church. The „counsellor‟

does not exist in scripture as a separate person.

Counsel should be given by all Christians whose lives and

hearts are toward God and who are prompted by the Holy Spirit to

give counsel ad hoc. There is no training. There are no books. No

certificates. No hovering around seeking out people to counsel. No

telling everyone how good you are as a counsellor! God will use

whoever He wishes at any time.

Take a step back and meditate on God‟s word. The Holy Spirit

will gladly help those who rely on Him. A number of Christian

counselling centres have arisen over the past decade or so. In my

past I studied „Biblical‟ types of counselling, including the kind

espoused and detailed by Jay Adams. In my MA thesis I compared

the major Christian counselling techniques with secular techniques

and, sadly, found very little difference in them.

Counselling, by its very nature, takes time. Some of it takes a

lot of time. But God demands change immediately, not in time. If we

sin (the usual cause of problems requiring counselling) we are not

asked to think about it and to be counselled. We are charged with

offending God and commanded to repent immediately. No more

needs to be said!

Sometimes, the one needing help has not contributed to the

original problem, but goes on to sin by not relying on God‟s mercy

and grace for help. This is also sin and needs immediate repentance.

That means counselling is a luxury not given by God. Instead of

counselling we should have general and consistent Bible teaching by

men called by God to the task. We should teach sound doctrine and

not wait until men and women fall foul of God and their own

consciences.

96





I used to counsel folk, first in psychiatry and then in the

church. But I came to see how futile it all was. My role was to help,

but I hindered fellow Christians by allowing them to carry on with their

sins whilst we chatted about it! What I should have done was to have

challenged their sin by confronting it, then warn them to repent, and

tell them to change. Yes, we can stand alongside and assist in that

change with proper Bible teaching and personal friendship. But, that

is it. The rest is up to the other person, who, by God‟s law, MUST

change, straight away.

One of the best and most Biblical books on the subject was

written by Dr Robert Law (an ex psychiatrist) and Malcolm Bowen,

„Breakdowns are Good for You‟. It speaks against both psychiatric

and counselling involvement, and squarely teaches that sin is usually

at the bottom of all emotional and so-called „mental‟ problems, a fact

that I endorse fully. What is needed, according to this book, is solid

doctrinal teaching and instant repentance and change.

Interestingly, psychologists themselves think that Biblical

counselling techniques are wrong („Why Biblical Counselling is

Unbiblical‟, John H. Coe, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola

University, 1991). The reasons given are different from any I would

give, but it still is interesting, coming from a psychology department.

I did a counselling unit when studying with London Bible

College, but had to be very critical of its contents. However, LBC did

not acknowledge a communication I sent them regarding this. Sadly,

then, Bible colleges continue to teach prospective pastors the

elements of „counselling‟, even though counselling has no Biblical

basis.

Freewebs.com issues a powerful article against Biblical

counselling, „Christian Counselling Courses – are they just fine?‟. It

describes a scenario that is becoming reality in the UK „Christian‟

charity market, in which genuine, saved, theologically-trained

ministers are turned down for pastorates because they have not

undergone a variety of „counselling‟ courses.

These courses did not exist for 2000 years, so why are they

now so vital? The article says that the courses rarely mention Jesus

or scripture, though they claim to be „Biblical‟. Instead, Freud is given

credence (though in secular circles his work is hardly ever mentioned

and is even discredited!), when his work has nothing safe or right to

say. Liberal thought is enjoined in these courses, and everyone must

be „politically correct‟. Pluralism replaced the truth of One God and

follow the ways of the current world, and not scripture. The basis of

all Christian thought is scripture. Therefore, courses that ignore this

are not Biblical at all.

There is nothing wrong with using knowledge gained by this

world‟s experts. I personally have gleaned much from my own

psychology studies and work in the past. However, I have to use the

knowledge wisely, and not ascribe to them the basis for wisdom.

Only scripture has this. It is about time that counsel was left to

Christians called by God to give it.

97









Chapter 10



An Anomaly –

Calvinistic Arminians



Generally, Calvinists refer to Arminianism as an heresy, and

this is how it is described in Reformed literature. So, why, then, do so

many Reformed preachers and pastors use Arminian principles to

reach the people?

Take a very simple statement: “Come to Christ NOW, for you

may not be given another opportunity” (or) “Tomorrow might be too

late!” This seems perfectly reasonable, but it is not what it seems.

Preachers may legitimately call on their hearers to treat the

Gospel urgently. But, when they then take it beyond a simple

statement, it becomes heretical and wrong. The first phrase (Come

to Christ now) in the statement above is acceptable, but the latter

phrase, and its alternative, is not. Why? Because the latter phrases

are basic Arminian doctrine and should not be used by those who

claim to be Reformed. Think this is nit-picking? Then why not go

back in time and tell that to our spiritual forefathers who fought

theological battles over this very issue?

Early theologians (including Romanists) spent years debating

single words and their meanings, so they would not be amused or

tolerant of modern-day Christians who say whatever they wish

without thought or conscience. The uttering of a few phrases is not

the main problem. The problem is in the fact that Reformed men are

preaching and teaching from their own minds and hearts, and not just

as superficial errors of utterance.

If these men use Arminian words and phrases in public

speaking, then be assured that they have not properly thought-out

their theology. It also shows that they are not truly Reformed at all.

Words matter!

If words did not matter, why did Paul condemn variances in

gospel preaching? Why did he say that those who did not preach the

exact same message as he and the other Apostles preached are

anathema, if words did not matter? Paul did not preach anything

unless he meant what he said. It is a great pity that later preachers

did not do the same…including me in my earlier days! Read his

condemnation in Galatians…

Reformed preachers, genuine Christians, must use words as

though they were handling bombs, otherwise they can mislead their

hearers and even take them along a path of heresy. Almost without

exception, I hear Reformed preachers use Arminianism as a

backdrop. Yet, see what Paul said? There is no way that a Reformed

98





man can preach even a diluted Arminian gospel after what Paul said

– because words really do matter!

Whenever a man speaks, even in ordinary situations, we can

detect a „pattern‟ in what he says. A man who is racist will gradually

express his prejudices over a period of time in ordinary language. A

man who is libertarian will prove his immorality. And a Christian who

uses language loosely proves beyond doubt that he cares nothing for

God‟s word and does not understand the theological implications of

what he says.

A man who actually believes in God‟s word will study it. He will

be careful only to use terms and phrases that are consistent with

what God says, especially if it is connected with a direct command.

He will enter into a form of thinking that links one text with another,

so that he thoroughly imbibes scriptural principles. And when all this

has been done, and is the natural activity of the man, it will show in

everything he says.

Is this forced or restrictive? No, it is being true to God‟s word!

Whenever we speak we should be portraying what God says

accurately. No Christian can afford the sinful luxury of

misrepresenting what God is telling us, for one set of words can lead

us to the pit whilst the other set can reveal God‟s glory.

Does our pattern of speech inform hearers of our close liaison

with the Holy Spirit, or not? If we can effortlessly portray God‟s words

accurately and if we consistently reveal predestination and election in

everything we speak about, then it shows that we have an internal

consistency. It shows that we believe what we preach and teach and

are not simply saying something off the top of our heads.



Teachings of Arminius

(James Arminius or Jacob Harmenszoon, of the Dutch

reformed Church, born 1559). If we read the actual declarations by

Arminius, we find that he closely followed scripture in many ways, but

failed at a vital juncture.

Arminius‟ controversies began in a small way in 1591, when

he gave an unscriptural interpretation of Romans chapter 7.

Basically, he suggested that the struggle depicted in that chapter was

pre-conversion. Calvinists opposed this, and rightly so, because it

implied that Man can choose God. In 1593 he again preached a

sermon that Calvinists sharply disputed. Otherwise, his pastorate

was generally quiet.

Then, in 1603, Calvinists objected strongly to government

proposals to give the position of theologian in the University of

Leiden to Arminius. The government therefore left it to the one

member of faculty remaining, a staunch Calvinist named Franciscus

Gomarus, to interview him. Remarkably, he found Arminius suitable

and so he was installed.as professor.

No-one knows why he was chosen to office, but it could

possibly be that he was just a very nice person. The alternative is

either that Gomarus did not probe deeply enough, or Arminius

evaded direct questions, or even lied.

99





In following years Calvinists questioned the growing list of

suspect books that Arminius asked students to read. Gomarus was

led to be suspicious about his stand on predestination. It reached a

point where a national synod was needed to examine what Arminius

taught – but the government refused to allow it. Later, in 1608, it

conducted an investigation.

In that year, Arminius wrote his „Declaration of Sentiments‟,

which provided a general summation of his beliefs. He claimed that

he was only trying to protect the church from Calvinistic extremism.

However, Gomarus insisted that this was not the case, and

underlined justification by faith as the main issue. However, the

matter was not resolved and Arminius died in 1609 before answering

his critics properly. Interestingly, he was considered to be of „good

standing‟ in the Dutch Reformed Church. This emphasises the fact

that many heretics are thoroughly nice as people.

Basically, Arminius said that it was our faith that obtained

salvation. Calvinists (and the scriptural position) state that God

predestinated people before the creation of the world to salvation (or

hell).

Once we state this latter position, which is entirely scriptural,

no other position is possible, for God cannot change His mind.

Obviously, if He chose who would be saved before He even made

the world, there is no possible way men can choose their salvation!

In his teaching, also, Arminius had a hint of saved souls being lost

again.

Arminius seemed to be quite loving in his dealings on the

matter: he wanted to ascribe salvation to God‟s grace, yet he did not

wish to see loss of choice by human beings. His error was his idea

that “as much as possible (is obtained by) divine grace”. By making

God‟s choice and grace fit “as much as possible” Arminius left it open

to doubt and error, and so his views led to the theory of God‟s grace

not being entirely efficacious. In itself this is blasphemy, for it says

that God can do something that is not effective.

It is interesting that Arminius was suspected of falling under

the influence of Jesuits (Suarez and Bellarmin) during his stay in

Italy. Is this why Rome looks favourably upon Arminius? It has been

said that Arminius‟ arguments were not so much those of theology as

of philosophy, and I can see why, for his debate is not with scripture

but with his own emotional response to scripture…the same

response that we see everywhere where men reject scripture as it is

written.

The end result was Man choosing salvation and Christ not

being the final Saviour, but only One Who makes salvation possible

(something I hear in many Reformed and charismatic sermons). Just

as Darwin did not deliberately set out to undermine the Church or

God, so Arminius did not deliberately attempt to undermine God‟s

grace – but that is what he did. No matter how small the seed, it grew

into immense proportion, so that today we have a whole root and

branch that is not Christian, but is heretical.

100





His views also included the idea that faith was given to men

because of their righteousness – but this is alien to anything taught in

scripture, which states that faith, too, is a gift from God and cannot

be earned or learned.

Overall, then, Arminius changed true Reformed teaching on its

head, denying the central positional belief that God chooses Man to

be saved. It should be emphasised that this is not just Calvinism – it

is scripture, as taught by Calvin. That Calvin taught this truth makes

no difference to scripture. That Calvin had some rather questionable

personal traits also makes no difference to the truth.

Later, those ministers who wished freedom to preach

Arminianism wrote their „Remonstrance‟ to the government for

protection. They summarised their beliefs in five points. Since that

time all Reformed men refer to the „Five Points of Calvin‟…though

Calvin never provided five points. What happened is that later

Calvinists wrote back in reply to the five points of Arminianism. It is

from this treatise that history confused the five pojnts with Calvin!

In 1618 the Synod of Dort, held at Dordrecht, attempted to

discuss the dangers provoked by Arminianism. William Ames, a

Puritan, wrote: “(Arminianism) is not properly a heresy but a

dangerous error in the faith tending to heresy…a Pelagian heresy,

because it denies the effectual operation of internal grace to be

necessary for the effecting of conversion and faith.” Thus Ames was

directing Christian back in time to the battle between Augustine and

Pelagius (who taught the natural end result of Arminian-style thinking

– that a man can choose salvation by his own natural ability of

reasoning).

Though the Synod was hailed as a great example of

protection of the true faith, Arminianism has become the main

pretender in our day to the throne of the Gospel. The above are just

the main facts – can you still, as a Reformed Christian, accept

Arminianism in any form, knowing that it is the seed that produces

heresy of the greatest type?



Arminius‟ Argument

Arminius‟ case rested on five points which can be outlined as

follows:

1. God decreed to save those who believe in Jesus Christ,

through the Holy Spirit. Only those who are incorrigible and

unbelieving are left in sin.

2. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no-one

except the believer has remission of sin.

3. Man cannot do anything truly good of his own self or of his

free will until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the

Holy Spirit.

4. All good deeds and actions in the regenerate must be

ascribed to the grace of God, but His grace is not irresistible.

5. Those who are saved are enabled by God to persevere in the

faith, but it is possible for him to fall from grace (e.g. lose his

salvation).

101









Perhaps you can see the flaws in those five points? Calvinists

could, and that is why they opposed Arminius.



In many cases of heresy, the sin of bad doctrine may appear

in only a few words or phrases. They make a huge difference to

thinking and action, so words must never be used badly. Charismatic

error is founded on Pentecostal error, and both are founded on the

errors of centuries. Remember – to preach differently from the

preaching of the Apostles and Christ is anathema!

Charismatic preaching is anathema because it rejects the

Gospel as being one of God choosing men and women for salvation.

Once we say that men and women may choose God to receive

salvation, we immediately change the vital truth into a lie. They are

opposite claims! How can they both be true? And how can Reformed

men, who supposedly believe in the teachings of Calvin, possibly use

Arminian terms in their preaching or teaching? If they do so

inadvertently then we can understand. But if they consistently use

Arminianistic terms and phrases, then we know something is amiss

in their thinking and allegiance (to God‟s word, that is, not to Calvin).

Men do not choose God. They do not choose salvation. They

do not have „free will‟ in its purest form. To choose their own

salvation is an impossibility. Men must respond to God‟s call to

salvation, but even the response is given as a free gift by God,

otherwise it makes a mockery of predestination and election!

Just as true prayer is given by God to pray, so salvation is

given as a free gift. It cannot be claimed by our own desire to be

saved, because in our unsaved state we are led by Satan our father

and we are incapable of making such a choice. That is what scripture

says.

It is a truism that charismatics, and other cultists, resort to

using texts that are minor or peripheral in an attempt to prove their

cases. Yet, true interpretation requires that we interpret texts in a

normal manner. That is, we look at what is obvious. (See section on

interpretation). Cultists specialise in peripheral texts and twist them to

mean what they wish them to mean. What they ought to do is find out

what the obvious texts say first. This is vital, because if they later

come across texts that appear to contradict the main meanings, then

the „contradictory‟ meaning cannot exist at all, for God will not

contradict Himself.

To give an example, all the texts except for one, dealing with

tongues, interpret as „foreign languages‟. But those who wish to

believe a lie concentrate on just one rhetorical text that suggests that

angels have a separate language. They ignore all the rest! (See my

article on tongues). Though plainly rhetorical, the text is treated as

though it were factual, so that charismatics can retain their heretical

beliefs.

Commonly, Reformed preachers persist in using language

badly, and thus use terms and phrases in Arminian fashion. This

usage has increased since the onset of the Toronto Blessing, which

102





popularised all kinds of heretical words, phrases and ideas. The

ideas of the Toronto Blessing are now encapsulated and refined in

the Alpha Course, yet who amongst our Reformed brethren speaks

against this Romano-Charismatic deception?

They do not do so because they believe – as do all who do not

understand the importance of language – that one or two badly used

phrases are somehow acceptable even though those wrongly taught

words and phrases are completely at odds with God‟s word! When

they are given at vital junctures (such as salvation), then they must

be relegated to the pit. They are not equal to the truth, but are

outright lies that must be condemned.

I despair of Reformed brethren if they cannot see this! Like rot

in an apple barrel, one small error quickly increases to two until the

whole lot is rotten. That is how Romanism began its descent into total

heresy. It began with the arrogant claim to supremacy by the Roman

bishops and quickly led to countless heresies added one on top of

another.

So, friends, what excuse can you give for preaching

Arminianistically? I was once very good at preaching that way. I did it

because I had the genuine desire to see souls saved. I thought,

wrongly, that I had to make things interesting, or that I had to insist

that people were saved right then and there, or it could be „too late‟. I

used jokes and tried my very best to bring things alive to my hearers.

Then, the Holy Spirit spoke to me and showed me my error and I

immediately stopped. With horror I looked at what I had been doing,

and realised that I had only been following the example of Reformed

men I had admired. It was then that I began to listen with new ears,

and it was the start of my withdrawal from all that I had known.

I had to completely rethink everything, from top to toe. What I

discovered was a minefield of error, the errors sprinkled liberally

amongst the truths. As each error I once accepted blew up in my

face, so I picked my way even more carefully through my past, until,

at last, I began to see the way out.

After some years at this, I listened with amusement as earnest

Reformed men told me that I had lost my way. I was no longer angry

at them. If anything I was saddened because they were still stuck in

their traditional ways of thinking.

Some traditions are good, but others are bad. Will you be

bothered to examine the very basis of your thoughts and beliefs?

What is at stake is not God‟s truth, but erroneous perceptions and

wrongly held views.

Arminianism is fundamental to the belief systems of many

cults. For example, charismatics who hold to the Latter Rain theory.

They think that Calvinism is „one sided‟ because it refutes the notion

of man‟s response. But this is an error, for Calvin never did reject the

idea. Latter Rain-ists believe that Arminianism „balances‟ the claims

of Calvinism and brings about „unity‟. They say that those who reject

Arminianism are „hard-core Calvinists‟.

“For the most part Protestants and Pentecostals now accept

the tenets (of Arminianism) and it conforms to the Catholic positions

103





of the Council of Trent.” That statement ought to immediately make

any Reformed preacher sit up and take notice, for anything Rome

accepts should be examined very closely.

The writer of the above quote (www.latter-rain.com) also says

“Each one of us should accept both predestination and free will

because they are both taught in the bible”. But, they are not!

Nowhere in scripture can you find that man has a free will. If he is

unsaved, his will is the plaything of Satan and he has no choice but

to follow what his „father‟ says. Everything he does is sin. That is

what scripture says.

The saved man has choice, but not free will. Even Adam did

not have free will. Jesus did not have free will, and neither does God

Himself! God is bound by His own laws and commands; Jesus Christ

is bound by the Father, and the saved are bound by the Trinity. No

man on earth can ever have free will, at least not in its proper sense.

A limited use of his will, yes, but not „free‟ will that enables him to

choose whatever he wishes without consequences.

It seems that Latter Rain adherents, etc., do not understand

the term „free will‟ or its implications. They say that to argue over the

matter is stupid and divisive, but the issue is far deeper than mere

argument. It has to do with God‟s sovereignty as described in

scripture. The debate, if taken to its logical conclusion, must question

His sovereignty. We cannot just let the argument run so far and then

shut up!

Charismatics and other Arminianists claim that Calvinists (a

term wrongly used of anyone who believes in predestination coupled

with God‟s absolute choice of those who will be saved) deny the

existence of spiritual gifts, free will, baptism in the Holy Ghost (as a

separate action after salvation), resistible grace, and salvation for all

who wish to be saved. This might be true of hardened Calvinists, but

it is not true of all who hold to a Reformed view.

For myself, I believe in the spiritual gifts, because that is what

I find in scripture. I refuse to believe in man‟s „free will‟ because it is

not found in scripture and is a philosophical absurdity. I do not

believe in a second activity known as „Holy Ghost baptism‟, because

scripture teaches that the Spirit is in every man who is saved

anyway.

I do not believe that God‟s will can be resisted, but that we

may disregard what God says only when God decrees that we are

under His judgement, and thus we defy Him as a result. And I reject

man‟s freedom to choose God because such freedom is not spoken

of in scripture. The fact that God chose who would be saved before

the world was made is sufficient proof in itself to deny the notion.

Anyone who tries to deny this teaching denies God‟s word, not

Calvin!

Note that Reformed teaching is that Christ died as a penalty

for our sins, but true Arminianism denies this, saying that this would

mean He died for everybody, and so nobody would ever enter hell.

This, however, only makes sense if we hold to Arminianism. Christ

did die for „everybody‟ – everybody who was elected before the world

104





began. Therefore, the statement remains true, despite the flaws in

Arminian theology…flaws commonly held today by a huge number of

Reformed Christians.

Those who attack predestination (by direct action, as by

Arminians, or by indirect action, by Reformed Christians who fall

back on Arminianism without realising its destructive effect) do so

when thinking that the Synod of Dort / the Canons of Dordt are a

complete summation of predestination, which they are not.

The Canons were a specific answer to the five points of the

Remonstrants, not a definitive work of complete Calvinistic theology!

That is why the Canons do not touch on other vital matters. (In a

Formula of Subscription the Canons are described as “the

explanation of some points”, whilst the Belgic Confession and the

Heidelberg Catechism deal with a more comprehensive theology).

It is also why someone such as myself can believe both in

predestination and the spiritual gifts (for example), when more

denominationally-tied Reformed men do not. Very often I am

attacked by this or that critic with little knowledge, who bemoan the

fact that I do not tackle everything at once in a paper.

I have to instruct the critic that he has read not a full treatise of

mine on all matters, but a response to particular and specific issues,

which have been addressed with proper economy! Indeed, I refuse to

be forced into providing more or less a complete anthology of

theological positions when I wish to respond to only a particular

subject which, by its nature, does not include everything under the

sun!

The attacks of Arminians, then, are often vague or ill-

constructed. Overcome by their need for universal love, they charge

Calvinists with lack of it, because they insist on predestination. This

is nonsense, yet it is enough for Calvinists and other Reformed men

to give in to pressure and preach an Arminian gospel that is

anathema. It is not lack of love that makes me preach predestination

and God‟s choosing of men to salvation, but the simple presence of

texts that prove it beyond any doubt.



Selective Preaching

It is a sad fact that too many Reformed pastors refuse to

preach certain subjects, or avoid them, rather than face subsequent

anger from Arminian congregations. I know because I personally

have met these men, who admit to their failure. The result is that they

finally receive their free house or pension, or they have retained their

„stipend‟ – but to get them they have dishonoured the Lord by their

omission.

And, in order to do this, they must have totally misrepresented

the rest of scripture, and rewritten textual interpretations that they

may fit the sentiments of their disgruntled hearers. To avoid

preaching certain texts or aspects of theology is not, then, just a

matter of being silent on certain facts. It must include a distortion of

facts as well as living a personal lie. How many Reformed preachers

105





and pastors live this lie? Too many! Such men are just as much

deceivers as any charismatic leader or Romanist priest.

I am talking about, and to, men saved by grace and who wish

to love God with all their hearts. But, they have gone astray for fear

of men. If you are one of these men, stop and turn back to the true

path immediately, before God brings you down in His wrath. Get

back to what you ought to be, regardless of the cost to your

pastorate, or the loss of income to your ministry. God will provide

whatever is needed.









Chapter 11



Some Final Words



Do not accuse me of writing against saved

Calvinists/Reformed brethren. Whilst they furnish us with more than

enough evidence concerning their misjudgements and errors, this

book is not primarily about castigating them. The book is about

highlighting certain problems within their ranks.

They are problems that enable them to live without true

conscience. I know because I used to live the same way. To my

embarrassment I used to mimic them in my preaching and teaching!

What a disaster that was! I was not being myself, but tried my best to

copy those I heard from our pulpits. The result was a stilted and

badly-formed message, with one eye set on my peers, to see if they

approved. What a farce!

As time wore on I could see that I was trying to copy error, and

so the very act of copying was itself an error. I repented of that

mistake and went on from strength to strength in the Lord, Who

graciously showed me a far better way and a more authentic faith.

When we try to copy any spiritual system devised by men we

will fail. Reformed churches claim to follow the tenets of Calvinism,

but how many actually know what Calvin said? And how many know

that to follow a mere man is error? I am now able to accept what is

God‟s word in Calvin‟s work, without being his follower, to the

consternation of both Reformed and Arminian teachers!

There is enough in this book to initiate deep thought in

readers. But, will you enter into such thought, with the very real

possibility of allowing it to change your whole life? It certainly

changed mine.

106







APPENDIX 1



‘The Power of

Prayer Meetings’

K. a critique





This assessment of „The Power of Prayer Meetings‟ by Dr.

Peter Masters, should be read in conjunction with chapter 4 of this

book. Dr. Masters‟ booklet is published by Sword and Trowel, and is

available through Christian bookshops, or direct from Metropolitan

Tabernacle, Elephant and Castle, London, SE1 6SD.

It is possible that Dr Masters read my article before writing the

booklet, published in 1995. I say this tentatively, because several

phrases and ideas found in it appear in my own work (the first was

published about 1985).

Of course, the similarities might easily be coincidental; at any

rate, this does not make any difference to the content of the critique. I

have a deep belief that Christians must discuss their differences

properly and fully. Sadly, many think this is not acceptable and so

any form of opposition or criticism is swept under the carpet. In Christ

I am free to state my case, just as Dr Masters and others may state

theirs.

My aim is not to discredit Dr Masters or to cause others to

think of him in a discourteous manner. The aim is simply to teach

what scripture says which, I believe, I have done adequately in this

book. In it, I openly invite others to show me any Biblical error, so

that I can rewrite my treatise if necessary.

Soon after I wrote the original article, the Evangelical Times

kindly read it and said that though they accepted the main thrust of

its argument, they were not so sure about one or two details (though

they did not specify which details). I was grateful to them for

graciously giving the Article a brief mention in their „paper.

Now, I wish to show Christians why I continue to uphold my

original treatise, by critiquing the work of Dr Masters. I use his work

for the purpose because it so closely follows my own thinking in its

earlier sections and because his booklet has been read by many

Christians. Indeed, I was prompted to read the booklet because one

of my own readers wrote in confusion. He had accepted my own

argument until he came across the one by Dr Masters! So, he was

torn between the two presentations, because both appear to be

correct!

So, I had to respond, and the only way I could do so

intelligently, was to read the booklet. As I began reading it, I

wondered if I would, at last, have to recant, or at least rewrite, my

own argument. But, it became obvious from the start that this would

not occur. By the time I had finished the booklet I was very sure of

107





my ground, and can say that, in my eyes, Dr Masters has got it

wrong.

I invite readers to examine both publications honestly and to

check the scriptural evidences. If you think my own conclusions are

incorrect, then so be it. All I ask is that you rely on God‟s word and

not tradition. (The very first problem I have with the booklet is the

title, which is basically Arminian, for it extols the meeting and not

God-given prayer itself).



Two Kinds of Meeting

Pages 3 and 4

Dr Masters sets out his belief in the first sentence: “In order to

grasp the unique place of a church prayer meeting we must

appreciate that there were two distinct types of service in the early

church, a pattern still followed today.”

The two meetings he refers to are “the more public gatherings

for worship and instruction” and “another, rather different, kind of

meeting…the prayer meeting.”

By flowing without reflection from describing the first type to

describing the second, the impression is given – and this seems to

be the intent – that both are equal and of similar type. But this is not

so, at least not in scripture. The idea that both share the same kind of

platform is a biased* assumption, based on Dr Masters‟ initial

assumption – that prayer meetings, the formal and scheduled type,

are valid…something he has yet to prove. (* By „biased‟ I mean a pre-

formed view based on a particular way of thinking. We all have a bias toward this

or that approach to scripture, but one bias may be authentically scriptural and the

other may be untenable, in which case it becomes a prejudice).

He again makes another great assumption in the first

paragraph, when he claims that the first type of meeting was „led‟ by

“people who were members of the pastoral or teaching

team…which…included prophets and „junior‟ prophets (the tongues-

speakers) who functioned alongside the pastors and teachers”. This

is a huge presumption, without Biblical foundation.

These „leaders‟, he says, constituted the „platform party‟ who

„led the worship‟ in an „ordered, pre-arranged, premeditated and

harmonious service (according to 1 Corinthians 14:33 and 40)‟. Later

in the booklet such men are spoken of as being „officers‟ of the local

church – a notion I strongly oppose, as my arguments elsewhere

show. My own view is that in the early church as well as today, there

are/were no „officers‟, only „offices‟. The difference is important to

understand.

The assumption – that services were „led‟ by „officers‟ or a

„platform party‟ says more about typical Reformed (and Arminian)

thinking than about what scripture truly says. Scripture does not talk

about „officers‟ or about „platform parties‟ who „led‟ meetings.

Dr Masters has come to this conclusion with a traditional bias

rather than by reading texts as they are written. Thus, with great

respect for Dr Masters, it comes down to a wrong interpretation of

108





scripture. He has written many fine articles and delivered many good

sermons, but, on this occasion, he has got it wrong.

My own interpretation, I honestly believe, allows texts to speak

for themselves – that there were no officers or platform party, but that

meetings were orderly and harmonious not because other men

organised it to be that way, but because the Holy Spirit prompted

men and women as He saw fit.

Indeed, in other texts we read of Christians meeting and

praying with one accord – the meaning of which, when compared

with current ideas of prayer meetings, is explosive and dynamic!

Harmony in meetings is not a matter of being well organised by a

platform party. It is achieved solely by the joining together of hearts

and souls totally given over to the Lord in love, humility and

obedience; and even this joining together is of the Lord, spontaneous

and without prior thought.

The assumption by Dr Masters plainly upholds the hierarchy

idea of churches, whereas my own understanding of churches is that

they should be congregations of saved men and women, all equal in

status in God‟s eyes, with no „platform party‟, no „officers‟, and no-

one who „takes charge‟.

The pastor (whether one or several) is merely another church

member with a particular function, the teacher (whether one or many)

has another function, and so on. The pattern is found in the

description of the Body of Christ given by Jesus Christ – each one in

the Body has a different but equally important function, and the only

Head is Himself!

(Some think that bishops are „senior pastors‟. I have no

problem with that – bearing in mind that „bishop‟ is used in scripture

as synonymous with „pastor‟ and „elder‟ – for experienced pastors

surely can be a blessing to others. I do not accept that bishops are

„higher‟ than other pastors, or that they „rule‟ the church. Yes, a

pastor must look after the flock and watch out for their spiritual

welfare, but that does not equal a „boss‟ or manager, or warrant a

„platform party‟).

I detail this matter because, by talking about hierarchies in this

way, Dr Masters is identifying himself as a traditionalist. It is thus fair

of me to question his understanding of prayer meetings because of

this predisposition, which, to me, is at odds with scripture.

Dr Masters believes that the „prayer meeting‟ was less public

and less formal. He says that it contained no teaching element and

that all who attended were believers. In these assumptions he

concurs with my own view.

I have the feeling, which may be wrong of course, that he

means by this that other meetings contained a mix of believers and

unbelievers. This, too, would be correct, though I hope he agrees

with me that the „Church‟ itself could only consist of believers, even if

unbelievers happened to attend meetings at times.

The prayer meetings in scripture did not contain teaching,

simply because they were spontaneous gatherings instigated by the

Holy Spirit and were not planned. Dr Masters does not, it seems,

109





accept that this was so, though there is every indication in texts that I

am right. In a sense, though, he agrees, because he acknowledges

that such prayer meetings were “convened in a hurry, by way of

response to some pressing crisis…”

His analysis is spot-on and agrees with my own findings. So,

why, then, does he insist that current prayer meetings should be any

different? Why does he say that prayer meetings in the early

churches were spontaneous, and yet demand that today‟s meetings

must be scheduled and formalised? The answer is a reliance on

tradition and not on scripture.

Dr Masters goes on to say that „such a meeting‟ is found in

Acts 1, when the disciples met together in an upper room. With

respect, this was not a meeting that was scheduled as a standard

church meeting. We find that they gathered for an urgent reason – to

elect another apostle instead of Judas. It was not, then, a scheduled

church meeting, but was a time when all of them had a burden thrust

on them by God, a burden that led them to pray with „one accord‟

(the key element as far as I am concerned). So, that incident cannot

be used by Dr Masters as an example of a scheduled meeting in the

normally accepted sense.

The next example he gives is another instance of a

spontaneous meeting for prayer directly put on them by God, and not

as a matter of an entry in a diary…to pray about the order from the

chief priests not to preach in the name of Christ.

Dr Masters says that this meeting is an „example to be

followed‟. But it is NOT…it is an historical account of an event taking

place at that time, which was spontaneous and „one-off‟. The text

does, however, tell us that the apostles met with „one accord‟ and

„one mind‟…and this happened every single time they met for urgent

prayer! No schedule and no „leaders‟.

Whilst he says that this is an example to follow, he disregards

the „sign‟ ministry and prophetic utterances – which he does not

accept continued beyond the lifetime of the apostles.

Why insist on one part as an „example‟ and disregard another

part? Who gave the authority to do so? And where in scripture is

there freedom to differentiate in this way, accepting one thing and

rejecting another? What are the criteria for rejection and acceptance?

He does, however, accept that the prayers were given because of a

serious threat to their testimony. Thus, Dr Masters unwittingly agrees

with my own conclusions!

Sadly, in the last paragraph on page 4, Dr Masters‟

interpretation of events goes a little haywire. He says, quite

categorically, that the words of Jesus in Matthew 18: 19, 20 refer to

the „special privileges and rules of church prayer meetings.‟ Friends,

this text says no such thing! The text says this: “Again I say unto you,

That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they

shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”

Nowhere in that text do we find an instruction to convene

prayer meetings as scheduled events. Rather, it is a promise by

Jesus that if we pray with „one accord‟ then our prayers will be

110





answered. Do not think for one moment that this refers to the kind of

„prayer meetings‟ we have come to know in our generation! Far from

it!

The kinds of prayer Jesus is referring to were full of life and

certainty, prompted by the Holy Spirit, causing those who were

praying to think and speak with one mind! And such prayers were

always spontaneous and urgent, not scheduled.

For Dr Masters to say that this passage gives us „privileges

and rules of church prayer meetings‟ is to stretch credulity too far. It

is a major error of interpretation. Read it again and search for what

Dr Masters is saying and you will not find it. Indeed, the text does not

specifically refer to prayer at all, or to group prayer, though we may

assume it can refer to prayer, if we wish to interpret that way.

Personally, I could accept such an interpretation if Dr Masters had

not misinterpreted the meaning as providing rules and privileges, for

the text simply does not say that.

It is very important for us to get this straight, for Dr Masters is

building up his case for the existence of formal prayer meetings. We

must not begin with speculation, which is what Dr Masters is doing.

True Biblical interpretation is to hold to meanings that the texts

themselves give us.

In this case, Dr Masters has got it totally wrong and I must say

so. Obviously, the text is referring to prayer, but in no way is it

referring to rules and privileges. To say it does so, is to extrapolate

and project on to a text our own ideas.

As Dr Masters says, “These passages, and others, form the

basis of this booklet”. Thus, we must establish if this „basis‟ has any

true foundation. I have shown that his basis does not have a sound

foundation. Check for yourselves and you will see that I am right. But

it is not me who is right – I am only interpreting scripture as it ought

to be interpreted, without imposing upon it my own ideas or having

and displaying a predisposed reliance on tradition.



The Special Status of Prayer Meetings

Pages 5 – 8

In this section Dr Masters quotes from Spurgeon, as though

this validates his claims. But here, too, we find a similar assumption –

that prayer meetings should take place on a regular, scheduled

basis, even though no such thing is found in God‟s word.

Spurgeon asked why so many Believers did not see the

special significance in organised prayer meetings. I asked the very

same question in my own exhaustive study and could only conclude

that, like me, most Christians cannot see the significance because

there is no significance in scheduled prayer meetings!

Once I had realised this, my guilt – imposed by zealots and

not by scripture or by conscience – fell away and I was relieved. Why

feel guilty for not accepting something scripture does not extol or

command?

In this section Dr Masters accurately pinpoints objections to

the prayer meeting. His summation of these is like my own. But, his

111





deductions are very different, because he is concerned with tradition

rather than scripture. He says that, theoretically, “Most believers

agree that the prayer meeting is the „power house‟ of the church. But

how many really think so? If they did, all the church prayer meetings

would be packed.”

Precisely! Most people accept what they are told to accept by

their pastors, and most pastors tell them that the prayer meeting is

the „power house‟. But very few inwardly agree with that claim.

Hence the very poor turn-out at prayer meetings.

Why is there this anomaly? It is there because the majority of

Believers are too afraid or anxious to voice what they really think.

After all, if your pastor tells you the prayer meeting is the „power

house‟ and years of tradition says the same thing, who will have the

courage to say the opposite? Not many, I can assure you!

To contradict your pastor, even in a kindly manner, is to draw

attention to yourself in a negative way. You will be viewed with

suspicion and maybe even ostracised as a dangerous person, if not

a potential heretic (as has been my own experience).

Everyone knows that the churches are sub-societies who

close ranks when threatened by change or different views. Everyone

knows that vast numbers have legitimate queries and doubts which

they dare not speak about, for fear of losing face or being shunned.

That is why „most‟ people appear to agree with Dr Masters‟

assumption but do not back it up with actual attendance!

In the past I have challenged Reformed folk to show me from

scripture where I am wrong in my main teaching on the issue, and

whilst some have said they „disagree‟ with a few points, they have

not given me concrete evidences that amount to proper Biblical

proof.

No doubt Dr Masters thought his booklet was „concrete‟ proof

– but it is far from proof, or even broad evidence. All I ask is that

Christians review the scriptural evidences in totality, without applying

traditional knowledge. Without traditional knowledge they will come to

starkly opposing conclusions to those of Dr Masters.

He says that he wrote the booklet to inspire Christians to a

greater sense of the importance of prayer meetings. Obviously, with

so many booklets being sold, he has succeeded. Even so, I

categorically maintain, with scripture as my authority, that he is

wrong on this matter. Successful author and preacher he may be, but

his conclusions on this are not those of scripture.

On page 5 he very briefly introduces yet another startling

assumption, far more serious than the ones he has made before –

that Jesus Christ commanded corporate prayers. A reader will be

forgiven for thinking, as I did, that to make such a claim Dr Masters

must surely have solid scriptural evidence. I must admit that I was

perplexed, because in my own examination I had studied every

single instance in scripture (and there are many) that dealt with group

prayer, but did not find even one example of being commanded to

pray corporately on a scheduled basis!

112





Thus, when I read Dr Masters‟ confident assertion, I felt sure

that he would teach me something I had clearly missed. But when I

reached the point where he dealt with it, I found no scriptural

argument to support his view. What I found was an excellent

example of human presumption dressed as Biblical command.

On the same page (5) he gives a „proof text‟ from the Old

Testament, Isaiah 56:7. But when we examine that text it says

nothing in support of the claim! Rather, Dr Masters has made a very

bad exegesis that is traditional but not scriptural. See for yourself, as

I quote his argument and then provide a counter-argument:

“In Isaiah 56:7 there is a prophetic text on this subject. God

states that the future Gospel-age Church will be characterised by

communal prayer. He says: „For mine house shall be called an house

of prayer for all people.‟ This is clearly about when the Gentiles shall

hear the word and be converted. They, says the Lord, shall rejoice „in

my house of prayer‟. It is the will of the Lord and redeemer that His

people should be conspicuous for their praying together…In this

Isaiah passage the Lord presents the ministry of corporate prayer as

an outstanding sign that people have been truly converted. What will

be the best evidence of conversion in Gospel days? The Churches

will be known for prayer. Believers will flock to pray, says the Lord,

and it will give them great pleasure and assurance”.

Does that seem right? It probably does if we read it through

blinkered, traditional glasses. But if we analyse it, we find glaring

flaws. Let me explain…The entire context of this verse is to do with

„strangers‟ who worship God. This properly refers to those foreigners

who took on the Jewish faith and obeyed the Lord as their God. Read

the text again and you will see this to be the case.

We know this text applies to the immediate and near-future of

the Jews and „adopted‟ Jews, because Isaiah refers to them keeping

the Jewish ecided and not „polluting‟ it with non-Jewish activities. It

also refers to burnt sacrifices. That is the proper and immediate

meaning of the text, though it could apply also to future Gentiles in

principle, in an allegorical sense.

That is the first observation and it is important, for Dr Masters

has made it seem to be an entirely far-future prophecy about the

Christian Church, when it is, in reality, something else.

Even if we ignore this poor exegesis, perhaps Dr Masters is

right in his interpretation of „house of prayer‟? Let us look at it more

closely. „House‟ can mean one of many things. It can mean the

Temple itself. Or, a literal house for either animals or humans. It can

refer to the human body. Or, to Sheol. Or, a place that has both light

and dark. It can even refer to the land of Ephraim.

„House‟ can also mean a thing that holds something, e.g. a

receptacle. It can mean a place housing a family, or it can refer to the

household itself (the people). It can also refer to the descendants of

that family, or to the family‟s household affairs. It can mean „inwards‟,

„within‟ or „inside‟. So, with such a large array of possible meanings,

which one is God referring to in this text? Has Dr Masters come up

with the right one?

113





Let us look at the word „prayer‟. The word in the Hebrew can

have several meanings – prayer, to pray a prayer, „house of prayer‟,

to hear prayer, and liturgical prayer. From a root word, it means to

intervene, to mediate, to judge, to pray.

The reference to the altar (verse 7) clearly gives us the

framework for our interpretation of „mine house‟ – it must refer to the

Temple. Let us bear in mind that the Temple is NOT the same as a

local church, for the Temple was a place for formal, rite-centred

worship. Allowing for this basic difference, how, then, can we

interpret „house of prayer‟?

Well, we already know that, from the words given, the text

properly refers to the Jews and those who align themselves with God

through Jewish influence. We know that this „house of prayer‟ will be

for both Jew and Gentile believer at that time. Whether or not it also

applies to us in our day is open to debate, for we may only suggest

such a meaning, given that the primary meaning is Jews and their

proselytes.

If we put together all that we know about the possible

meanings of the words „house of prayer‟ we may only legitimately say

that God intended that His Temple would be a place where Jews and

adopted Jews (in Israel) prayed to/petitioned the Lord.

What I have given you above is a clear interpretation direct

from the text and context. I have not elaborated upon it or tried to

spiritualise it. If the text also applies to Gentiles in the far future, then

it can only be in principle, for it will be a secondary and implied

meaning, not a direct one. Thus, the principle would be that a local

church will contain people who pray to the Lord. Simple as that.

Therefore, when Dr Masters says „this is clearly about when

the gentiles shall hear the word and be converted‟, he is extending

the meaning beyond what scripture actually says, for the text does

NOT say that. Nor is such a meaning „clear‟. The „clear‟ meaning,

rather, is that God is telling the Jews that they, and those who live

with them as adopted Jews, will pray to Him in the Temple.

If Dr Masters had erred only in that single point, we could

ignore it. But he then goes on to elaborate on it with an even greater

assumption – that “It is the will of our Lord and redeemer that his

people shall be conspicuous for their praying together.” Nowhere in

that text do we find this kind of thing. Read it properly and you will not

find it! If we are to find a text that says that, it is certainly not found in

Isaiah 56.

Just two sentences later, Dr Masters makes three more leaps

of belief, without providing any linking evidence, that “In this Isaiah

passage the Lord presents the ministry of corporate prayer as an

outstanding sign that people have been truly converted.” By using the

„If-hen;‟ form of argumentation, Dr Masters skilfully guides the reader

along his own pathway.

What is this „If-Then‟ argument? It is when a writer says „If‟ this

is true, „then‟ so is what follows. It is pure rhetoric. Thus far Dr

Masters has not convinced us that his initial thesis (the „If‟ part of the

argument) is true. Therefore, his „Then‟ part (that corporate prayer

114





should exist, and that it is proof of conversion) is very open to

debate!

Nor has he proved that this prayer is a „ministry‟. In the text

this prayer is not a ministry, but it is a promise of God. That is, He will

give the love of prayer as a gift. This is, of course, a ministry of the

Holy Spirit – but it is not depicted as a ministry of the people! To say

this is to again stretch the interpretation of the text. Indeed, it is very

close (in argumentation principle) to the Romanist notion of God

giving „grace‟ for completing this or that activity, when scripture says

nothing of the kind.

The Isaiah text does NOT prove that the prayer promised will

be corporate. We do find people praying together in scripture – but

not in this particular text. Nor are we to assume that it is a sign of

conversion. Note what is being said here – that we can assume the

salvation of every member of a group, merely because they pray

„corporately‟. Can you not see how dangerous and false such a

conclusion is?

What Dr Masters is doing, perhaps unwittingly, is to make

corporate prayer a condition of salvation. Perhaps he did not mean to

say it, but that is what he has said. This is an act of works, and it is

therefore Arminian.

Dr Masters may be right when he says that Christian churches

should be known for their prayer. But this does not prove, one jot,

that such prayer must, or ought to, be „corporate‟. The text does not

give us such a far ranging set of meanings, containing so many

doctrinal claims.

Indeed, I believe Dr Masters is confusing prayer meetings with

prayer itself, which is not acceptable as an argument. Prayer is

different from prayer meetings. The former is to do with an action and

the latter is to do with a form of that act. They are separate entities.

This means that proving the validity of one does not prove the validity

of the other. We are talking here about serious theology, not about

making statements from a traditional viewpoint that cannot be

supported.

Dr Masters again misinterprets, this time Ezekiel 36:37, by

insisting that it is a prophecy of the Gentile Church in the far future.

Read it carefully and you will find it is about near-future Israel as a

nation. To say that it is about God blessing Christian churches with

many converts is again to stretch the meaning beyond its proper

application.

To add further injury to this misapplication, we are told that

these extra converts will come only if the churches pray. This is more

Arminian logic…‟we must do this, before God will do that‟. It is also

part of charismatic dominion and latter rain theology. Nowhere in

scripture does God say He will send more converts if we pray. He

says, very plainly, that He chose the elect before the world was

made. We cannot produce them by praying.

His next statement – that God sends His blessings if we pray,

is certainly true and I cannot argue with that. But to say that God‟s

blessings are dependent on prayer is Arminian. In the same second

115





paragraph on page 6, Dr Masters makes yet another error, by

claiming that “The Lord longs to honour our evangelistic efforts. But

there may be an obstacle, causing Him to hold back His blessing.

Have we pleaded with Him in prayer?”

First thing to note is that Dr Masters is saying that our

pleading can cause God to do something He may not have thought

of doing before. This is Arminian and is not scriptural.

Second thing is his view that God is yearning to bless our

efforts but that there may be an obstacle. If there is an obstacle, this

only proves that the „efforts‟ are our own and do not belong to God!

Also, this statement turns God‟s work upside down. In

scriptural reality, we must do what God gives us to do. This will come

to us as a burden we cannot shake off. We then do whatever we

have been commanded to do. Then God blesses us because we are

complying with what He has already commanded.

That, friends, is the „elect‟ order of things. Dr Masters is

advocating an Arminian approach, which means we devise a project

and then ask God for His blessing on it. Regardless of this, the text

has nothing to do with a „command‟ to hold corporate prayer

meetings.

In the text, Dr Masters says, is the command to pray as a

house, or family. That is perfectly true – but it is still not proof of

corporate prayer. Christians can pray as a family without doing so in

physical proximity. The real meaning of praying as a „house‟ is to

pray in unity and with one accord, but not necessarily or primarily as

a group. And even if it means as one group, this does not give us

authority to hold regular, scheduled prayer meetings!

Dr Masters says that we „must‟ pray as a group. This, as I

have already said, is Arminian. The only time we „must‟ pray as a

house or group, corporately, is when God places it upon each

Christian in that group personally, immediately, and urgently, and

with definite reasons for doing so, complete with the words to pray.

This is the scriptural picture of group prayer, as an occasional ad hoc

activity – which even Dr Masters acknowledges. Now, compare that

with what he is calling for. There is no resemblance at all.

At the bottom of the page, Dr Masters again makes the same

mistake. He says, “The principle is that Almighty God, for special

reasons, has ordained as a duty the practice of communal, corporate

prayer for his people, and has attached unique promises to that

duty.”

However, he does not say what those „special reasons‟ are,

nor has he proved that God has „ordained the practice‟ of communal

prayer. Nor has he proved that such prayer attracts special promises;

an idea that is Romanist in origin and used to describe the benefits of

the Mass.

In scripture we find exactly what Dr Masters initially

acknowledges – that God calls us to special, group prayer, on

irregular occasions, to pray for unique and urgent matters, and those

who are called to pray do so with one accord and one mind. So, how

can he possibly translate all that as meaning regular, common-or-

116





garden, scheduled meetings, where few are called to attend, let

alone to be of one mind?

Believe me, if you are called to such a meeting, God will let

you know, without any doubt, that you MUST attend and pray! The

fact that so few are thus called, shows us that the meetings we now

have should not be convened at all for there has been no urgent call

from God to do so.

On page 7 we are told that we must be earnest and sincere in

our prayers together. Friends, this is all too obvious! But, our own

earnestness and desire is not what God is looking for…He only looks

for prayers that He Himself has given us to utter. As I have said

elsewhere, the crux of prayer is that it is NOT something we do when

we decide we want something – it is an act of obedience in response

to what God calls us to pray for; it is this obedience that brings

results, not our human sincerity.

In other words, Dr Masters has got it very wrong. It is he who

has „missed the point‟ – not those who, with good conscience, refuse

to attend organised prayer meetings!

Half-way down page 7 we again see Arminian thinking, when

Dr Masters talks of us „making a difference‟ in prayer. As is shown

above, we do not make a difference by praying – God does, when we

obey His requirement placed on our heart to pray. If we „pray‟ without

firstly being prompted to do so by God, then it is not prayer at all, but

mere human fantasy.

Strangely, Dr Masters agrees with this assertion! (See lower

down on page 8). He admits that praying is all part of God‟s glorious,

predestinated plan. He agrees that such prayers were all planned

before time began. He says that corporate prayer is „more effective‟

than individual prayer (which I do not agree with, if personal prayer is

also prompted by the Holy Spirit), but I will leave that one aside for

now, for it is yet another charismatic-style error.

He also speaks of salvation as a work of grace alone. The rest

of the section is predestination-centred and I thank God for that. But

then he slides back into error by saying (page 8): “We may make

many mistakes in the Christian life, but the worst is to leave out

prayer…”

I suppose it is arguable if this is the „worst‟, but it is certainly

significant and serious. The point I wish to make here is that Dr

Masters is talking in this sentence about „prayer‟ NOT „prayer

meetings‟, but throughout the booklet he confuses the two as being

the same.



Christ‟s Command and Promise

Pages 8 – 12

“The most direct passage of all on the subject of corporate

prayer is the great promise of Christ recorded in Matthew 18: 19, 20.

Though expressed as a promise, it is really a command and a

direction. Indeed, it is nothing less than an ordinance.” Is this

correct? Here Dr Masters is claiming the text has multi-layered

meanings:

117





(a) It is a proof text in support of

corporate prayer (in his context

he means as a regular,

scheduled meeting)

K. It is a promise

K. It is a command.

K. It is a „direction‟

K. It is an ordinance



Are these conclusions his own assumptions again – or do they

have a basis in the text? Let us look at the text itself, so that we once

more glean our interpretations direct from scripture, and not from

tradition. It says this: “Again, I say unto you, That if two of you shall

agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be

done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or

three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of

them.”

This portion is not part of Jesus‟ general discourse on church

affairs and discipline, as Dr Masters claims. These two verses are set

aside, a kind of additional note, in which Jesus is reminding the

disciples of His promise that God will hear the pleas of Christians

who meet together – any number from two upwards. Then, He

returns to the topic of discipline when Peter comes back to Him with

a query.

But, does this text prove the „command‟ to pray corporately on

a scheduled basis? No, it does not. It has a very simple message –

that if two or more Christians meet together with one accord, and

they ask God for what they are called (by God) to pray about, then

God will answer positively, because it is He Who put the prayer into

their hearts in the first place. We can infer that this is about group

prayers, but we cannot insist on it, for it can just as easily refer to any

meeting of Christians.

Look at the text again and you will not see a specific reference

to group prayer at all. It can certainly apply to group prayer, but it can

also apply to any group meeting…and not necessarily a scheduled

meeting, either. When we interpret we must do so strictly, for we are

dealing with God‟s word, not an ordinary book.

What I most object to in this section is not that Dr Masters

applies it to prayer meetings, but that he ignores any other

reasonable interpretation. This is because the second interpretation

properly applies and is part of the overall meaning.

There is also another point to make – the text shows us that

the ones who gather together are of the same mind and heart. So,

again, we see that this is of „one accord and one mind‟. The only way

this can happen is that the Holy Spirit places the same burden on

several hearts at the same time and the burden is of such an urgency

and weight that the people know they must pray together. In this text,

then, we do not find a „command‟ to pray corporately as part of a

scheduled calendar of events.

118





This text does not, as Dr Masters claims, give us „instructions‟.

It only gives a promise. When God calls us to pray as a group,

urgently and with immense burden, there is no need to „instruct‟ us to

do so in advance – the urgency and weight alone drives us to seek

each other out, and we do it anyway! If we are „instructed‟ so well in

advance, then it becomes scheduled and is not, by definition,

„urgent‟.

So, Jesus was NOT “inaugurating the duty of corporate

prayer” (page 9). He was just promising that when Christians meet

thus, God will listen. Other texts tell us the reason why He listens –

because we respond to His prompting to pray in the first place and

obey by praying. This is not, then, an inauguration of the duty to

corporate prayer. It is a promise.

True corporate prayer is always spontaneous, irresistible and

powerful, because it is instigated by the Holy Spirit for a special and

unique purpose. Scheduled prayer meetings with no real purpose

other than „duty‟ is, by definition, not true corporate prayer.

Yet, though Dr Masters has acknowledged the truth of this in

part, he continues to state that we may meet regularly for „prayer‟

even when we have to manufacture unity of mind. There is no other

way we can take his words. He then goes back to proper

understanding by saying that the promise of Jesus applies to

anything we might ask for.

In the third paragraph of page 9, though, he again lapses into

traditional thinking. He talks of “the teaching of Christ that there is

special power in the prayer of God‟s people when they are

assembled together.”

It must again be emphasised that the power of prayer is not in

ourselves, in our resolve to pray, in the geographic togetherness of

groups, or even in the prayer itself. The power is in the fact that we

respond to the prompting of God to pray. Thus the „power‟ is in God,

not in us or in the act of prayer.

Can you see the vital difference? If you cannot see it, then you

are thinking along Arminian lines. Dare I say it, but the idea of greater

power in proximity is also found in charismatic and spiritist/pagan

circles.

In the last paragraph on this page Dr Masters gives an

accurate though truncated meaning of „agree‟…to act in harmony

and sameness. The rest of the section is good material and

describes the way some try to use the prayer meeting for their own

agenda.

A small but significant matter is raised at the bottom of page

10, when Dr Masters says that someone who believes there is a

problem in the local church should not speak of it in the prayer

meeting, but should approach the „officers‟ to be dealt with in the

„proper way‟. There are no „officers‟ (only offices) and the „proper

way‟ is to deal with it openly. This is because we are all equal in the

local church.

A degree of manipulation is them resorted to as Dr Masters

talks of ”true Christians who opt out of the…prayer meeting…Do we

119





deprive our church of its…blessing by our failure to support the

prayer meeting?”

This is the usual „guilt thing‟. By assuming (wrongly) that we

are commanded to pray together routinely and without special

urgency, he thinks that we cause our church not to be blessed. He

does not bother to think that it might be because of the dutiful and

unwarranted prayer meeting that the church is not blessed!

God will not bless mere duty or doing things He has not

authorised. No mention at all is made of His Son‟s command to pray

alone in our closets!! It is not God‟s command to „support‟ a meeting

of any kind. The very word suggests something man-made.

Nor is the corporate prayer meeting, as viewed by Dr Masters,

an „ordination‟. There are only two ordinations – communion and

baptism. To add a third is an error. If we take Dr Masters‟ idea just a

little farther, we can arrive at a new heresy, for he has already said

that corporate prayer is a proof of being saved.

And there is a hint of inconsistency on page 11, when Dr

Masters says there are no elites in the Church…even though he

refers to „officers‟ who are the ones to deal with matters and, earlier,

he refers to an influential „platform party‟. What are „officers‟ if not an

elite?

Also, on page 1, he displays a belief that everyone in a local

church must attend corporate prayer. This effectively rules out God

calling a particular few, suddenly and with urgency, as He sees fit, for

a particular purpose, with no date or time in mind. It also rules in the

idea of regulated, scheduled prayer meetings for all.

Then – something that gave me a slight smile – he said, “We

must never interpret away our obligation to the prayer meeting, and

make it an optional exercise.” It makes me smile, because he is

making out that those who „opt out‟ as he puts it, are choosing which

of God‟s commands to obey. He also implies by this, that not to

attend a prayer meeting is a sin.

In reality, it is not we who „interpret away‟ scheduled prayer

meetings, but it is he who „interprets in‟ what ought not be there! It is

these scheduled, meaningless, prayer meetings that Christians will

not attend. True group prayers, called suddenly by God for a special

purpose, are something entirely different. It is these latter type that

are „not optional‟, and if the call came from God to attend such a

meeting, those called would be drawn irresistibly to it.

Dr Masters cites the very first „prayer meeting‟, Acts 1:14, as

proof that every church everywhere should have scheduled prayer

meetings, though he has no proof whatever. That prayer meeting

was urgent and called by God. Nothing like the usual treadmill

scheduled by churches nowadays. The key words, as always, are

„with one accord‟. When Dr Masters can prove to me that this is what

happens in every single prayer meeting, I will be convinced! But I

know he cannot, for I have attended enough of them to know!

Yet another assumption is made by Dr Masters, at the bottom

of page 11. Though the next group prayer meeting is recorded 14

years later, he assumes, without any proof, that this was

120





“undoubtedly typical of their regular meetings”. How does he know, if

scripture itself does not say?

Possibly, the Christians in the early church did have a large

number of spontaneous prayer meetings for urgent matters. But even

if they did, it is not proof that they held scheduled prayer meetings on

a regular basis, without urgent needs being made known to them

directly by God.

About this prayer meeting, he cites Spurgeon, who comments

“Peter thought to himself, „Where shall I go?‟ Then he remembered

that it was prayer meeting night down at John Mark‟s mother‟s

house. That was the place to go. They were not gathered to hear a

sermon but to pray.” (Acts 12:12).

If you read this whole passage you will read of special and

urgent prayer being made, because Peter was in prison. Peter was

the man they all looked to, because he had been with Jesus. He was

an elder of the early church and much needed. So, God had called

them all together to pray for his situation. This was a unique and

urgent matter. It was not a typical meeting, nor was it scheduled. For

Dr Masters to say that it was, is not acceptable, for it is a very loose

rendition of the text.

There is no evidence at all in this text that the prayer meeting

was „typical‟ of scheduled meetings. Look hard and you will not find

it! Peter did not think „Ah, it is prayer meeting night at John Mark‟s!‟

No, he went there because he knew his friends would be there. It

was only when he arrived that he found them all at prayer – for him.

That is all there was to it. The text says nothing to support Dr

Masters‟ interpretation.

Dr Masters goes on to make further erroneous claims in the

first paragraph on page 12. He says, “By practice, by conviction and

by instinct, the people of God gathered together to pray for great

matters…The early church certainly knew that the Saviour had

ordained corporate prayer for all.”

Reader, this is an abuse of interpretation. The text does NOT

tell us anything like this. Nor does it tell us that Jesus „ordained‟ us to

meet together, even for urgent prayer, „by practice‟, „conviction‟ or

„instinct‟. All of this is Arminian, not scriptural.

When we are called to such urgent prayer together, each is

called as an individual and the burden is overwhelming. It is not down

to instinct, or conviction, or practice, but is down to the Holy Spirit

calling us personally as the need arises. THAT is the only pattern we

find in scripture concerning group prayer. It is spontaneous, urgent,

and ad hoc. It is NOT scheduled without urgent reason.

The argument by Dr Masters is obliterated in the first 12

pages, for he has not shown, in even one instance, that his thesis is

correct. He has misused scripture and makes many assumptions that

do not hold water. On this matter he has shown his exegesis to be

seriously flawed.

He finishes this section by quoting Spurgeon…but even that

great man had his flaws! He says that churches that hold combined

prayer and Bible study meetings are less blessed than those that

121





hold separate meetings. How does he know? How does he qualify

the statement?

The rest of the booklet tells us of the supposed unique „divine

purposes‟ behind prayer meetings, even though Dr Masters has

failed to give one shred of evidence, let alone proof, for their use.

The various sections will not be dealt with in this paper because,

frankly, they are concocted and have no bearing on the issue.

Suffice to say that Dr Masters shows us his Arminianism in

this subject, not his understanding of scripture. In the section entitled

„What Should We Pray For?‟ he opposes his own acceptance of the

fact that in the early churches, prayer meetings were called for urgent

and precise reasons, when they were needed!

The fact that he wrote this section, with its title, shows that he

does not really understand. If we need to ask what to pray about,

then the meeting is NOT like those in earlier times, when they all met

with „one accord‟!

The same banal attitude is shown when he writes on „how‟ we

should pray. If men and women are called together with one mind,

they will not need to be shown „how‟ to pray, because the Holy Spirit

has already filled them with words and desires!

He again shows an Arminian leaning on page 22, when he

says that there ought to be „many contributors‟ to the corporate

prayer meeting. Surely, if he believes in predestination, he should

know that it is God, not our own desire to rely on many contributors,

that brings the „result‟? If God is calling the meeting, He will also

cause us to pray, and those called to pray will be the exact number

He has called, saying the exact words!

The second half of the booklet needs separate treatment, but

the need is to be queried. The main fact is, the booklet does not give

us any reason to hold corporate prayer meetings. Dr Masters has

completely misinterpreted texts so that he could uphold his traditional

view, even though scripture does not do so. Deliberate or not, that is

the result.

It is therefore my continued view that corporate prayer

meetings as we now have them, as scheduled regular meetings, are

not of God, and as such are useless and without worth. Thus

Christians need not attend them and ought to seriously question

whether such meetings should be part of church life at all.







Appendix 2

What follows are two papers, previously written by me to

combat Arminian and Reformationist heresies. Think carefully about

them…



Free Will and the Arminian Heresy

The concept of „free will‟ runs like a barb-wire thread through

Arminianism. Arminianism is heresy, and it is often found mingled

122





with other heresies. Yet, it is embraced quite openly within our

churches today. It surprises me that so many pastors and preachers

are able to be so tolerant of Arminianism, when it clearly contradicts

and devalues God‟s word and commands.

Tolerance is offered because much of what an Arminian says

might be „good‟ – but this is a highly dangerous way to treat heresy.

Arminians are everywhere, and include large numbers of Methodists,

all true charismatics, Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW‟s, et al. They

are also found, in varying degrees, within all other denominations,

and in none at all.

We cannot say that all Arminians are the same, for, obviously,

they are not. As in a denomination, each member has his or her own

beliefs and, in practice, each is judged according to those personal

beliefs. Thus, whilst a whole denomination might be judged heretical

because of its official, stated constitution, we cannot say the same

about its members. We can only say that if an individual member

agrees with, and promotes, the heresy, then he or she is judged as

being the same – heretical.

However, it is often the case that those within an heretical

denomination are themselves quite unaware that they are being

taught heresy. These I term „casual‟ heretics, who have no intention

of committing heresy at all, but have merely imbibed what has been

taught them by those they trust. My argument is with those who

seriously and deliberately promote and encourage heresy.

What is really wrong with Arminianism? (See BTM

publications that outline Arminianism). Surely it is just a matter of

opinion? No, it is not. It is a matter of grave urgency. Heresy in any

form must never be tolerated within the churches.

Arminius was condemned for his heresy and condemned as

heretic by his contemporaries. We must do no less. Arminianism is

heresy! In this Appendix we shall approach the subject from the

angle of Free Will. The reader will see just how untenable

Arminianism is, and, by implication, how unbiblical Arminian

Believers are…if they are truly „Believers‟ at all!



The Importance of Nothing

What is „nothing‟? There are basically two kinds of nothing –

Absolute and Secondary. Secondary nothing is what we all know

about – and which can be defined as „the absence of something‟.

That is, where something ought to be, is the „place‟ (or state) we call

„nothing‟. Thus, the „nothing‟ we all refer to is actually a conceptual

reality, based on existence as it is understood by human beings.

This existence can be physical – animate as well as inanimate;

mental – thoughts etc.; emotional – sadness, love, etc.; spiritual –

faith, angels, etc. Whatever realm of existence we refer to, „nothing‟

is the absence of something within that conceptual framework. We

cannot conceptualise outside of our own existence.

123







Secondary Nothing

Conceptualisation is always within a created existence. That is

why I refer to it as „secondary‟. It is a derivation and has no creatorial

power. We cannot conceptualise what we do not know, because

what we know personally, through our senses and through our

human-related faculties, is all that we know. In terms of reference, we

have no other reference.

We cannot conceptualise outside of the created universe. Yet,

we cannot understand, nor do we know, even a fraction of what is

contained within the created universe, or what may be beyond.

Nevertheless, everything we ever know is within that universe.

Everything we can conceptualise is bound by that framework

and even when we do not know about something, there is the

potential of conceptualisation, because, although we do not know

something, it is nevertheless possible to come to know it. If

something is extant in creation, then it has the potential to be known

to us. That we do not yet know it is not relevant, for it exists, and

what exists in creation is potentially knowable.

We might not know of the existence of, say, fish. Yet fish

exist. Because we do not know fish exist, we cannot conceptualise

about fish. When we first find a fish, we start to conceptualise,

wondering what it is for, what it is made of, what it can do, etc. We

can only conceptualise because we have conceptualised about

other, non-fish creations.

Consider the following and assume it is possible: a child is

born into a black box, without openings and without light. It grows

within that box, which is soundproof and can record no movements.

As it grows it may, or may not, move about. It continues to grow, but

it will be blind. No matter what basic intelligence quotient it might

have been born with, the child‟s mind will remain blank. This is

because it has no stimuli. Without stimuli of any kind it will probably

die. At any rate it would be unable to conceptualise, because there

is „nothing‟ to conceptualise about!

In this extreme case, „nothing‟ is a total environment to the

child. Even though it can still feel the box, it provides no „clues‟ upon

which to build concepts. The box itself is meaningless, because there

are no comparative structures. But even in such an extreme

situation, the box is created, as is the child within. That the child

knows nothing does not alter the fact that he is a created being inside

a created object, and the object is itself within a created universe.

Thus the potential for conceptualisation exists, even if it is not used,

or is rendered incapable of use.

What it all comes down to is this – we cannot think anything

about anything unless what we think about exists in creation. Our

minds are incapable of thinking beyond what exists in the created

universe. In practical terms, we cannot think about what we do not

personally know. Indeed, this is the value of education – we come to

know things we did not know about before.

The key to knowing is the acknowledgement of things to know.

In higher education a student is faced with things he did not

124





previously know existed. This new knowledge, added to what he

already knows, forms a brand new basis for knowing.

From this expanded „pool‟ of knowledge come new constructs,

more complex concepts of what he previously knew. The more

extensive this pool of knowledge, the more complex can be the

constructs. But no matter how much the person knows, he cannot

know beyond what is made available to him to know, and he cannot

conceptualise beyond what is created.

Like the person who grows in a box, he cannot know anything

outside of his created environment. Or, to put it another way –

outside of what we know, there is nothing…the absence of

knowledge.

This is all very important. Why? Because the Arminian claims,

by his beliefs (although he probably does not realise it), to be able to

know outside of what is created, even though this is impossible.

What do I mean? Let us look at Absolute nothing….

Absolute Nothing

Absolute „nothing‟ is that existence which is outside of the

created order. It is the state or condition in which God was before He

created what we know. To us, this was „nothing‟ and from this

„nothing‟ He created „something‟ – where nothing was, He placed

something.

This something was not made from pre-existing materials,

materials which we can now test and examine. It came from

„something‟ we cannot know – „absolute nothing‟. Secondary nothing

is the absence of something created. But absolute nothing means

existence in another dimension, of a kind we cannot imagine,

because it is outside our „knowability‟. Therefore, we cannot

conceptualise what it is like or anything about it.

Unlike the person in the box, we are not even in a box! The

„nothing‟ Creation came from is outside of our existence. Everything

we know and can possibly know is within created existence. But

absolute nothing is greater than existence, because it is eternal, with

no beginning and no end. It is uncreated. It is outside time and

outside our present knowledge. From it came Creation.

The importance of all this, is that God exists in what is here

called absolute nothing. He created out of this nothingness because

that is where He is (at least it is assumed that this is where He was

and is; see Article on „Heaven‟). He Himself calls this state (for

present purposes we cannot refer to it as a place, because a place

fixes a person to a geographical point and God is everywhere)

„heaven‟. Thus, „place‟ has no significance when we speak of God.

God calls this state „heaven‟, and it is also (assumed to be) absolute

nothing. So it has no comparison to what we call „nothing‟.

God‟s „nothing‟ is spiritual and eternal, and it is constituted of

something which we know nothing about, and cannot presently know

anything about. (Even if this „nothing‟ is not spiritual or heaven, it is

still beyond our knowing). It is outside of our present existence. Yet,

we will one day come to know this „otherness‟ we call absolute

125





nothing. Until that day, though, it is outside of our comprehension.

Only God knows fully.



The Arminian and Free Will

The Arminian believes in free will. But no man - no created

being – can have free will. Only God has the option of free will

(which He deliberately restrains). Man can only know what is created

and what exists in his own created environment. If free will exists

only in God‟s „environment‟ then Man cannot know it. Thus, if a man

says he has free will, he is really saying that he exists in an

environment we cannot know – heaven or „absolute nothing‟ – the

state in which God is.

In other words, the Arminian places himself higher than God,

or equal to Him. How? Well, salvation and all matters related to it

can only be conceived outside of time and creation. That is, on the

absolute level. Salvation is completely alien to mankind because it is

outside of his own possibilities.

Although we speak of salvation being „conceived‟ by God, the

word „conceived‟ is itself unsuitable, for it relates to time and space.

We cannot properly refer to God as „conceiving‟ something because

it would mean God having a thought He did not have or know about

beforehand. As this is impossible with God, the idea of God

„conceiving‟ something is merely a device human beings use in order

to partially understand heavenly truths.

So, when an Arminianist states that we may choose God and

salvation, he is really making a statement of absoluteness that places

him alongside, if not above, God the Creator, for he assumes to have

his own power and authority, to bring into effect what God

determined before Creation!

Thus, what appears to be a simple statement is a deceptively

profound rejection of God and His commands, containing all the

elements of heresy and apostasy. Hence to tolerate Arminianism is

to acknowledge the proposed deity of mankind (claimed by many

charismatics), the rejection of salvation by election, and the seeds of

spiritual destruction. Now let us enter into the argument on a less

abstract level.



The Basic Problem – Arminianism or God‟s Word?

This question is asked of fellow believers who are not (to their

knowledge) Arminian. The question is very simple and need not be

complicated. Is God‟s word true? You will answer „yes‟. Is ALL of

God‟s word true (God‟s word meaning holy scripture)? You will

answer „yes‟. If a belief is not found plainly in scripture, does that

make it heretical? We must answer „not necessarily‟. A good

example of this is belief in a Trinity. The word „Trinity‟ itself is not

found in scripture, yet we may deduce a Trinity from scripture itself.

On the other hand, if a belief is „unscriptural‟ does that make it

heretical? The answer must be „yes‟. To be „unscriptural‟ means to

reject what scripture says about something and to substitute another

teaching. That makes it heresy.

126





One of the most basic errors in Arminianism is the belief that

man can choose God. This belief is not just erroneous – it totally and

utterly contradicts and opposes one of the most fundamental

teachings of scripture. Throughout scripture we are told that God

created everything, including Man, because He wanted to. Not

because He „needed‟ Man, or anything else.

When Adam fell, God provided him with food and the means

to live. Not because He needed to, or because Adam chose to have

it that way, but because God chose to do so. It was an act of

unmerited mercy and grace.

Abram was chosen by God out of all men and races. Abram

did not choose God. God kept Abram and his entire family and

goods because He chose to, not because Abram chose to keep

them. Throughout the Old Testament, God chose those who were to

serve Him – just as He chose to reject or even kill others, such as

Pharaoh.

God chose to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to this earth as a

man, for the sole purpose of being sacrificed to save us. This was

foretold in the Old Testament. Nowhere are we told that Man had

any choice in the matter. Indeed, the only thing Man initially chose

was sin!

After that (the Fall) he (Adam) and all who came after (all of

us) were rendered incapable of choosing good. In the New

Testament we are taught, time and again, that God chose us – we

did not choose Him. Yet, Arminians preach and teach that we have

the ability to choose salvation and God.

This is far more serious than a difference of opinion! It is a

deliberate rejection of fundamental truths given to us by God in His

word. For example, to say that we can „choose‟ God is to obliterate

the entire Old Testament, for the Old Testament is based on what

God did for, or to, Man. Man fell, and God chose to provide for him.

He later chose or elected a whole race to be His. From that race He

deliberately chose some to be his spiritual sons and daughters.

Then, later, when salvation was through Christ, His choice

was made out of all humanity. From start to now, and from now to the

finish of time, it was and is God‟s own choice and not ours. Can you

see how serious it is to claim otherwise? The Arminian belief is in

self and in an inherent goodness, a „spark‟ of good from which comes

all „good‟ choices.

This is the error found in many cult and occult beliefs today!

Yet, in their wisdom, many preachers and pastors allow it to flourish

as though it were a legitimate belief with some „good‟ in it. In itself

this means that such men are themselves Arminian, if only in the

smallest degree!! Thus they inadvertently condone and promote

heresy. Can you see this?

By saying that we are able to choose our own salvation, we

effectively negate why Christ came and His death. If we are able to

choose salvation, then what was the point of Christ coming? Why

did He die? If Man has the ability to choose, then it means he has

the ability to save himself. If that is true, then God failed to act

127





economically and wisely. That is, He made a mistake. The idea of

God making a „mistake‟ is found in modern charismatic beliefs. That,

friends, is not just heresy – it is blasphemy. Again I ask – how can

Arminianism be tolerated?

Scripture tells us we are corrupt, but Arminianism tells us we

have sufficient good within us to enable us to choose good. Thus, an

unsaved man is NOT totally corrupt but is both good and evil. This

duality allows us to „choose‟ to seek God – even though scripture

tells us that NO MAN seeks after God BECAUSE of his total

depravity!

Also, by saying we can choose God, we are actually saying

our will is free to do so, when it clearly is not. Scripture says we

cannot choose God because our father is the devil and we do his

bidding. It gets even worse than that, for to be able to make such a

stupendous choice we would have to be gods ourselves! Why?

Because we claim to manipulate our own spiritual existence and

future by our own act of will. That makes God passive and a tool to

be used by us.

This list of sorry woes and lies can go on and on! Can you see

the full horror of allowing Arminianism free access to our churches

and minds? Can you see how terrible it really is to call Arminianism

an „opinion‟ that may legitimately be held by Christians? The

conceptual framework behind Arminianism is exactly the same as

that behind all major cult and occult thinking!

I was told by the Evangelical Alliance that if I condemn

Arminianism, then I also condemn the majority of Christendom…as

though retaining the status quo should be our main concern. Our

main concern must and should be the integrity of God‟s word, not the

self-proclaimed piety of man-made groups!

Yes, I am fully aware that to condemn Arminianism is to also

condemn the majority of Christendom. That is not my problem, but

the problem of those groups who are Arminian. They are either God-

fearing and God-honouring or they are not. No man can honour the

Lord and yet reject God‟s word, or the proper interpretation of it.

Such is perverse.

God‟s word tells us that in any generation only a small

remnant will be saved. It stands to reason, therefore, that the

„majority of Christendom‟ are not truly saved at all, but are deluded

into thinking they are saved by their Arminianism. This same

Arminianism pervades our churches today and is partially taught

even amongst the faithful, by true pastors and preachers. There is an

urgent need to review what we say, so that we do not inadvertently

preach heresy and give support to those who are Arminian.



The Antidote to Reformationism

„Reformationism‟ is a word I use but did not coin, to describe a

phenomenon that is rife. A word was needed to encapsulate the

essence of the subject – hence „reformationism‟. In this chapter (for

those who have not read my previous works on the subject), I will

128





give the characteristics of „reformationism‟ and suggest ways to

combat this dangerous disease found in the body of Christ.

It is NOT my purpose to browbeat the brethren. The argument

is solidly scriptural – and scripture has its own way of striking the

heart of those in error. Let the argument flow from a desire to see

God‟s word paramount.

The aim is very simple – to prevent my brethren from going

further down the road of traditional reformationism, that they might

repent and be rid of their errors. The result will be brethren whose

hearts are freed from the shackles of a mistaken idea, that they may

soar upward on wings of an eagle, to spiritual heights they have not

discovered before.

No, this is not a recipe for ultra-spiritual cultism! When we rid

ourselves of useless tradition and get back to God‟s word, we can

see how we have wasted our minds and hearts on what is worthless.

Then, when we again start to search the depths of God‟s word, we

realise what we have been missing, and can see that we have been

dragged downward. Anything other than the valley floor MUST, by

definition, be „higher‟! There is no mysticism in this, just spiritual

common-sense.

So, share with me now, and let us explore that hitherto hidden

world of „reformationism‟. It has been before our very eyes for

centuries, but it has been hidden from our rational minds by our

conformity to its claims. What began as a protest („protestantism‟)

developed into its own form of error. Christians were so busy

opposing Romanistic lies, they forgot to check their own mistakes.

Before too long these mistakes became fossilised as rules and

human requirements. It is now our duty to remove this massive

superstructure, by examining the infrastructure…those things that go

to make up what we have come to call „reformed‟. In many ways

what we are describing is a movement and not just a collection of

diverse errors. It could be called a movement because all its

members do, say, and believe, the same things.

You will find that although my intention is to dismantle and

oppose „reformationism‟, I do so without the attitude I have toward,

say, charismaticism. This is due to my proper deference to the

brethren. These brethren may be in error, but they are still my

brethren. As such they require a different approach. They already are

saved and are in the hand of Almighty God – it is just that they are

kicking the traces (often inadvertently) and need a quiet word to

enable them to look again at their hearts and minds. Hopefully these

notes will help in this task.

So, brethren, I offer the notes in humility. I was once a

„reformationist‟ and so I know how it works. It took me many years to

understand what was going on. That experience and struggle has

now been distilled and made available, that we may all grow in the

Lord as we ought, according to His word. If the words are sometimes

hard, they are not meant to be harsh, which is a different thing.

May He bless us and lead us, in this exploration of what we

ought to do to regain a proper definition of the truth. (The truth

129





remains the truth, no matter what we do to it. The main problem in

reformed circles is the way the truth is interpreted and used).



A Working Definition

We need a comprehensive definition of what „reformationism‟

is. Many Christian writers have spoken of erroneous or rogue

elements within reformed circles, but there has been no systematic

approach. So, any definition must be broad. No doubt a more refined

definition will arise at a later stage. The definition will be an umbrella

over another set of broad characteristics, which will serve as an

„introductory model‟; a working model for those who wish to expand

or amend the topic.

In no way do I pretend that what I am saying is the final

answer or even a totally accurate one! Nevertheless, the descriptions

are accurate. They are based on over 40 years personal observation,

a varied number of years observation by thousands of others (friends

and ministry contacts), personal involvement as a (pseudo-)

„reformed‟ preacher and teacher, and many discussions. Plus

reading „reformed‟ literature over many years.

Given the magnitude of the problem, several definitions must

be used:



1. „Reformationism‟ is an attitude of mind that

embraces the Reformation, but which lacks the

will to practise its principles.

2. „Reformationism‟ is the romantic idea of

Reformation without a personal attachment to its

living principles.

K. „Reformationism‟ is a mental

acknowledgement of the Reformation, but

the spiritual rejection of it by not living a

continually reforming life: so, belief is not

reflected in practice.



Several more definitions can be given, but the

above will suffice.



Who Are Reformationists?

Mainly, reformationists are normal Christians. That is, saved

men and women. They have a high regard for scripture. They say

and do what is considered to be right in the eyes of their reformed

peers. In other words, they are just ordinary people; brethren! Many

of them are well-known preachers and teachers. And most of them

are Calvinists, believing in election and grace and scripture alone.

What, then, is the problem?

The problem is quite complex. That is why it took me such a

long time to unravel what was disturbing about reformed circles. For

example, these people are saved – no question about it. Most that I

know are nice folk. But, they have become stuck in the past. They

love to hear of the Reformers and read their works. That, though, is

130





where they have stayed. They cannot grasp the thought of the

necessity to be continually reforming our lives. After all, that takes

immense thought and dedication, and the courage to dismantle

useless traditions.

It is a sad fact that most Christians go to their churches, sit in

the same pews every Sunday, go through all the same motions, say

the same things, have the same kinds of „services‟, and so on. But

they seem unable or unwilling to translate scriptural requirements

into their own lives.

Yes, they have a high regard for scripture – but their regard is

based on Calvinism and on Reformed ideas that have been remixed

for several centuries. Their regard is tempered with many, many

traditional values and teachings – the very structure and activities of

reformed churches are proof of this. They are right in the eyes of

their peers, but not right in the eyes of God. Even many well-known

preachers are like this, as they regularly preach traditionally, but

make scriptural errors.

One major error is to confuse their message, by preaching the

true gospel but then „offering‟ Christ like Arminians! Often, the

Arminianism is very slight indeed…but it is there. And the fact that it

can be detected means that it is a part of the preachers‟ thought

patterns. And if that is the case, it means their thoughts are not

systematic or ranged scripturally. (Having extensive Biblical

knowledge does not automatically give one a systematic approach to

scripture).

If this was all I could muster, then this chapter would be

worthless. The trouble, though, runs far deeper. We are talking about

preachers and teachers who think nothing of ruining the lives of other

Christians. It happened to me, not just once, but four times in the

same town!

Four preachers/pastors said and did the most despicable

things, and, they got away with it. Each considered himself reformed

and faithful. Yet each made my life and the life of my family and

many others not connected with me, a misery. Finally, we had to

leave what I came to call „the system‟.

Those men are still in office and are still ruining lives. No

Christian reformed „paper will publish anything that would undermine

the situation, so blanket silence prevails – even though, under the

blanket, people talk! It has not gone away – it is just muffled, to the

detriment of the Church as a whole!

Often, those of us who speak out are branded with all kinds of

names, usually „in love‟. We are ignored and even shunned. But what

have we done to deserve it? We have spoken about the sins of men

who are our brethren. That is all.

If this had only happened to myself, then what I say could be

called „chagrine‟. But that is the whole point – it has happened to

thousands and thousands of people in the UK alone! In Swansea, an

entire church (except for a few) walked out on their pastor because of

his openly known sins. These people have since gone back, after the

131





pastor left. But what they did has been repeated many times all over

Britain, for several centuries.

I find it incredible that so many people and their experiences

can be so easily forgotten! It is incredible that such a mass exodus

can be shrugged off. It is incredible that preachers think they can get

away with it.

God knows and He will bring their actions to light, but this

must not be used as an excuse for us to ignore the situation in this

life. Interestingly, because I speak about these things, I am branded.

But the ones who are guilty are never rebuked or in any way

reminded of their sins. Do you not find this odd?



Inter-Church Migration

A common charge against people who move between

churches is that they are „spiritual gypsies‟. They are castigated,

sometimes harshly and sometimes gently, for not staying in one

church to receive „nourishment‟ and to experience „fellowship‟. But is

this a proper evaluation?

No doubt some are like that, and just cannot settle in one

place, for a reason other than a Biblical one. Yes, they ought to settle

down. I am not talking about these people, but about people who

have been forced to leave their churches, in one way or another and

for any number of genuine reasons. The name „spiritual gypsy‟ can

be both trite and unfeeling. It can also be very annoying!

Much migration between churches occurs for solidly Biblical

reasons. There can be bad teaching, faithlessness on the part of the

pastor, wrong practices amongst the whole congregation, open

sinfulness, heresy, etc.

In my own life, the first pastor lied, allowed evil to grow, hated

myself and my family, and refused to act scripturally. His hatred

became so bad we had no option but to leave. In my own parlance

(taken from employment law) this was „constructive disfellowship‟.

That is, I was forced, by the actions of others, to leave.

The same thing happened in the next three churches, but got

worse. The first pastor had informed all the pastors in the area of

what I had supposedly done or said. It was all lies. The first pastor

(and the second) was very well known in Calvinistic/reformed circles.

Even recently, a well-known pastor acted unreasonably and

so two of his members left and now worship with our own Manselton

Church. With each person who has been „constructively

disfellowshipped‟ there comes a tale of great sadness and, often,

astounding behaviour on the part of pastors or members. No-one

bothers to tackle the issue and so it goes on and on. That is why I

deal with it here. Who has the courage to make it known? Who will

face it head-on, so that it can be cut out from amongst us?

We now need concrete examples of what is meant by

„reformationism‟. On their own, cases of pastoral ineptitude, though

bad, do not constitute a reason to take widespread action, or to call

what is happening a „movement‟. My objections run far deeper than

132





mere personal insult or badness toward me, as the following

examples of reformationism clearly indicate.

Although reformationism is greater than the sum of its parts,

the parts I choose to highlight are major departures from scriptural

principles and they taint Christians with an unrighteousness they

ought to be ashamed of.

I was ashamed. That is why I changed my life, and that is why

I now offer what I know to others, that they might change. This

process of brotherhood must not be ignored. Preaching the

brotherhood of all Believers is worthless if it is not carried out in

reality.

In the following notes are given a few examples of what

reformationism means in the life of Believers. From the very first

example, you will recognise the signs and symptoms. As you read,

ask yourself what you are going to do about it all, for these notes

demand an answer. Not just for my own sake, or for your own well-

being, but for the health of the whole Church of Jesus Christ. It is as

serious as that. Read on and weigh up the arguments….

An Unscriptural Structure

Reformed local churches as we now have them are not

structured scripturally. Yet, go into almost any reformed church and

you will feel at home. That is because what they do is identical. In

this sense, they belong to a „system‟, even if they are not affiliated in

any formal way, and this sameness is as effective as supermarket

branding, where supermarkets of same ownership all look the same

and are laid out in the same way.

Their structures are identical because they all follow the same

traditional format. There is nothing wrong with tradition. But tradition

that is extra to scripture must be questioned, if not cast aside.

Scripture itself gives us freedom to structure our local

churches as local Christians see fit – a task that must be reviewed by

every generation and not allowed to stagnate. (However, this is not

what is meant by „diverse administration‟). Even so, no local church

has the right to structure itself unscripturally. Before we go further in

this, let us discuss a few more working definitions…



„Unscriptural‟ and „not in scripture‟

These are two totally different things. If something is

„unscriptural‟ it is contrary to scripture; it rejects or ignores scriptural

precept and is therefore inherently sinful.

On the other hand, if something is „not in scripture‟, inherent

sin is not necessarily present. It just means that whatever it is cannot

be found in scripture!

An example of the first is, say, a belief that Jesus is not God.

An example of the second, is, say, that we do not find reference in

scripture to going to church in a car. Going in a car is not itself a sin

just because the Bible does not mention cars.

At times what is not found in scripture by name is nevertheless

found in scripture in principle, and it can be called sin. An example of

this is, say, sending pornography via the Internet (computers).

133





What we are referring to in this chapter are „unscriptural‟

structures. Not only are they not found in scripture, but they are

opposed to scriptural principles. Hence the serious nature of their

existence.



Freedom and Choice

As Believers, do we have freedom to choose? Well, we were

once bound to Satan by chains of sin. Now, we are „new creatures‟

with „freedom in Christ‟. This has often been taken to mean we are

free to choose whatever we like. This is an erroneous view.

As Believers we are bound to Christ by chains of love and

command. We cannot do what we like. Our freedom is bound by

whatever God requires of us (His will). Anything outside His will is

sin.

Thus, we may not legitimately choose to commit fornication,

even though this is rife nowadays in many churches. Yes, we are

„free‟ to do so in the sense that God does not usually force us to

commit His will on this earth. That is how we sin every day – we

choose rather to do what we want to do.

But that freedom to choose sin does not mean God gave us

freedom to sin. Thus, churches might choose this or that structure,

but it does not mean they are right in their choices, or even that their

choices are Biblically legitimate. Nor does it mean that because they

preach the true gospel, their sinful structures are somehow thereby

„cleansed‟.

I am not the first writer to have said „there is freedom only in

restriction‟. This is a truth in all walks of life and does not just apply to

Christians. In Christian lives, it means that we are restricted to those

choices given by God. The boundaries are set by scripture. Choosing

outside of scripture („unscripturally‟) is sin. So, the only real antidote

to reformationism is, to get rid of everything that constitutes

reformationism! That is, get back to scripture alone. After all, this is

the proud boast of reformed Christians – but where is it to be found?



Sandwich Syndrome

A „syndrome‟ is a collection of signs and symptoms that all

point to one cause. In our churches today we have many signs and

symptoms that point toward unscriptural local church structures.

They are typified by what everyone within reformed circles calls

service „sandwiches‟. For a reason I cannot fathom, this format of

service is either chuckled about or just listed as unfavourable. But it

is never spoken of as being sinful! Let us now look at what we mean.



Typical Church Services

With respect for my brethren, I challenge them to show me in

scripture the source of their services. I do not just mean the order of

presentation (the „sandwich‟), but the actual reason for the existence

of a „service‟ at all. You will not find „services‟ in scripture. And, if we

break it all down into component parts, a normal „service‟ is anything

134





but righteous. Some of these components are described below (and

some were treated in more depth earlier):

K. The Sandwich

It is called a „sandwich‟ because that is what it looks like!

Typically, a „service‟ consists of an opening prayer, a hymn, a

reading, a hymn, announcements, maybe another short prayer,

followed by the „sermon‟, then possibly another short prayer and a

hymn, then the benediction.

Now for the honesty! The congregation all sit quietly and just

listen. They then go home again until their next „fix‟. No questions or

comments. No real involvement. The preacher, if he is pastor, then

has to start again for the next round of sermons, Bible studies, etc.

(We must admit that though the congregation might be satisfied, the

pastor hardly has proper time to meditate and study, because the

time scale is so tight. Thus he is not led by the Spirit, but by the

demands of the local church structure).

In all this there is very little desire or heart searching, and no

real intention to reform one‟s life, because it is all so mechanical. We

all say we want to be reformed, but none of us really means it. If we

did, the whole Church would glow as a light on a hill!

The opening prayer is generally very broad. That is, vague

and often a repetition of last week‟s opening prayer. If the prayer is

uttered by a visiting preacher, then he cannot possible know the local

situation and so cannot pray intelligently. Hymns are strategically

inserted to stretch the legs. I know it because many preachers have

admitted it to me!

The first hymn is sung…but who understands the words? Who

sings them with intense spiritual commitment? Who even remembers

the words of the first verse when they reach the last verse? Who has

bothered to look at each hymn to see if it is theologically and

Biblically sound? Are the hymns chosen for a specific God-led

reason – or because they fit the theme of the sermon and the tunes

are nice? And are they sung with a heart-felt „amen‟, or sung just

because everyone must sing at that point? Be honest – these are

genuine questions, are they not?

The reading: Is everyone listening? Does anyone have a

Bible? Do they listen to the whole reading and consider its contents

as the speaker continues? Does it have any impact at all on the

hearer? Does the member drift off…looking at others, becoming

blank, drooping the eyes, thinking of something else?

The sermon – what exactly is a sermon? What is its aim and

purpose? Has its subject and content been impressed upon the

preacher directly by the Holy Spirit, and must he preach it because

his very soul is burdened by it? I doubt it very much.

Most „full-time‟ paid pastors have no time to contemplate their

breakfast, let alone the entire content of everything they say and do!

Has the man written his notes in such a way as to agree with the

„Geneva Pulpit method‟? This usually means having no more than

three points (an Arminian idea used by Calvinists!). Or is the whole

message from God?

135





Will the preacher finish what he is saying when he realises his

own mind and will are taking over? I doubt it very much! Few have

that kind of courage. Will he speak for as long as the Holy Spirit

requires – or for as long as it takes for the Sunday roast to cook?

It seems strange to me that every sermon lasts for exactly the

same amount of time! God is either very structured…or, more likely,

the preacher is spinning it out to reach the end, or he is cutting bits

out to finish before eyebrows are raised and people look at their

watches! All sound familiar? It should, because these things go on

everywhere, all the time.

Is the congregation actually listening? Maybe the preacher

has attended his college course on „preaching techniques‟, in which

case he will see from yawns and shutting eyes when to raise his

voice, or when to lower it. When to pause and when to be excited. All

of this is „technique‟. How far this all is from someone like, say,

Jonathan Edwards, who was so short-sighted he read everything in a

monotone from notes, with his face up against the paper. One is

Man-led, the other is Spirit-led.

Do people change their ways after hearing the sermon? Or, do

they just think the sermon is something they have to endure? For our

own part, some time after leaving the „system‟, my wife and I realised

that what we actually missed was „a good sing-song‟!

Many people enjoy the singing, but think the sermon and the

prayers are boring. It is far too easy to blame the people for being

faithless…but could it be that God has not given the message to the

preacher, day in, day out? And that is why people think more of the

singing than of the message?

And the „long‟ pre-sermon prayer? Is it the usual „around the

world‟ prayer, saying everything yet nothing? Does it talk in vagaries?

Has every word been prompted by the Holy Spirit? Is it just an

example of the preacher‟s eloquence? Do people go to sleep or

struggle to stay awake?

Yes, we must ask ourselves about the spiritual state of the

congregation also…but we cannot absolve the preacher. More

importantly, has the prayer been sanctioned and given by God? If

not, then should not the preacher just shut up?

K. The Prayer Meeting

What is a prayer meeting? (See the more detailed chapter on

this topic). Nowhere in scripture do we find what is now known as a

„prayer meeting‟! Not only are they not found in scripture – but they

are actually unscriptural. No doubt this will sound absurd to those

familar with the reformed position.

Reformed preachers point to scripture and say that there is

plenty of evidence that early Christians met specifically and regularly

for prayer meetings. But this is not true. Certain factors leap from the

pages of scripture to say otherwise.

For example, the only time people met for prayer was when

each one of them was individually led by the Holy Spirit to meet.

They did not meet for the fun of it, or because it had been written on

a yearly planner, or because it was the „right thing to do‟. They met

136





for a very specific, urgent and serious purpose. There was a Spirit

initiated-and-led aim.

And the prayer was very specific, not wavering or mentioning

everything under the sun! Furthermore, before the people met, each

was given the reason for the prayer, and each was given exactly the

same prayer, by the Spirit (not by the pastor). That is how they could

be unified in their prayer, and that is how they could pray „as one‟.

None of this occurs today! Today, a prayer meeting is called

the „crux‟ or „hub‟ of local church life. Yet, there is not a shred of

evidence given in support of this view (see Appendix in response to

Dr Peter Masters)!

Prayer meetings are planned not just yearly, but as a

permanent feature. Immediately, this tells us that the Holy Spirit is

not in the idea. Such meetings are obviously not specific or urgent,

but formal and man-led. They tell us that Man has deemed it right to

call on God to be there on a weeknight, from seven to eight (very

Arminian and very Roman Catholic)!

In scripture we find the complete opposite – God calls men

and women together whenever He requires them to meet! This is not

regular, there is no set time scale, and no requirement placed upon

everyone; only on those whom He calls to meet.

The content of many prayer meetings is usually determined by

suggested prayer lists given by the pastor (or the so-called „prayer

leader‟). Pastors are known to stop some from praying, or to cut

prayers to a „suitable‟ length. Prayers start at a certain time and

usually finish by a certain time. This is a man-made time-table, not

the prompting of the Holy Spirit!

And when prayers are not „guided‟ by the „leader‟, they consist

of an ever-decreasing list of possible subjects…When the first person

prays, the second person tries to think of something not already said

by the first person. The third person then tries to avoid whatever the

first and second persons have already said. So, if the prayer meeting

is full, the people who have to pray toward the end start to feel

ecidedly uneasy, as they desperately try to think of something else

to say!! (This is not speculation – it happens).

It is also a fact that whilst a few members are „natural‟ pray-

ers, the rest find it hard to think of anything to say and they feel

forced to speak. This is especially the case when prayers start at one

end of a line and continue until each person has spoken.

This tells us several things. Firstly, the „natural‟ ones are

probably only naturally eloquent and they enjoy speaking in public.

Secondly, if others feel forced to pray or find they have nothing to say

but they try anyway, then God has not called them to speak at all.

More importantly, it shows that He has not called them all together

for prayer in the first place.

Jesus said that we must pray in private, in our „closet‟. This

single powerful argument should be enough to still the voices of

ardent prayer-meeting folk. He said that the Pharisees loved to pray

out loud in public, but we must not be like them!

137





The only time we read of public prayers is when a man of God

prays once as a representative of the people. The only time we read

of people gathering for prayer, is when God has given each one of

them exactly the same (single) subject, at exactly the same time, and

for an urgent reason. There is not even a specific reason found in

scripture for those who pray having to be in the same room or

geographical area!

True prayer is uttered by a man or woman who has been

prompted by the Holy Spirit to speak. What the person has to say is

for God‟s ears, not our own. That is why it must be in our „closet‟.

K. The Reverend Thing

A vast number of pastors use the title „Reverend‟. I have heard

their reasons, but they simply do not hold water. The word „reverend‟

is found only once in the whole of scripture, and it is used to describe

a particular characteristic of God Himself. So, how can a mere man

use it as a title?

Others, at least trying to be more scriptural, make the mistake

of using „pastor‟ as a title instead. But scripture is very down-to-earth

about all this! A man who calls himself „pastor‟ may as well call

himself „reverend‟, because the intention is exactly the same.

Nowhere in scripture do we find „officers‟ (who therefore

require some kind of title, such as „Chief Priest‟, etc). We only have

„offices‟. The first describes the person, and the latter describes what

he does within the local church. In scripture the pastor is supposed to

be the servant of all. But today, he is the boss or manager of a local

church, or even of an entire denomination! In scripture, a pastor is

only a sub-shepherd. Today, he is the one who all must listen to

whatever he says or does. He has real power.

In scripture the pastor is subservient to the Lord Jesus Christ

and has only delegated authority. Today, pastors think their authority

is all their own.

In scripture pastors are called by God. Today, they are

„ordained‟ by Bible colleges, or by other „reverends‟ or „pastors‟, or by

denominations. There is so much we could say about this error!

In scripture, a pastor is only one of the local congregation, and

he can also be known as the bishop or overseer, an elder, a

presbyter, etc. These are not titles, only descriptions of the task they

perform within the local church. Every Christian has his or her own

calling, but they are not given titles!! The pastor is not greater than,

or above, the local congregation…he is simply another member, of

equal standing. Any authority he has is delegated, so he has none of

his own.

K. Pastors, Elders and Deacons

Most local churches have unbiblical hierarchies. A usual

hierarchy is: pastor, elder, deacon. Under these come lesser mortals,

such as Sunday School teachers, Bible class leaders, etc. We find

none of this nonsense in scripture!

The „man in the pew‟ (a term that itself indicates an hierarchy)

looks „up‟ to the pastor. The elders are the „spiritual‟ leaders who are

next-down to the pastor. Yet, in scripture, an elder IS a pastor!! They

138





are exactly the same thing! So, to have a line of „elders‟ under the

pastor is nonsense.

„Under‟ the elders or the pastor come the deacons…often the

most powerful body of people in any local church. Yet, in scripture,

the deacons are merely the folk who do the menial tasks on behalf of

the church! The current set-up is definitely not found in scripture.

Deacons are not „more spiritual‟ nor are they spiritual leaders

of the church. Yet how many times do we find deacons making

decisions concerning the government of a local church? How many

times do we see them appointing or even sacking pastors? How

many times do they „stand for office‟ as though they were leaders?

How many times do deacons lead this or that service or meeting as a

matter of right? None of this is in scripture!

The present structure means that folk think deaconship is the

first rung on the ladder of promotion…then comes „elder‟ and then –

only if they attend an approved Bible college and are „ordained –

comes the top prize of all…pastor. Each of these poorly perceived

offices is held in high regard for its status, power and authority.

Subservience to the Lord, and humility, are rarely found.

It is often the case, too, that local pastors act as travelling

evangelists. This is most odd, for evangelism is not usually the

province of a pastor, because the pastorate is a totally different

calling. The pastor‟s sole task is to look after the spiritual well-being

of a saved congregation. The evangelist is called to preach to lost

souls and to „make Christians‟. This is not the task of the local pastor.

Nor is it his task to marry and bury local unbelievers, or to christen

their babies!

Thus the pastor‟s role is confined to those who are saved,

within the local church. So, the usual split services on Sundays

(morning „teaching‟, and evening „evangelism‟) are completely wrong

and unbiblical if they are undertaken by the pastor. If unbelievers

decide to enter a meeting of Believers in a „service‟ then they must

adapt to it…the pastor must not alter his task to suit the unbeliever

(the ultimate version of this is called a „seeker friendly service‟ where

the supposed - and misconceived – „need‟ of the lost is considered

superior to the actual need of local Christians to be fed spiritually).

K. Meeting Together

We are commanded to meet together. But what we have

today is a highly structured social gathering with its own sub-groups,

rules and aims. Inevitably, Christians have much in common. Sadly,

though, today what they have in common is anything but a Biblical

pattern.

Scripture says very little about what we should do when we

meet together. Yes, we ought to meet together for communion, but

scripture does not make this a separate service. In scripture it is

usually part of a light meal. Yes, we ought to meet for Bible study,

because Bible teachers are appointed by the Spirit.

The pastor, too should be „apt to teach‟ – though this does

NOT mean he must hog all the teaching classes! It simply means he

139





should have an ability to teach – which may, or may not, be „better‟

than that of the teacher.

We should indeed meet together, but this is a very general

Biblical command. That is, we meet because we are fellow believers

and NOT necessarily to have a „service‟ or to do anything in

particular. We meet because there are so very few of us, and we

need each other as brethren. We meet to discipline and to rebuke,

exhort and to teach, to help each other and to ensure we do not go

off at a tangent.

None of this makes it necessary for us to meet anywhere in

particular. We can meet in a field, or in a barn, or in a house, or in a

larger building built for the purpose. It does not matter where we

meet.

The only reason I can see for us to meet in a large building we

refer to as a „church‟ is if there are large numbers that cannot

physically meet in anything smaller. If numbers are small, there is no

reason whatever why Christians should not meet in a house.

Sadly, many reformed men think „house‟ churches are

somehow inferior to the „formal‟ kind. They also tend to wrongly

mistake all house churches as being charismatic or of the „house

church movement‟. They think that such churches are not „real‟

churches.

Unfortunately, even „ordinary members‟ have the same

prejudices that cannot be supported by scripture. Scripture tells us

that the „church‟ exists wherever two or three are gathered together

(for any reason).



The Major Problem

The above are only a few examples of reformationism. There

are many more. They are, though, just symptoms of an underlying

problem. After many years observation and having personal

involvement, I believe the real, underlying problem is as follows:

Reformationists are saved people. They love to refer back to

the Reformers and the Puritans. They respect the Reformation period

and they revere the Reformers; many of whom lost their lives as

martyrs. There is nothing at all wrong with these things, but

reformationists go a stage further and are only a short step away

from becoming cult-like.

This is because they love the Reformation, but they rarely

apply it as a principle to live by and rarely continue reformation of

their own lives, beliefs and churches. On top of this stagnation, there

are hundreds of years of human tradition and human teachings. It is

common for reformed people to mix scripture and reformed teaching.

That is, the teachings of men. The culmination of this is to insist on

being called „Calvinistic‟ or „Reformed‟.

Reformed men all think like each other, and base what they

think on other reformed men‟s ideas. It does not occur to them that

they ought instead to rely only on scripture (though their preaching

probably extols it, week by week)! What is scriptural thinking?

140





Firstly, it is the reading of scripture as it is written. For

Reformed men this is harder than it seems! They think it means

tacking-on to scripture what reformed writers have said. Almost

without exception Reformed preachers use reformed literature plus

scripture when preparing sermons etc. And if anyone dares to write

articles or books not using reformed writers as references, they are

deemed to be inadequate!

Yet, this is not scriptural. God requires us to read His word

alone when making our judgements and when preparing teaching

materials. The work of other reformed men is adequate for

comparative purposes, but they must not be used as equal to

scripture.

Secondly, texts must be read in their contexts. I have heard

many reformed preachers preach this very truth! But, they cannot

take that vital step of relying only on scripture. For this reason they

tend always to use the works of other reformed men as „expert

witnesses‟ for what they preach. In many cases, these works become

substitutes for Spirit-given Biblical interpretation, and so traditions are

made.

Thirdly, all Biblical words and texts must be interpreted by

scripture itself. This is probably the biggest part of the problem. To

interpret properly is to see what the original languages say the words

mean, and to give these meanings only. As is usual, most Biblical

words can have a variety of different meanings, so they must be

„qualified‟. In reformed circles this often leads to personalised

interpretations without any reference to scripture at all! The inevitable

result of this kind of poor reading is to „spiritualise‟ texts, forcing them

to mean something quite different to what their real meaning is.

Finding the true meaning is time-consuming, but certain

factors must be borne in mind…it is a rule of scripture reading, that

we must read a text as it is written. We must accept the meaning to

be literal unless the context suggests otherwise. We must use the

most obvious meaning unless the text and context suggest

otherwise.

An important factor in finding the correct interpretation is the

context. An excellent example of how important this is, is the reading

of John 3:16. By restricting one‟s reading of the text to its immediate

verse Arminian heresy is conceived, and „world‟ is taken to mean „the

whole world‟. From this comes the supposedly scriptural teaching of

universal salvation.

However, if the entire chapter is read (along with the whole of

scripture) a totally different interpretation appears. It is true that

„world‟ can mean the whole world, because this is a meaning of

„world‟ in the Greek. BUT – „world‟ in the Greek also has several

other meanings! One of these is „the saved only‟. We know that this

is the proper interpretation of 3:16 NOT because I say so, but

because that is what the context tells us! Thus, scripture has

interpreted itself.

But what happens when we cannot tell the actual meaning

even from the context? Well, if the context does not reveal the

141





meaning, we must look at it against the whole of scripture. And if a

meaning still does not make itself obvious, we must just accept that

we do not have a precise meaning.

Interestingly, when I reach such a juncture and check with

reformed writers and commentators, they have come to exactly the

same conclusions about the same words and phrases! That is

usually the only time I resort to other writers and, even then, what

they have to say must agree with the tone of all of scripture.

Otherwise, I reject what is said, or treat it as merely an opinion.

Fourthly, the genuine teacher of scripture is given his office by

God and his „prophecies‟ are from the Holy Spirit. („Prophecy‟ here

means expounding scripture and applying it to modern day living).

Many reformed preachers think they are called to be teachers, when

they are not. They take their „prophetic‟ teaching out of reformed

books. The true teacher of God‟s word interprets correctly (as above)

and applies his prophetic role to the scriptural meanings to build up

the Church.

It is rare to find the above scriptural thinking in reformed

churches. Instead, we find scripture mixed with reformed writings as

a basis for interpreting scripture. We also find much „spiritualising‟,

which is really an abomination, for it is the excuse of the uncalled to

invent stories with human meanings.

Another problem in reformed circles is that many reformed

preachers and teachers are not called to their office. They have

assumed office and so the Lord is not with them in what they do. I

have heard countless numbers of these men! I do not hesitate to say

that many in the pulpits today should not be there, because they are

not called by the Holy Spirit to speak. There is no slur on their

character; they have just mistaken a personal choice for God‟s

calling.

Linked with this is the bad habit of those who are called, of

speaking on a regular basis and wherever they are called to speak.

Has the Spirit actually called them to speak at every venue? From

what I have heard, I doubt it very much. The man called of God will

speak only when prompted to do so, and will shut up when the Spirit

has finished. This is not found in reformed circles.

It is now about time that the reformed lived scripturally instead

of reformedly, Spirit-led and not Calvin-led. In this is the only antidote

to a spiritual sickness that is rampant within reformed churches…a

sickness unrecognised by most though the signs are obvious.





About the Author

K. B. Napier lives in Swansea, UK. His special interest is

doctrine and the way it is presented. A preacher/Bible teacher since

the 1960‟s, he founded the Christian Research Institute in 1985, but

changed its name to more accurately reflect its work. Thus, it

became Bible Theology Ministries (BTM).

142





This consists mainly of several newsletters, issued freely, and

articles covering a variety of subjects. There is also a major

theological website, christiandoctrine.net with a growing number of

readers, and a newer website offering studies of Bible books, verse

by verse, thebiblelives.com

K. B. Napier has written hundreds of articles, a book on

nursing in 1984, science scripts for radio, and a book on

disfellowship in 2004 called „The Left Boot of Fellowship‟

(Authorhouse). This latter book was based on his doctorate in

theology dissertation and is probably the first to cover the subject of

excommunication in readable format.





Bible Theology Ministries



Bible Theology Ministries (BTM) was set up in 1985 after a

long gestation period. It began its work with an explosive summary of

the then new AIDS problem. At first, the founders were side-tracked

into using their own methodology, and the new ministry almost died

after a few years. Following repentance, it was revived by God into

its current work.

The work is a definite ministry, given for the building up of the

Body of Christ, the Church, through the proper study of scripture as it

is written, and a suggested way of observing and interpreting what

happens in our day.



The work of the ministry (BTM) is reviewed by, and under the

constant eye of the church pastured by K. B. Napier, BTM co-

workers, and those who read its literature.

BTM has no formal links with any other group, denomination

or para-church organisation, believing that in standing alone as

called, it is better able to retain its integrity. It does have informal

links, however, with many who share the same kind of vision and

work. BTM expenses are partially borne by K. B. Napier and co-

workers of BTM, and partially by subscribers, who kindly send

donations.



The Beacon

This is our main newsletter, published monthly. It contains comments

on the news and Christian matters. Sent to subscribers only.



BTM News

A newsletter sent to all subscribers on an occasional basis.

Gives updates on BTM work and personnel etc.



Charismatica

Available during the time of the Toronto Blessing – comments on

charismatic errors. No longer published, but back copies (17 in total)

143





are available, 65p each incl. p+p (UK). Useful as a background

commentary to that time.



Outlines

These are single sheet, two-sided articles, giving introductory

comments on a wide variety of Biblical and Christian topics.



Articles

Longer articles with detailed Biblical teachings. One section deals

with verse-by-verse teaching on books of scripture. Titles are added

regularly.



Speaking Engagements

All requests are carefully considered. There are no fees, but

actual and direct expenses should be met. Donations may, or

may not, be offered, but are not demanded or expected.





Christiandoctrine.net

The BTM also operates its ministry on the internet. This facility

contains additional material, including regularly updated comments

on news items and a section for „seekers‟. At this time the site is still

being constructed, as hundreds of documents have to be transferred

to it. Many titles are already available.



Thebiblelives.com

Verse-by-verse studies of whole Bible books. This website is being

constructed slowly, but there are already many available books.

Those interested may receive studies each Sunday, as they are

produced. Request to be placed on the Sunday studies mailing list

(main website).









Petra eBooks