Featured Naming names

If a person disagrees on matters of charismatic thinking, eschatology and soteriology, that doesn't necessarily translate to teaching heretical views - the matter of such discussions must resolve to the validity of Scriptures and if one can by Scriptures show support for the view.

The OP assumes that those on the list violate Scriptures, yet does not provide a single documentation of such violations.


The statement from the OP:

Here is the list again so that each one can be shown by the author of the OP as a "false teacher" a heretic a deceiver of the brethren, one who is condemned to eternal flames.

Joel Osteen

Benny Hinn

Zane Hodges

Charles Finney

Rob Bell

Brian Mc Claren

Herbert Armstrong

Kenneth Copeland

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Joseph Prince

What Scriptural proof has this thread of now 7 pages offered?

NONE!

So either the author of the OP is violating Scriptures by bringing unsupported allegations, or the BB is to keep tolerating undocumented character assassination.

TWICE, I called in this thread for proof that Chafer should be labeled as a false teacher, and there is no response.

It shouldn't be that hard for the matter to be resolved. Chafer was extremely well known in both hemispheres, highly respected theologian, a prolific writer, and a scholar. So, one should find abundant statements that he made that were worthy of not just condemnation, but appoint the man to the eternity of eternal torment as a heretic.

I am somewhat taken back that the authorities on the BB did not immediately stop the thread and either allow the author to edit, remove, or if obstinate they take the matter of snipping or deleting the thread.

ESPECIALLY when not a single word of Scriptural evidence against ANYONE on the list was or has been given on all the pages.

For the record, I am not supporting anyone on the list. I am calling into question the list of names, the association as a group as all being false teachers, and the agenda behind the OP.

I am merely asking what the OP actually desires:

 

A stupid old man reply would have covered it! ;-)

 

When it comes to Soteriology, I would probably say this differs from a charismatic tendency and our Eschatology.

If someone gets this wrong, we have good reason to be diligent to try to correct those errors. When someone teaches them, likewise we have a responsibility to name names. We can't help people if we say it's okay to undermine the Faith of Christ and teach that salvation is a joint operation between God and man. And more people have that mentality than we might imagine. Many say they are trusting in Christ, yet fell they can somehow corrupt His Work through their own efforts or lack thereof. That is heresy, but, I think we have to consider the effect of indoctrination in the hearts of believers who have been taught, or brought up under strong teaching that is not tempered with the Truth of the Gospel. And just like matters eschatological, one who is saved can hold to an erroneous position and still be saved. That is the reason why we disciple new believers, so that the truth they were shown by God and responded to can be matched to an understanding of what Scripture teaches.

In regards to the second statement I quoted, I agree wholeheartedly. Simply casting accusations does not present a just manner in which false teaching and false teachers should be dealt with. If we think we can just tell someone, "They are wrong," and the person we tell that to should take our word for it, then we are engaging in the same approach of the false teacher (who cannot present a Biblical Basis for their teaching), essentially seeking to teach on an intellectual plane, which means all we are doing is changing minds.

And if you can change someone's mind, someone can come right behind you...and change it back.

Only when we present truth with a Biblical Basis can we expect that necessary function we do not possess...the changing of the heart. Only God can do that, and He is not going to use false teaching to accomplish this.

So when we make an accusation of false teaching, we should then from Scripture show why we believe the teaching to be false. Until our case is presented, we are no better than the false teachers we rebuke.


God bless.

 

The basic BAPTIST soteriology view, whether Arminian or Calvinist, share much of the same ground. I would suggest that BOTH Finney and Chafer would also hold to the same ground with the typical Baptist Faith and Message.

• They agree that Christ is the only when it comes to salvation.
  
• They agree that salvation is "by grace through faith and not of works."
• They agree that those without Christ are not saved and will spend eternity in torment.
  
• They agree that there is no mediator between God and man but Christ.
• They agree that work without faith is as dead as faith without works.

What they disagree is the action of the players or parts, but the disagreement is not heretical teaching.

• One may consider (as I do) that there is no freedom of the will, while a majority may not.
• One may consider (as I do) that the intellect, will, emotions, proclivity... of the lost is completely darkened, and has no desire to seek God, much less understand God. The majority may not.
• One may consider (as I do) that God gives to the Son every person who will ever be drawn to Christ, and that person will become a believer. The majority may not.
• One may consider (as I do) that the believer will persevere and be preserved not only in this life but unto the next. Most Baptists do.
• One may consider (as I do) that God has placed a limit of atonement not upon the blood, but the ability to respond as shown in His temporary blinding of the Jews. There are many who do not limit or find the limit applied by other terms.

What the OP seeks is to defame by association and associating those that certainly may treat soteriology and eschatology extra biblical with those who may not.

Therefore, the my call to separate out the "names" and prove by Scriptures and by the documentation of the teaching of those named who is not following the Scriptures.

For example: I do not support nor agree with some of the teaching of Finney. His views on believers being able to be perfect in this life was inconsistent as well as his admitting that his view on irresistible grace were inconsistent.

Yet, the man did hold very firmly to salvation by grace through faith, and not of any other work man could do. He was also (as many Arminian Baptists) one who considered that God caused the will of man to change impressing upon that person the urgency and call of Christ to salvation. Even some Calvinist folks agree with this thinking that God causes a change in the will, (I do not). Not all of Finney was evil and rises to the level of condemning the man to the eternal flames as a heretic. As a lawyer trained preacher, he (just as Falwell) considered one of the ultimate goals of the gospel was to change society.

Here is an article on The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael Horton. It lays out some of Finney's quotes and uses that proper documentation to draw his conclusions. This is an example of what should have been done at least in part by the OP for every name listed. But it wasn't.

So, the question must be WHY did the OP place the names of two long dead people among those listed?

Especially in the light of no documentation of violations of Scriptures accompany the "calling out." That as I first posted would indicate an agenda.

 

I don't really see this as relevant to what I said, though it does give a good example of why someone would be called out.

You say...

...and I have to stop you right there, because there is a world of difference in the Soteriology of these two groups. They do not, in any way, share the same knowledge of salvation.

Not as it is popularly taught today, and that is where you and I are, my friend, dealing with the interpretations of these teachers, rather than the teachings of these teachers themselves.

We cannot equate a view that, though it has a few problems, presents a clear statement that stands in direct confrontation with the other view, which imposes cooperation on the part of men. Arminian soteriology, particularly as taught by the interpreters of Arminius (and even that stands in question because I think few bother to actually examine what Arminius actually taught)...inevitably reaches a works-based mentality. It endorses a view that indeed presents Christ as a Savior, but leaves man to maintain that salvation.

This is where it leads.

You can't do that with a Calvinistic view.

So I do not agree with this...

We nullify "Christ is the Only" when we substantiate the false doctrine of loss of salvation. This changes Christ from Savior to starting point. It changes Him from The Way to simply a sign standing by The Way.

So a Baptist claim that teaches loss of salvation cannot be considered...

Again, it means more to being a Baptist than immersing people in water. We look at the reason for that immersion, and all relevant doctrine associated with it.

So when we look at the Baptists of History, can we identify them based solely on those who took upon themselves the name of Baptist? Why was John called a Baptist? Was his ministry simply a matter of performing that ritual, or do we consider his doctrine? That which he was commissioned to do?

So while the history books may label certain men and groups Baptist, I do not see them as being Baptists in reality. Any time one intermingles doctrine which stands in contrast to that group's doctrine, they invalidate themselves. Are charismatic and Pentecostal fellowships with names like "Bible believing Baptist Church" actually Baptists? Do you believe in Charismatic Baptists? Do they equate with historical Baptists? We might find some Bapticostals in the history books, lol, but that doesn't mean they are Charismatic according to a modern understanding of the term.

So again, I don't see this response as relevant to what I said, which had to do with Soteriological views. I think one can differ in Eschatology, and even disagree in regards to cessation, or have differing views in regards to the Ministry of the Holy Ghost.

But we cannot equate groups that differ in Soteriological views, particularly when the end result are Soteriologies which teach two entirely different things.


God bless.

 

I addressed this. It shouldn't be done.

As far as having an agenda...don't we all?

If we don't...why are we even here?

We should have an agenda, and I can see a sincerity in the agenda of the OP (and DO NOT take this to mean I am following the advice of another member and only seeing the good, lol) which I think is typical for all of us, and that agenda is derived from the preaching of nearly every preascher in every congregation that professes the Name of Christ: a desire to see men saved.

The resulting hatred for false doctrine is not a product of our own agendas, it is the product of what Scripture teaches.

All Prophets and Teachers of the Word hated false doctrine, and named names. If someone names names unjustly, well, if you have a problem with that, confront them. That's just the proper course of action for us.


God bless.

 

All you have stated is spot on but the members on the Church Roll that do seek to follow God have, repeatedly, been attacked y the wolves in sheep's clothing until they, almost, never raise an alarm today.

They have been working to be Secret Service Christians so long they have destroyed their witness. The, better than, ninety-eight percent of the Membership Roll that is not saved, not wanting their "personal" sins revealed have, long ago silenced the less than two percent that are saved, making them invalid, in the service they are called to in the last three verses of Matthew.

And, of course, when we look at Jesus instructing us to judge/discern the fruits of men to find them out, it causes concern for me because the Christian is all about giving ripe fruit away and the steady picking of the fruit causes more fruit to grow and to ripen, so... is one not spreading the Gospel and not working to protect the Baby and the New Christian saved?

Life experiences and their explanation to me by the Holy Spirit over these past twenty-six plus years have been an eye opening experience.

ut one thing is certain, as long as the Benny Hinns are loosed on this world, people that choose service to the LORD will be attacked.

May God bless you and yours.

 

And I think we need to look to Scripture to get an idea of where we need to start in addressing issues regarding the failures of the Church: the leadership.

The state of the Body of Christ, both tares and wheat, is a direct result of the leadership they sit under.

Not excusing their/our responsibility, just acknowledging an important aspect of the problem.

I once saw a video (posted by an Atheist for the purpose of ridiculing the Church as a whole) where if I remember correctly Benny Hinn's daughter was "preaching." Her message?

"You need a Holy Ghost enema."

It is no wonder many atheists don't want to have anything to do with such absurd and ludicrous notions. But if no-one is there to point out the error, that kind of thing goes unchecked, and the Name of Christ is blasphemed for the faults of the people.

Today we have a broader field than any other generation before us. We can go online and instantaneously be in foreign lands, preaching the Gospel. Yet few take advantage of that field.

Doesn't mean all leadership should be condemned, because there are some phenomenal Christian leaders out there, both publicly known as well as in individual fellowships. All of us have a responsibility to be doing what we can.


God bless.

 

The extremes positions of either Calvin or Arminian are not of the truth, and is not what is presented in my statement.

To review by example: BOTH the Calvinistic and Arminian view take belief at face value. That one must believe or they are lost. Now it happens that I agree with the thinking that is of the Doctrines of Grace, however that does not preclude me from understanding that those who don't hold to the same 5 points, or have, as I, modified them to fit what may be considered more consistently with the Scriptures should not be deemed as false teachers.

If one teaches salvation is by "grace through faith and that it is not of ourselves" and they reject "reformed" thinking, they are not by default teaching a "false doctrine."
That was the point of the post.

I attempted (poorly it seems) to show that there are areas of agreement between the two "camps."

As it relates to Finney, he was brought up a Presbyterian. He knew the Calvinistic thinking, and actually continued in some areas with that influence in his teaching. Where he did not, he may have been correct, or he may not. But the OP has no desire to investigate the truth, or the temperament of the OP would reflect a more teachable attitude.

Did Chafer or Finney teach that a believer could loose their salvation? In fact, if you keep reading, you will find documentation that both did NOT teach such.

Baptist churches are not Church of God folks. There are distinctions, and yet agreements. If one doesn't recognize areas of agreement, how can one point out with clarity the distinctions.

For example: Finney considered that a believer could grow to the place that they are sinless - that is perfect. Yet, he did recognize that one might still occasionally sin.

If I were to major on just his thinking of perfection and not present that he also did apparently understand that no one actually makes it, then who is the truth teller?

For example:
If I present the gospel and urge the listeners to believe, am I not following the Scriptures? Am I not presenting what BOTH camps hold?

If I present that all that do not believe are condemned, already, am I not following the Scriptures? Am I not presenting what BOTH camps hold?

If I also state that the human will is manipulated by God so that a lost person will be drawn to Christ, am I not presenting what BOTH many in the Arminian and Calvin camps believe? Both use the term "prevenient" or "preceding" grace. But this teaching is (imo) error.

For the record, I DO NOT consider that the old will is some how manipulated, but that Christ installs a whole new nature including a new will to serve and follow Him. I consider that those who proclaim such a grace as prevenient / preceding grace are either misinformed, untaught, or embracing tradition over Scriptures. So, I disagree with folks in both camps on this matter. Should I claim that anyone teaching differently than what I teach is a false teacher?

Chafer was Congregational. Was he a false teacher because he wouldn't agree with my views on the Doctrines of Grace? What Baptist distinctives would Chafer or Finney reject? Finney rejected the presbyterian authority structures, but his reasons were not strictly over Scripture doctrines as much as the heart of an evangelist.

They both (Finney and Chafer) taught perseverance / preservation of the believers, which is usually more peculiar to Baptist and Congregational churches.

Finney states about repentance, "True repentance is such a thorough change of feelings, and the individual who exercises it comes so to abhor sin, that he will persevere of course, and not go and take back all his repentance and return to sin again." (Lectures to Professing Christians, "True and False Repentance," pg. 119)

He goes on to show in that same book that a failed repentance leads to a failed salvation and true repentance leads to salvation and that salvation is displayed in a change of character (faith without works is dead).

Chafer also taught that believers are secure because salvation was a work of God.

I mention this, because you brought up the extreme Arminian view that presents salvation being in jeopardy and not permanent, which neither man taught, yet neither man would be considered a 5 point Calvinist.

So, why the claim in the OP that they are "false teachers?"

I just don't see them as in agreement with the others on that list presented in the OP. Rather, again, I take that the author is presenting a biased approach to the topic and yet still not providing supportive documentation.

I am not certain why you took a journey down this trail. I haven't found records that either Finney or Chafer were associated with charismatics - baptist or otherwise. If you run across some, please let me know so I can look over how their thinking was influenced.

The charismatic friends that I have would not have any problem being a member of a modern Baptist church. When I challenge their doctrines within the parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message statement(s), they are in agreement. But then, they don't make any issue with the hype of tongues, healing, wealth-health... and often are putt off by any that push some "gift" as some indication of being right or more specially anointed above others.

Again, if the OP list is to be taken as presenting factual characterization of false teachers, then why would two that had no association with charismatics be included?

What is the end result of the most extreme Calvinistic thinking? Is it actually any more Scriptural than the extreme of the Arminian thinking? One leads to no need for evangelism and proclaiming exclusive rights to the kingdom of God, that God created evil, and gives no common grace to all, and the other leads to no belief in hell, and no one knowing for certain they are going to be in heaven, and a heavy reliance upon emotionalism and feelings above the truth of the Scriptures.

In your response, would you be willing to place all calvinistic thinking incorrect if it doesn't run to the extreme, as you would with the arminian thinking - that all arminians must run to the extreme - loose salvation, become pelagian...?

I wouldn't think you do. Rather, I have noticed that more often your posts are balanced and well thought out.

By acknowledging that there is extreme teaching that is not correct in the camps, then it follows that one can find on the spectrum of correctness that thinking of both Finney and Chafer. That neither was a "false teacher" as the OP would oblige one to appoint them by mere association in a list the author generated.

That point - that neither was a "false teacher," a heretic, condemned to dwelling in the flames for eternity - YET, that is EXACTLY what the OP is stating by "naming names" of those two.

 

There is also another group you leave out that called names. They were of the world, mocking, and opposing. There is no glory found in "naming names."

If the truth cannot stand on its own merits, naming names is not going to be a benefit.

I am not opposed to pointing out false doctrine. I am not opposed to strongly pointing out the foolishness that accompanies false doctrine.

God had two special tests for prophets and punishment for those who failed one or both.

I have spent time on this tread and EACH post I made, I pointed out the failure of the OP to properly address the DOCTRINE that is false. Rather, there is a list of names and by grouping the clearly false with others, then one is obliged to and even encouraged to agree and bring up others who are "false teachers."

First, it isn't the NAME of a person, it is the false doctrine that must be named.

Second, You agree, because in your post above, you clearly do not dwell upon "naming names" but draw attention to where the OP SHOULD have taken the thread - to the areas of False doctrine.

Leave the name calling out, and answer the fool according to the folly they would declare as wise. If one is to name a name when it comes to defamation of character or a teacher of false doctrine, it is to always be with the appropriate documentation showing both the teaching and the violation of the Scriptures.

 

And that is what I see as the failure in the presented statement...

Apparently you missed what I said...

Are you going to deny the correlation of losing salvation to Arminian adherents today? And the importance of the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security?


God bless.

 

An Oops Post.


God bless.

 

Not sure how I could have left them out, when false teachers pretty much cover that group as well.

Nor do we have a matter of "glory" in regards to naming names, it is a matter of countering false doctrine with Sound Doctrine, which does in fact glorify Christ.


God bless.

 

When you assign folks as false teachers are they not heretics?

I didn't make a false claim, nor did I lie. Perhaps that is your court of play when it comes to the OP. For you are now making a claim of not stating what you clearly state by using the term, "false teachers" for such are heretics.

Besides, you have not by Scripture and documents supported your OP, in fact you haven't supported it all during the course of this thread.

For the most part, your claims and placing two long dead among those alive who are charismatic is not just unwise, but unfounded.

IT, I spent time on this thread documenting both from Finney and Chafer. You may consider their teaching to raise to the level of heresy, I don't see it that way. I may not agree and think that some of their teaching may be misguided or uninformed, perhaps even biased, but definitely not raising to the level of heresy.

False teachers - heretics are condemned to the flames. Galatians 1 says,

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!​

By your very OP you are indeed proclaiming those on the list as "false teachers" condemned to the flames.

I don't place folks on ignore, doing so may allow for foolishness to be spread that can be hurtful to other believers. I encourage you to place me on ignore if you can't stand being pushed back when confronted with truth.

I have often said that my own posts are always open for correction should I overstate, take Scriptures out of context, do not render the Scriptures truthfully, or in my feebleness make some error.

If on this thread I have not posted what is true, then by all means, lift out that which I posted as documentation and make the appropriate corrections. Frankly, that is basically what I have done with the OP.

I wouldn't cross the street to visit with Falwell, Graham, Peale, Pike, Armstrong, McLarin, Jakes, Fosdick, and some others living and dead. I also do not hold exalted regard for Calvin, Augustine, Pelagius, Luther, Cranmer, and some others long dead. But I take from these (the last group listed) as what pertains to the truth in their writing for documentation. Some of their life and living I would reject, and some of their thinking (more so with some than others) I take as presenting the truth appropriately aligned with Scriptures. But each has value if no more than pointing out how wrong thinking leads to wrong doctrine (as in the case of Pelagius).

For example: John Wesley is recorded by a classmate (Richard Morgan) that

"Wesley;s teaching that lukewarm Christianity was the worst of all, worse than open sin: 'There is no medium in religion,' Wesley affirmed, '(and) a man that does not engage himself entirely in the practice of religion is in greater fear of deamnation than a notorious sinner.' ... 'I take religion to be, not the bare saying over so many prayers, morning and evening, in public or in private; not anything superadded now and then to a careless or worldly life; but a constant ruling habit of soul, a renewal of our minds in the image of God, a recovery of the divine likeness, a still-increasing conformity of heart and life to the pattern of our most holy Redeemer.'" (John Wesley: A Theological Journey by Kenneth J. Collins)​

Would I hold all that became of John Wesley's work in esteem? Of course not. Because the man was extraordinary in desire of God and service to God, remained friends with Calvinist friends such as Whitefield, and he would most certain strongly rebuking the flesh oriented church of this day.

One must be understanding then "naming names" to not associate the fringe extremist who teach a different gospel or the progeny that depart from the teaching, from those founders who were fervent in the service and love of the Lord. Harvard (named after John Harvard) and Yale (founded by colonial clergymen) were once schools that trained preachers and missionaries. I wouldn't send a harelipped camel to those places, today. The same with many once affiliated SBC schools. More often the progeny run to ruin when the leadership leaves. There are very few "survivors" who hold to the pure confessions of the original leader. More often they hold to a form rather than the substance.


To "name names" in a derogatory way must oblige the need for proper documentation that specifies exactly what that person taught. Certainly, with the prolific writing done by the theologian and also by the evangelist there is enough first hand proof that you could have used to label them as false teachers. Or perhaps not. Perhaps you are just being biased because your own perspective requires such a bias.

But without documentation, then bias is the front runner, and why I claim that the OP is laden with agenda.

If bias is not the driver of the agenda, and truth is, then documentation must be produced so that all may validate that the documentation is truthful and correctly applicable.