Archive

Posts Tagged ‘False Teaching’

The Romanist Oxford Tractarian Movement was the result of Wesley’s Arminianism

March 10, 2014 2 comments

“It is, of the very essence of historical falsehood,” writes Mr. MacQueen, “to declare that the Romanist Oxford Tractarian Movement was the heir of the Evangelical Revival, whereas it was the logical development from the false teaching of the Arminian Methodist John Wesley.” “Dr. J.H. Rigg says concerning John Wesley: ‘The resemblance of his practices to those of modern High Anglicans is, in most points, exceedingly striking… He inculcated fasting and confession and weekly communion; he refused the Lord’s Supper to all who had not been baptized by a minister episcopally ordained; he re-baptized the children of Dissenters; and he refused to bury all who had not received Episcopal baptism’ (‘Churchmanship of John Wesley’ pp. 28-29). The present writer is amazed at Evangelical Calvinists who say that while John Wesley was undoubtedly Arminian in his views, his brother Charles was Calvinistic. After a careful perusal of their lives and the views of both of them, I am thoroughly persuaded that they were both Arminian to the core, Charles’ hymns notwithstanding. Their false undermining Arminian teaching and influence weakened the Protestant witness against Popery in England and throughout the British Dominions, while Scotland itself was by no means exempt, and this evil free-willism, as a result, continues rife and rampant in professedly evangelical circles in England and Scotland, and the whole English-speaking world, to this day. While thus, the eighteenth Century Revival saved England from the ‘withering blight of Atheism, masquerading under the euphemistic name of Deism,’ it is a great mistake to confound Evangelicalism with Wesleyanism, or to imagine that Wesley and Whitefield both belonged to one Movement and preached the same Gospel. On the contrary, their teaching was diametrically opposed, free grace being Scriptural, while free-will is the illegitimate product of the carnal mind. Whitefield was… Calvinistic… while Wesley, and his associates, were Arminian, semi-Pelagian and Sacramentalist.

William MacLean-Arminianism-Another Gospel

A Simple Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:14

Charismatics are big on using this scripture to try and prove that there is a prayer language in tongues that cannot be understood by those who are praying. The fact is, however, that no such prayer language is ever revealed in scripture. When men spoke in tongues in the book of Acts they spoke in the languages of the nations. When Paul speaks of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 he is speaking of the gift of tongues that was manifested on the day of Pentecost or he is speaking of the pagan false god tongues that were being manifested atCorinth.

First I will say that those at Corinthwere using the same pagan gibberish that they were using down at the pagan temples. The terms lalein glossei/glossais (to speak in a tongue/in tongues) that Paul uses so frequently in chapter 14 were commonly used in his day to describe pagan ecstatic speech. Also Paul opened up the whole discussion on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 by saying, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” In other words those atCorinth were still being led by the dumb idols at the pagan temples. This is why Paul had to write to them. He had to rebuke them and straighten out their church worship. They were getting drunk and dancing into a frenzy till they passed out or went into a subconscious state. (Paul also dealt with this atEphesus see Ephesians 5:18).  While under these pagan ritual influences they would curse Christ in these ecstatic utterances. Paul told them that no one who truly has the Holy Spirit would ever curse Christ. If one truly has the Spirit he would call Christ Lord.

The whole letter to the Corinthians was a rebuke. Paul got onto the Corinthians for divisions, holding onto worldly knowledge above the scriptures, fornicating, going to law against one another, coming to church drunk, taking the Lord’s supper while drunk, despising the poor with the Lord’s supper, operating in pagan spiritual manifestations over and against the true worship of Christ, etc…. No one can convince me that those atCorinthwho were practicing all the fleshly stuff that they did were actually using gifts given by the Holy Spirit. Paul had to rebuke them time and again and remind them that their bodies were the temple of the Holy Spirit and not to be used in idolatrous practices.

Let’s now go to our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:1-14.

I have been asked by some why Paul used the word ‘unknown’ if the tongue was a language that could be known. My answer is that the King James translators supplied the word ‘unknown’ into the translation. This is why the word is italicized. Those who publish the King James Version will italicize the words in the translation that are not in the manuscripts that were used to translate the scriptures. These are words supplied by the translators. These words were added to make the sentences flow more smoothly. Therefore the word ‘unknown’ should be omitted from the text.

What I want to deal with today is the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 because there are Charismatics who think that Paul was saying that when he prayed his understanding was unfruitful. The reason Charismatics get this interpretation is because they take this one scripture out of the context of the entire chapter and interpret it by itself. This is wrong. When interpreting scripture we must leave scripture in context in order to understand what is being said. No one who reads the Newspaper, Comic Strips, Field and Stream Magazine, TV Guide, or any publication will take sentences out of context and make them say something that is foreign to the concept of what the author’s original meaning was. Yet when it comes to Holy writ men will take and dissect the Bible by pulling scriptures from context in order to prove their made up doctrines. This much said we will now begin to show what Paul was saying in the chapter of 1 Corinthians 14.

 

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

 

There should not have been a break between chapter 13 and 14. Paul is still speaking about the greatest of all gifts—charity (love).

 

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Charismatics read this and think that Paul is saying that the speaker is speaking in words that no one can know and therefore he is speaking mysteries to God. But this is a wrong interpretation. Let me give a correct interpretation.

The word ‘unknown’ was supplied by the translators and throws off the meaning of the text. Paul is discussing the right use of tongues, therefore these tongues would be defined as languages that people understood, but was unknown to those who heard it. This definition comes from the tongues which were used on the day of Pentecost. The Jews heard every man speak in their own language.

He that speaks in a foreign language (tongue) speaks not to men, unless there is an interpreter. This is why Paul later explains that one needs to pray to interpret the tongue. If no interpreter is present, then the speaker is speaking unto God and not man because what the speaker is speaking is a mystery. Therefore no one understands the speaker because he does not understand the language.

 

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

 

Paul shows the Corinthians that if one prophesies (preaches) he speaks to men to edification, exhortation, and comfort. But speaking in an unknown language does nothing.

 

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

 

A man that speaks in an unknown language edifies himself because he is built up in himself as the Spirit moves through him. But the man who prophesies edifies the church because they understand what he is saying.

 

1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

 

Charismatics believe that all who receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues. I argue that there is no second baptism. Paul states in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. If a man is not born of water and Spirit then he is not born again. Yet if he is born again, then he has the Holy Spirit.

This scripture disproves the Charismatics notion that all are to speak with tongues as evidence for the baptism. Paul here states that he wished they all could speak with tongues. The fact is that there were several there who manifested this gift because an apostle was present among them. Paul told them in 2 Corinthians 12:12 that truly the signs of an apostle were present among them. Only an apostle had the signs that proved that he was sent from God. Others who were claiming to speak in tongues were doing so by the power of the dumb idols that they used to worship at the pagan temples.

Paul explains that speaking in unknown languages is a lesser gift than preaching, unless you interpret what you are saying because no one understands you. But he that prophesies (preaches) edifies the whole church.

 

1Co 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

 

Now brothers, if I come speaking in tongues it will not profit you, unless I speak in languages that you know by speaking revelations, knowledge, preaching or doctrines to you, then you are not profited.

 

1Co 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

 

There are things in this world that have no life in and of themselves, but even when they are heard there is no profit or purpose in them, unless they bring forth sounds that have distinction such as musical instruments.

 

1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

 

If the bugler gives an uncertain sound on his bugle, then who will know that another army is approaching?

 

1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

 

If a man does not speak in a language that everyone understands, then what he says cannot be known and he just speaks into the air.

 

1Co 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

 

There are many kinds of voices in the world and they all have significance.

 

1Co 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

 

If two people meet who know different languages, then they cannot communicate and therefore are barbarians to one another.

 

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

 

Paul told the Corinthians that he knew that they were zealous of spiritual gifts, but that the gifts that they need are the ones that edify others. When someone speaks a word of comfort to a dear brother who is hurting, then he is edifying the dear brother.

 

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

 

Paul tells the Corinthians that if any man speaks in tongues or languages unknown by the hearer then the speaker needs to pray that he interpret it.

 

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

 

Charismatics rip this scripture from context and try to say that Paul is praying in an unknown language and his understanding of what he is saying is unfruitful or he doesn’t know what he is saying. But if this interpretation is correct then it fits nothing that Paul has said up to this point or nothing after it.

Interpreting this scripture with the one above we see that Paul says that if he prays in the assembly in a foreign language (tongue) and he does not interpret it, then the understanding of what he has said is unfruitful to all those who heard it. In other words, if I pray in a foreign language, my spirit prays, but my understanding to those who are present is unfruitful. See verse 16.

I will prove this interpretation with the next few verses.

 

1Co14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

 

I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray in the congregation so that I am understood. I will sing with my spirit, but I will sing so that I am understood. The reason I added the word ‘my’ is because Paul stated in verse 14 that he prayed with his spirit and not the Holy Spirit. Therefore in this verse when he states that he can pray with the spirit, then the word ‘my’ fits because he was praying with his spirit.

 

1Co 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

 

Paul states here that if a person prays in a foreign language ((tongue) and those in the room know not the language, then they understand not what has been spoken. Notice in verse 14 Paul states that his understanding is unfruitful. Charismatics say that Paul knew not what he was saying. But in this scripture we see that it wasn’t Paul’s understanding that was unfruitful, but the congregations understanding that is unfruitful, for Paul says that the congregation cannot say Amen because they understand not what you are saying.

 

1Co14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

 

If someone prays in a foreign language (tongue) they may pray well, but no one is edified. Why? Because no one knew what was said.

 

1Co14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

 

Paul said that he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians. This was because that the gift of tongues was the gift given to an apostle, whereby he could go into other cities and countries and preach the gospel in the language of the people without ever having learned the language.

 

1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

 

Paul said that he would rather speak five words with understanding among the congregation, than ten thousand words in a foreign language (tongues). The reason is simple; those who are present cannot be edified unless you speak in their language so that you are understood.

 

1Co14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

 

Paul tells the Corinthians that they used to be children in malice (evil), but now in understanding they are not to be children, but are rather to be men. So when one goes into a Charismatic church and they hear all this gibberish, then those speaking it are acting just like little children.

 

The commentaries that agree with my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:14:

John Calvin Commentary (1509-1564)

Geneva Bible of 1599

Dutch Annotated Bible by Theodore Haak 1657

Matthew Henry Commentary on Bible (1712-1714)

Adam Clarke Commentary on Bible 1825

Albert Barnes Commentary on Bible

John Gill Commentary on Bible (1697-1771)

Matthew Poole (1688) Poole had passed on by 1688, but his annotations were finished by others

John Trapp Commentary on New Testament 1656

John Wesley Commentary

Primitive Baptist Commentary

Charles Hodge Commentary on 1 Corinthians

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary

Self Interpreting Bible 1914

The King James Study Bible 1988

B. H. Carroll (1843-1914) Interpretation of the English Bible

John MacArthur’s Commentary on Bible 1997

The Reformation Study Bible 1995

 

I will say as I close that I know of one man in particular and also there are other examples that I have either read or heard about, who have went into Charismatic churches to test them and have spoken a language such as French, Hebrew, etc…. and then someone got up and supposedly interpreted what was said. The sad part was that when this happened the Charismatics were exposed as fraudulent because the one speaking the foreign language told the congregation what the true interpretation was. I warn you that you ought to be careful when you claim that you can speak a language that you do not know because God might expose you next.

 

Hershel Lee Harvell Jr.

 

Read my previous articles on “Today’s Charismatic Tongues Examined”.

Today’s Charismatic Tongues Examined Pt 1

Today’s Charismatic Tongues Examined Pt 2

Today’s Charismatic Tongues Examined Pt 3

Today’s Charismatic Tongues Examined Pt 4

 

Twisting of Scripture

The proper method of interpretation would be to exegete a scripture text. This means that a person would extract or draw out of a text of scripture the meaning of the text in its historical-grammatical setting. In other words exegesis is the critical interpretation of your text. The opposite of this view would be eisegesis. This method does not seek to extract from the text the meaning of the authors of the text, but this method seeks to read into the text a meaning that is foreign or does not exist in the text. This later method is erroneous and should never be used by those who interpret scripture.

Nevertheless when Charismatics come to a text of scripture they bring their preconceived biases with them and literally always read into the text something that the text never states. Today we are going to examine several texts of scripture and I will show how Charismatics usually interpret them and then give you a correct interpretation; one that is drawn out of the text itself instead of read into it.

Every time Charismatics see the terms ‘Spirit’ or ‘Power’ in the text it seems that all they can think of is spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, healing, miracles, and so forth. They never bother to try and interpret these terms in light of what the authors intended meanings were. This is because Charismatics are biased towards a certain view when they come to the text. Therefore they almost always read that bias into the text.

Let’s examine one scripture that is always misinterpreted by Charismatics concerning spiritual gifts.

 

Rom 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

 

Immediately when a Charismatic reads this text all they see is the term ‘spiritual gift’ and automatically think that Paul is speaking of giving the Romans some kind of supernatural gift that they can use. Yet if Paul is not telling the Romans this, then what is he saying? Let’s interpret the term ‘spiritual gift’ in light of the rest of the verse.

By using the words “For I long to see you” Paul says that he has a deep seated affection to see them in order to make them more confirmed in Christ. In other words he was desirous to see them in order that he might impart unto them a certain spiritual gift so that they might be rooted and established in the faith. This is not the spiritual gifts that are listed in 1 Corinthians 12, as supposed by Charismatics. Gifts of miracles, healing and tongues do not establish us in the faith. This was Paul’s desire that he might establish them in the things of God.

The ‘spiritual gift’ of which Paul thus speaks then is the preaching of the gospel which he planned to do as soon as he came. We can see that his intent towards them was to come and preach to them the gospel of God which he was separated unto. As he is closing this letter he explains this to them.

 

Rom 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

 

Paul even tells them in the very next verse of chapter 1 why he wants to come to them so “That I may be comforted together by the mutual faith, both of you and me.” From this it appears that he desired to be among them to exercise the office of the ministry, to establish them in the gospel and to confirm their hopes. He expected that the preaching of the gospel would be the means of confirming them in the faith; and he desired to be the means of doing it.

So you see when we rightly interpret this scripture we will not get the interpretation of a Charismatic. But before I close I want to examine one more scripture. Let’s read it:

 

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

 

In this verse Charismatics are big on taking the words ‘denying the power thereof ‘ to mean that someone denies the gifts of the Spirit. Yet this is far from what the Apostle Paul’s intended meaning was. Let us examine the text in light of the surrounding text of scripture.

In this chapter we see the Apostle Paul describing how men will be in these last days since the coming of Christ. Men will be lovers of selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unholy, and so much more. Nevertheless men will still go around patting one another on the back commending themselves and thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. The scripture states that they will have a form of godliness or they appear outwardly religious, but inwardly they do not have any experience with the gospel or allow it to exert any influence on their lives.

So the power they deny is not speaking in tongues or miracles, but they deny the gospel’s power to save and influence them in their daily lives.

Again we see that the Charismatic interpretation of this verse has no validity. Charismatics just twist scripture to their own harm. They have no proper knowledge of the things of God because of their biases.

written by Hershel Lee Harvell Jr.