A series of files by Debra Bouey (contact info below) on the Toronto
Blessing\ Laughing Revival. Included are the teachings of several of the
leaders of this move within the Vineyard movement and a discussion of the
teachings of Jonathan Edwards (A leader in the "Great awakening" a major
revival in America from 1720-1750)
======================= Beginning of first file ================
Having a Look at Where Toronto's Emphasis is Focused
One argument against evaluating and carefully examining what is happening at the Toronto Airport Vineyard and being carried from there literally around the world:
---> If it's of God you can't stop it, and if it isn't it will die on it's own.
Why that argument lacks cogent validity Scripturally:
The proof texts quoted in defense of "it" are Gamaliel's comments in Acts 5:38-39:
"And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."
However, it is important to look at the context of "the present case" Gamaliel was referring to. What were Peter and the other apostles preaching and teaching? Christ and Him crucified, arisen and exalted, as Acts 5:29-31 tells us:
"But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Therefore, if the same things were being taught in Toronto - Christ and Him crucified - the proof text might be valid, but I do not find that the case at all. Let's have a look at where the emphasis at Toronto has been placed. I do believe we have the facts in evidence. Let's see if the emphasis is on Jesus Christ.
We would very much like for someone to explain to us what this "IT" is? We are concerned about teachings which place the emphasis on the gifts and overemphasize the "prophetic" and the "revelatory" (and they don't mean as in "revelatory from Scripture" either), while the One who went to Calvary's cross to enable us to receive those blessings is relegated to a distant third. You will see below that Toronto's emphasis is not where the New Testament's emphasis is, rather, it's all backwards. Surely one can understand the deep concern many of us have about this lopsided view?
As a survey of the audiotape transcripts show the emphasis in Toronto by the leadership is not on Jesus, Who is God, perhaps you will find these comments and following statistics as alarming as we did.
Comments by Jon Arnott from the Toronto Airport Vineyard audiotape transcript of a Pastor's Meeting on 10/19/94:
"And so now we're starting to see people prophetically acting like lions and oxen and eagles and even warriors. We had a phone call one time it said, 'One of our congregation's been acting like an eagle flying around the room. We can't get them to stop, what do we do?' And we thought, you know, throw a rabbit out in the middle of the floor and maybe they'll come down. [laughter]"
Here we find Cherubim manifesting themselves through "people of integrity", also from the same Toronto audiotape transcript noted above:
"And his wife, Carol, as only she could do in her way, is saying, 'Well, wait a minute, John,' (going back to Revelation 4 now), 'If Jesus wants to bring His friends to the party, don't you think we should let Him?' That's good, isn't it? That's very profound! So if He wants to bring the Cherubim from before the throne and they're representing, manifesting through different people of integrity, roaring and flying and all of that, I don't know."
The are interesting footnotes indeed from the leadership at Toronto Vineyard. Not to mention Jon Arnott's description in the same transcript of how he got "IT":
"I went to Argentina last November, which would be eleven months ago now, Carol and I both got powerfully touched in meetings led by Klaudio Freesan, who's a Pentecostal leader in Argentina and a wonderful man of God. He prayed for us, but as he did he asked me a question.
"He said, 'Do you want IT?'
"And I said, 'Oh, yeah, I want IT all right!'
"He said, 'Then take IT.'
"Boom, he hits my hands and something clicked in my heart. I said, 'Yeah, I will, too, I'll take IT'...I just don't know how else to describe it to you."
What is "IT"?????? Whatever "IT" is, Jon and Carol Arnott brought "IT" back to Toronto from Argentina. Let's see where Toronto speakers place the emphasis and where Scripture places the emphasis as the two differ markedly.
The word count search from Bible software on the same words ("Holy Spirit", "Spirit", "Jesus" and "Proph*") from the New Testament [only] yielded these results:
Jesus or Christ: 1230
Spirit: 324
Proph*: 203
A word count of the transcripts from the audiotape teachings at the Toronto Airport Vineyard from early fall through mid-December yielded some alarming results. What the condensed chart represents are the times references are made to the Holy Spirit and prophecy (or prophetic or prophesy) without any simultaneous reference to Jesus. The number of times the Holy Spirit is reduced to being referred to as an "it" are so staggering I stopped trying to count.
I have condensed the list of speakers but the results not shown were equally as skewed and disturbing as the sampling below:
Jesus proph* Spirit
John Arnott 22 19 65
Wes Campbell 52 159 154
Guy Chevreau 3 4 17
Randy Clark 6 21 42
William Dearteaga 6 14 28
Jack Deere 8 10 14
Mark Dupont 46 145 63
------------------------------------------
Grand Total: 143 372 383
"Prophetic", "Prophecy", "Prophesy" are referenced 229 more times than Jesus, who is the central focus of revelation and God's redemptive plan. In fact, the Bible is the testimony of Jesus Christ.
"Spirit" or "Holy Spirit" are referenced 240 more times than Jesus, about whom the Holy Spirit is to testify as John 15:26 tells us:
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me," (See also John 14:16, 26)
Clearly, those teachings do not place the emphasis where Scripture tells us it should be. Which ought to be a source of grave concern within the professing Body of Christ.
"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;" (Philip. 3:8-10.) (See also John 17:3, 1 Cor. 1:21-23, Gal. 6:14)
Debra Bouey
Internet: 74241.3502@compuserve.com
Barocha1@aol.com
Cserve: 74241,3502
AOL: Barocha1
****************
Except where otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, California.
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of Debra Bouey. It not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1995 by Debra Bouey"). This data file may not be used without the permission of Debra Bouey for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
A Look at Toronto Airport Vineyard's Thoughts on the
"Theology of Discernment" and Jonathan Edwards:
William DeArteaga, while not a staff member at TAV, is considered, along with Guy Chevreau, one of the historians for the "holy laughter" move. In the Toronto Airport Vineyard audiotape transcript of October 13, 1994, he refers to a lack of a "theology of discernment" prior to Jonathan Edwards:
"Jonathan Edwards developed the Protestant theology of discernment."
In his book, "Quenching the Spirit", he states:
"Edwards was at a tremendous disadvantage because he had no readily available theology of discernment....The Reformers rejected the need for discernment when they threw out the whole of Catholic mystical theology." (p.55)
In his mind, basically, a [Protestant] "theology of discernment" simply did not viably exist prior to Jonathan Edwards. He would do well to read "The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God" which shows Edwards unequivocally had a very sound criteria for discernment of "spiritual phenomena": the Word of God. Anyone who has read Edwards works along these lines cannot seriously place him "at a tremendous disadvantage because he had no readily available theology of discernment". Yes he did, he always did - Scripture:
"My design therefore is to show what are the true, certain, and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God. And here I would observe that we are to take the Scriptures as our guide. This is the great standing rule which God has given to His church, in order to guide them in things relating to the great concerns of their souls. Scripture is an infallible and sufficient rule. It undoubtedly contains sufficient precepts to guide the church in this great affair of discerning a true work of God. Without such principles, the church would lie open to woeful delusions and would be exposed without remedy to be imposed on and devoured by its enemies."
["Religious Affections", p.332]
Furthermore, Edwards always asserted that "spiritual phenomena" - feelings and physical manifestations - proved _nothing_ one way or the other. He was as equally concerned that false works not be advocated as he was that true works not be deterred. Jonathan Edwards did not cater to _either_ of the extremist "camps". He was faced with what he called "wildfire", the fanaticism, encouragement of and emphasis on physical manifestations advocated from the pulpits of men like James Davenport and the "mere lifeless formality" advanced by the other camp. He endorsed _neither_, contended against both extremes and took his stand on the Word of God and maintained:
"Practice is the proper evidence of Christian fortitude. A good soldier is proved, not at home, but in the field of battle. As holy practice is the chief evidence of our being possessed of grace, so the degree in which our experience is productive of practice, shows the degree in which our experience is spiritual and divine. Whatever pretensions we may make to great discoveries, great love and joy, they are no further to be regarded than as they actually influence our practice."
["Religious Affections", p.344-5]
In spite of the fact that a negative generally cannot be proved, DeArteaga attempts to define his idea of what a _non_-discerning theology (?) is. However, a definition of "non-discerning theology", even one as ambiguous as follows does not serve to validate the opposite - "spiritual phenomena" as evidence of a "discerning theology" (10/13/94 transcript):
"He did not, Calvin has no theology of discernment. Because in discernment you have to have the possibility that some spiritual phenomena is true, some is from the devil, and some is just from the flesh. Those are the three categories of what happens when you have a spiritual phenomena....Well, for Calvin, since all spiritual phenomena and powers stopped with the apostles, there is not a category of possibly true from the Holy Spirit, it's all, it has to be of the flesh or of the devil. So if you have spiritual phenomena -- you see, that's a non-discerning theology."
DeArteaga never defines his idea of the "theology of discernment". He is more interested in justifying the experience (subjective feelings, manifestations) of spiritual phenomena than in any kind of real discernment at all whether Scriptural or otherwise. It is in this quest he and other Toronto advocates have with great bias inequitably attempted to utilize the writings of Jonathan Edwards.
William DeArteaga, Toronto Airport Vineyard, 10/13/94, 9:15 AM session:
"And every revival has a predominant theologian, you know. Historians say, well in this revival, Charles Finney was the predominant figure here and theologian of that revival, etc., etc. And the Lord has already chosen the predominant theologian of this revival. It's not me! It's Jonathan Edwards. And every book on revival out there, including my book does central chapters on what did Jonathan Edwards says about revival. We're commentators on Jonathan Edwards. That's really true."
Let us look at why Jonathan Edwards would _not_ consider himself the "predominant theologian" of the alleged "Toronto blessing" and "revival":
"An erroneous principle, than which scarce any has proved more mischievous to the present glorious work of God, is a notion that it is God's manner in these days to guide His saints by inspiration, or immediate revelation....As long as a person has a notion that he is guided by immediate direction from heaven, it makes him incorrigible and impregnable in all his misconduct."
["Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England", p.1:404]
Again, Edwards writes:
"Many godly persons have undoubtedly in this and other ages, exposed themselves to woeful delusions, by an aptness to lay too much weight on impulses and impressions, as if they were immediate revelations from God, to signify something future, or to direct them where to go, and what to do."
"I would therefore entreat the people of God to be very cautious how they give heed to such things. I have seen them fail in very many instances, and know by experience that impressions being made
with great power, and upon the mind...are no sure sign of their being revelations from heaven."
["On Revival", pp. 104, 141]
If DeArteaga is one of the historians for the Toronto Airport Vineyard, it is very difficult to believe he does not know Jonathan Edwards was a cessationist. Edwards believed prophecy _ceased_ along with the other charismatic gifts after the completion of the canon of Scripture. Surely DeArteaga, a historian, could not have missed Edwards account of his cessationist views and the reasons he notes in _detail_ for holding them in the following works?:
1. Jonathan Edwards, "Charity and Its Fruits", pp.38, 44-47.
2. Jonathan Edwards, "On Revival", pp.137-.
It is of no small importance to note in the same transcript, DeArteaga declares:
"Phariseeism is the heresy of orthodoxy which is basically correct ideas...ironically, the core problem with the Pharisee is that he cannot recognize the present work of the Holy Spirit....Well, for Calvin, since all spiritual phenomena and powers stopped with the apostles, there is not a category of possibly true from the Holy Spirit, it's all, it has to be of the flesh or of the devil. So if
you have spiritual phenomena -- you see, that's a non-discerning theology....We all now associate the Great Awakening with Jonathan Edwards and his great books on the Awakening....So, really,
Jonathan Edwards developed the Protestant theology of discernment as far as I can see....his theology is probably the best that there has ever come around. So, that's one incident where the Pharisees stopped revival."
Either DeArteaga, and Toronto Vineyard by sanction as well, are inordinately confused or they have exhibited an astounding degree of prejudicial license in the historical presentation of the works of Jonathan Edwards, or both. Jonathan Edwards was a cessationist and only a calculated revisionist's recall of "history" could overlook that inescapable fact.
DeArteaga has completely and utterly contradicted himself. His circular logic and assertions are:
1. Calvinism equals Phariseeism which equals the heresy of orthodoxy, which is basically correct ideas.
2. Calvin had a "non-discerning theology" because he was a cessationist.
3. Jonathan Edwards developed the "Protestant theology of discernment".
4. Jonathan Edwards' "theology", himself both an avowed Calvinist _and_ cessationist, "is probably the best that there has ever come around".
Therefore, because Jonathan Edwards indisputably demonstrates in his writings (referenced above) both that he is a cessationist and why, DeArteaga has inadvertently called the cessationist _beliefs_ of the historical figure he and Vineyard point to as the cornerstone of their movement - "the predominant theologian of this revival" - HERETICAL.
I want to reiterate and emphasize these points about Jonathan Edwards:
1. He always maintained that "spiritual phenomena" - feelings and physical manifestations in and of themselves - proved _nothing_ one way or the other.
2. He was as equally concerned that false works not be advocated as he was that true works not be deterred.
3. Jonathan Edwards did not cater to _either_ of the extremist "camps".
4. He was faced with what he called "wildfire", the fanaticism, encouragement of and emphasis on physical manifestations advocated by men like James Davenport and the "mere lifeless formality"
advanced by the other camp. He endorsed _neither_ extreme.
Given his well-expressed views about the over-emphasis and excesses advocated during the Great Awakening from the pulpits of men like James Davenport, it is clear that Jonathan Edwards would most certainly _not_ wish to be viewed as the "predominant theologian" and historical figure of this present movement coming out of Toronto Airport Vineyard.
Furthermore, one would never have found Jonathan Edwards emphasizing the "prophetic", reducing the third Person of the Triune Godhead, the Holy Spirit, to an "it" on innumerable occasions, while not even concurrently mentioning Jesus Christ, of whom the Holy Spirit is to testify.
Rather, a careful survey of his writings finds his emphasis rightly placed on preaching and teaching "Christ and Him crucified" and contending, _not_ from "fresh [extra-Biblical] revelation", but
Scripturally "for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).
Consider carefully his words which follow and contrast them with where the focus and emphasis are placed, evidenced in the teachings coming out of Toronto Vineyard, and determine for yourself what Jonathan Edwards would have to say about all of this alleged "Toronto blessing", "season of refreshing" and "revival" if he were here with us today:
"The spirit that causes people to have a greater regard for the Holy Scriptures and establishes them more in the truth and divinity of God's Word is certainly the Spirit of God.
"The devil never would attempt to beget in persons a regard to the divine Word. A spirit of delusion will not incline persons to seek direction at the mouth of God. 'To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them!'is never the cry of evil spirits who have no light in them. On the contrary, it is God's own direction to discover their delusions. Would the spirit of error, in order to deceive men, beget in them a high opinion of the infallible Word? Would the prince of darkness, in order to promote his kingdom of darkness, lead men to the sun?
"The devil has always shown a mortal spite and hatred towards that holy book, the Bible. He has done all in his power to extinguish that light, or else draw men off from it. He knows it to be that
light by which his kingdom of darkness is to be overthrown. He has long experienced its power to defeat his purposes and battle his designs. It is his constant plague. It is the sword of the Spirit that pierces him and conquers him. It is that sharp sword that we read of in Revelation 19:15, which proceeds out of the mouth of Him that sat on the horse, with which He smites His enemies. Every text is a dart to torment the old serpent. He has felt the stinging smart thousands of times.
"Therefore the devil is engaged against the Bible and hates every word in it. We may be sure that he never will attempt to raise anyone's esteem of it."
[Jonathan Edwards, "The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God"]
"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." [2 Tim. 4:1-4]
So, what _would_ Jonathan Edwards say today about the "Toronto Experience"? One need only avail themselves of his writings, to read his magnificent sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" to see where he placed his emphasis in preaching and teaching. Even George Whitefield wrote in the end that he had been carried away by subjective impressions at the height of it all. He gave precise examples of his error in that regard. So, I urger the reader(s), go, read the legacy a Jonathan Edwards left behind and contrast his preaching and teaching to Toronto. You will see the most notable differences. One is anathema to the other.
"They who leave the sure word of prophecy--which God has given us as a light shining in a dark place--to follow such impressions and impulses, leave the guidance of the polar star to follow a Jack with a lantern. No wonder therefore that sometimes they are led into woeful extravagances."
[Jonathan Edwards, On Revival, p.14]
"Why cannot we be contented with the divine oracles, that holy, pure word of God, which we have in such abundance and clearness, now since the canon of Scripture is completed? Why should we desire to have any thing added to them by impulses from above? Why should we not rest in that standing rule that God has given to his church, which the apostles teaches us, is surer than a voice from heaven? And why should we desire to make the Scripture speak more to us than it does?"
[Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts, p.404]
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)
I would ask the reader(s) to carefully and prayerfully consider the following two questions:
1. What more could God do for you that He did not already do at Calvary?
2. What more do you want or need which God has not already freely given?
"We are further resolved that we will preach nothing but the Word of God. The alienation of the masses from hearing the Gospel is largely to be accounted for by the sad fact that it is not always
the Gospel that they hear if they go to places of worship; and all else falls short of what their souls need.
"God being with us, we shall not cease from this glorying, but will hold the whole of revealed truth, even to the end. You cannot leave out that part of the truth which is so dark and so solemn without weakening the force of all the other truths you preach. Brethren, leave out nothing. Be bold enough to preach unpalatable and unpopular truth. Remember, you will have to give an account, and that account will not be with joy if you have played false with God's truth.
"What marvel if, under some men's shifty talk, people grow into love of both truth and falsehood! People will say, 'We like this form of doctrine, and we like the other also.' The fact is, they would like anything if only a clever deceiver would put it plausibly before them. They admire Moses and Aaron, but they would not say a word against Jannes and Jambres. We shall not join in the confederacy which seems to aim at such a comprehension. We must preach the Gospel so distinctly that people know what we are preaching. 'If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?'"
[Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "The Greatest Fight in the World"]
"Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses." [1 Tim. 6:12]
Debra Bouey
Internet: 74241.3502@compuserve.com
Barocha1@aol.com
Cserve: 74241,3502
AOL: Barocha1
****************
Except where otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, California.
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of Debra Bouey. It not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1995 by Debra Bouey"). This data file may not be used without the permission of Debra Bouey for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
Did Calvinistic Phariseeism Shut Down the Great Awakening?
The two central figures in the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, were both avowed Calvinists all their Christian lives. Therefore, I find the following comments by William DeArteaga on the audiotape of 10/13/94, Toronto Vineyard Airport 9:15 AM meeting puzzling. He blames Calvinism for shutting down the Great Awakening revival, credits Edwards with developing the Protestant "theology of discernment" and yet its two primary figures were Calvinists:
"Calvin has no theology of discernment....We all now associate the Great Awakening with Jonathan Edwards and his great books on the Awakening....So, really, Jonathan Edwards developed the Protestant theology of discernment as far as I can see....his theology is probably the best that there has ever come around. So, that's one incident where the Pharisees stopped revival."
In his book, Quenching the Spirit, the primary theological "bully" is Calvinism and on pp.32, 52, DeArteaga asserts:
"Calvinist theology could not interpret the spiritual experiences that were to accompany the Great Awakening....using the assumption of Calvinist theology, Charles Chauncy ensured the defeat of the Awakening."
How could such assertions be accurate in light of the fact that Jonathan Edwards was an avowed Calvinist all his Christian life? And Charles Chauncy not only had Armenian leanings, but he would go on to become one of those who helped found Unitarianism. Thus, DeArteaga's assertions will not stand careful historical scrutiny.
When the Great Awakening died out, Edwards evaluated the reasons why and concluded it was not the opposition who were the cause of it as Ian Murray states in his biography, "Jonathan Edwards", p.216:
"He came to believe that there was one principal cause of the reversal, namely, the unwatchfulness of the friends of the Awakening who allowed genuine and pure religion to become so mixed with 'wildfire' and carnal 'enthusiasm,' that the Spirit of God was grieved and the advantage given to Satan."
It is obvious Edwards believed the Awakening was quenched by fanaticism, extremism, and not "phariseeism", let alone Calvinism. DeArteaga equates phariseeism with Calvinism, which leads back to incongruence when the steadfast Calvinistic leanings of Edwards and Whitefield are carefully examined.
DeArteaga, even well aware of Edwards' conclusions about fanaticism ending the Awakening, makes the following comments in his book, p.55:
"In spite of Edwards' own theories, it seems that the Great Awakening was not quenched because of its extremists. It was quenched because of the condemnation of its opponents. This condemnation demoralized the supporters and marred the faith of the public to the point where they no longer welcomed the presence of
the Spirit."
DeArteaga has no historical evidences to support those allegations, rather, the historical evidences refute those suppositions.
I would encourage people to read the works of Jonathan Edwards for themselves rather than basing a conclusion upon selected quotes alone, whether mine or those of others.
The most dangerous counterfeit is always the one which most closely resembles the truth. It is usually the nuances and subtleties by which error is discerned in matters like this. Which is why the perfect "theology of discernment" is found in Scripture:
Psalm 119:105:
Thy word is a lamp to my feet,
And a light to my path.
Proverbs 2:3-6:
For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will discern the fear of the LORD,
And discover the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Debra Bouey
Internet: 74241.3502@compuserve.com
Barocha1@aol.com
Cserve: 74241,3502
AOL: Barocha1
*************
Except where otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, California.
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of Debra Bouey. It not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1995 by Debra Bouey"). This data file may not be used without the permission of Debra Bouey for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
"Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?" [Galatians 4:16]
It would seem that anyone who wishes to discuss the current movement proceeding forth from the Toronto Airport Vineyard in the light of the whole counsel of the Word of God has indeed become, at best, a "Pharisee", and, at worst, the enemy. There have been numerous references throughout a variety of Vineyard venues, both at Toronto, Anaheim and elsewhere, condemning anyone who calls into question Biblically any of these bizarre manifestations taking place presently.
The following is an excerpt by Vineyard pastor James Ryle, disseminated subsequent to his appearance on John Hoeffler's Denver radio show "Steel on Steel":
"There is today a group of people who promote themselves as biblical purist, the faithful remnant who alone preach the Word and who evidently posess the power to judge and criticize anyone who is not like *them*. This is nothing new, as any student of scripture can attest. It was in fact this very kind of people who crucified Jesus Christ. They are scribes and Pharisees, religious and angry, attacking and persecuting anyone who dares to differ from their exclusive views. Here is where the plot thickens. These watchdogs of doctrinal purity - who themselves ironically violate scripture by their ungodly attitudes their mean spirited commentary and their deceitful reporting have now turned their swords against the Vineyard and it's leaders, why? Since there is no truth to their accusations one must ask then why do they accuse? What motivates them to tear down another church. The answer is pride, jealousy, fear, hatred or ignorance. Take your pick. You can be sure one of these factors is at the heart of this present contention."
Pastor Ryle provides no specifics, gives no documented cases, but merely makes a broad assertion and in so doing makes a few harsh judgments about others himself, specifically:
1. He likens us to those who crucified Jesus Christ.
2. Adjudges us to be:
a. Scribes and Pharisees
b. Religious and angry
c. Attacking and persecuting
d. In violation of Scripture
e. Possessed of ungodly attitudes
f. Issuers of mean spirited commentary
g. Liars ("deceitful reporting")
h. Accusers of the brethren
I. Motivated to tear down churches
j. Proud, jealous, fearful
k. Ignorant
All of which _begs_ the question: WHO is judging WHOM here and WHO is accusing WHOM here? I believe it is evident to the objective eye who is attempting to evaluate these teachings in light of Scripture in a non-personal manner and who has gone on the offensive with personal attacks. So be it.
The pattern itself is broad-spread and well established. Here is but another example of it by Carl Tuttle, Anaheim Vineyard, transcript clip from audiotape #00363:
"Okay, what about those who are opposed to this? Well folks, there's always been opposition to the work and ministry of God, you know. They opposed the prophets, they opposed the apostles and they've opposed all those that have followed behind them. Now, who has opposed it? Frankly...it's been the religious community. The religious community always gets it back up when God moves, and always starts clicking the tongue and wagging the finger, you know?...Now if you want to read more about this, read Hebrews, Chapter Eleven. There's always opposition to a move of God. There's always opposition to a move of God, and we just don't want to be those who oppose it."
Note several things Mr. Tuttle apparently expects the hearer(s) to take as a "given", a foregone conclusion:
1. This IS a work of God.
2. Any opposition stems from that old nemesis and whipping post, the "religious community".
3. Therefore, when anyone attempts to call into question teachings and/or manifestations which are Scripturally incongruent, they're suffering persecution from the "religious community" on par with the OT prophets and NT apostles just like Hebrews 11.
4. This IS a move of God, therefore, we don't want to oppose it.
The attempt to instill fear by alluding to be in danger of opposing a "move of God" in order to side-step viable Scriptural concerns about Vineyard teachings is becoming an all too common manipulative ploy. Any viable move of God will withstand careful Scriptural scrutiny of the most intense order.
However, it is a tact which has proved relatively successful in the past, but I am not so sure it will now. There may very well be those who will refuse, God being with them, to move from the foundation already laid in that "more sure word of prophecy", His Word, which endures forever.
Note further what Mr. Tuttle never teaches on the audiotape:
1. Be a Berean [Acts 17:10-11]:
"And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."
2. The sufficiency Scripture--in fact, Scripture is never used except in reference to the faith hall of fame, Hebrews 11, and then only to equate their perceived "persecution" with that of dear saints who have long preceded us.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
[2 Timothy 3:16-17]
"And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." [2 Peter 1:19-21]
All we are saying is come, let us reason together from the whole counsel of Scripture. If our assertions about "it" are wrong, then show us from the testimony of God's Word. Is it not, as God has said in Psalm 36:9, "For with Thee is the fountain of life; in Thy light we see light"?
John 3:21:
"But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
Ephes. 5:13:
"But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light."
What IS the "light" which exposes and discerns these things? How are we to know what is and what is not a "move of God"?
Psalm 119:105:
Thy word is a lamp to my feet,
And a light to my path.
Proverbs 6:23:
"For the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light;
And reproofs for discipline are the way of life,"
Hebrews 4:12:
"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
God has said He is NOT a God of confusion, and what else results _but_ confusion if we remove the sufficiency of Scripture as the absolute against which we measure all teachings and subjective impressions and impulses? It always comes back to whether we are going to trust in our own hearts and lean on our own understanding and, thus, validate our experiences because we _feel_ them, or whether we are going to submit our experiences for validation or invalidation on the basis of how they compare to God's Word. Shall we go to Scripture to be conformed by His Word, or shall we go to Scripture and wrest it unto our own destruction?
John 1:14:
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
That is the ageless magnificence of God's Word - it IS objective truth! It is as applicable to your life as it is to mine and has been throughout the years to countless others as well. It IS living and active and _everlasting_. God has equated it with His own name and character (Psalm 138:2b):
"Thou hast magnified Thy word according to all Thy name."
I have had isolated proof-texts quoted to me, including the following:
Luke 7:22:
"And He answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them."
John 10:37-38:
"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
I will gladly examine these in the light of the totality of God's Word, taking into account what He Himself also forewarned us about during His incarnation:
Matthew 24:4-5:
"And Jesus answered and said to them, See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many."
Matthew 24:11:
"And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many."
Matthew 24:24:
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."
So I see from the whole of this that there is more than one source of signs and wonders and I further understand, therefore, that physical manifestations and feelings are not an accurate gauge of these things. Where else have we to turn to avoid this deception and misleading He spoke of? I can see no other source but His Word.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to conclude anything other than the fact that, however much and emphatically it may be denied, we are faced with a movement which is asking us to deny the sufficiency of Scripture. There is, after all, the old aphorism of actions speaking louder than mere words.
As much has been made of wanting "more, more", there are two questions I should like to submit for the reader's prayerful contemplation:
1. What more can God do for us that He has not already done through the plenary atonement on Calvary's Cross?
2. What more do we want or need which God has not freely given us?
I believe the answer to those questions is, simply, the "POWER", whatever reasons may be given in justification thereof. It leads right back to the Garden: "...and you shall be like God."
Because Jonathan Edwards has been hearkened to as the "predominant theologian of this revival" (William DeArteaga, Toronto Airport Vineyard, audiotape transcript, 10/13/94, 9:15 AM meeting), then, I pray, let them take careful heed of his words written so long ago:
"Why cannot we be contented with the divine oracles, that holy, pure word of God, which we have in such abundance and clearness, now since the canon of Scripture is completed? Why should we desire to have any thing added to them by impulses from above? Why should we not rest in that standing rule that God has given to his church, which the apostles teaches us, is surer than a voice from heaven? And why should we desire to make the Scripture speak more to us than it does?"
[Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts, p.404]
"They who leave the sure word of prophecy--which God has given us as a light shining in a dark place--to follow such impressions and impulses, leave the guidance of the polar star to follow a Jack with a lantern. No wonder therefore that sometimes they are led into woeful extravagances."
[Jonathan Edwards, On Revival, p.14]
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God....God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other." [Martin Luther]
Beyond that, leave us pray with those dear old saints of old as did Augustine, "Lord, deliver me from the lust of self-vindication."
Debra Bouey
Internet: 74241.3502@compuserve.com
Barocha1@aol.com
Cserve: 74241,3502
AOL: Barocha1
****************
Except where otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, California.
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of Debra Bouey. It not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1995 by Debra Bouey"). This data file may not be used without the permission of Debra Bouey for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
