|
HERETICAL is derived from HAIRETIKOS, akin to the above, primarily denotes capable of choosing (haireomai) ; hence, causing division by a party spirit, factious Tit. 3 : 10, R.V., 'heretical'.
SECT is derived from HAIRESIS, a choosing, is translated 'sect' throughout the Acts except in 24 : 14; A.V. 'heresy' (R.V., 'sect') ; it properly denotes a predilection either for a particular truth, or for a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage ; hence, a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of 'the truth,' held in toto ; a sect is a division developed and brought to an issue ; the order 'divisions, heresies' (marg. 'parties') in the works of the flesh' in Galatians. 5 : 19-21 is suggestive of this.'
Ask yourself as you read through this account: what evidence was called at the meetings to refute the charge of heresy? These were the views expressed by Kevin:
'. . .to me, heresy is a very specific sin. Heresy is - for me anyway - this may not be a strict dictionary definition - but heresy for me is something that is intentional. It's a misleading of people - and I do not believe that Roger has intentionally mislead anybody. Now I would have a lot of things to discuss with Roger about some of his interpretation. I would not agree with everything that he says. Some of those things are fairly minor, one or two of them would be fairly major. But none of them would come under the heading of heresy. . .'
It is clear from the definition that Roger Wheelhouse was taking opportunities, in this case using meetings which he chaired, to 'put forward his own particular views' in order to force through his own agenda for 'personal preference or the prospect of advantage....' - and he therefore fulfils the definition, from Kevin Dare's own testimony, and IS a heretic! Wheelhouse also did this in sermons, particularly when discussing the leadership of the church and the role of deacons and elders in his sermon and made particular emphasis of elders being 'worthy of double stipend.' Typical of the hypocrisy of a deceiver is that he will emphasise the portions of Scripture that suit his viewpoint, while down-playing the Scriptures that speak against his stance, and then reverse this trend when he wishes to push through another agenda, as Kevin here admits he did! At the time Wheelhouse pressured the church for more money, many people noticed how money-orientated he was and the Church Secretary, Howard Bowen commented to me: 'It was all about money.' He was not the only church member to air the view that the Wheelhouses had come to Cardiff to better themselves financially and, despite their attempts to deflect this view and their feigned humility, they clearly used their opportunities in church meetings to try and gain personal advantage and financial gain. This should be no surprise coming from a ministry that attended Kings Church, Newport, and expressed no disapproval of the doctrines of covetousness and mammon worship being peddled as faith. Strange that the apostle Paul, who declared 'imitate me as I imitate Christ', was content to make tents to avoid being a burden to the church (Acts 18:3). But this pattern of imitation is too strenuous for deceivers. Sue Wheelhouse expresses an opinion at the end of the meeting that shows how their view of monetary gain (see Section 113) exactly parallels that of the Word-Faith mammon worshippers.
Heretics who manipulate the body of Christ in this way will look for every opportunity to destroy threats to their agenda and it is most dangerous to give them the chance to pre-emptively attack anyone who might stand in their way. The reference in the letter to just such an attempt by Roger Wheelhouse, after Neil Jones shared a personal view with him, is one of the first clear examples of malicious gossip Roger Wheelhouse revealed to us.
When we allow our emotions to overcome sanctified judgement based on the Word of God, we begin to make statements based on personal feelings, but not supported from the Bible or from expert sources. Is Dare's opinion anything like a strict Greek-English dictionary or Biblical definition? Clearly not.
Vines defines heresy as that which is chosen, especially a self-willed personal opinion, or preference, chosen for the prospect of advantage. How naïve to think the insults and threats these Christians had to bear were 'accidental'! The pattern clearly shows that the behaviour was deliberately and repeatedly chosen to crush opposition and force Christians out of office or into line - a line chosen by the heretic. Bearing in mind the behaviour experienced by Christians who occupied, or had occupied, positions in the diaconate or eldership of the church and the way in which they testified to being treated by this man, can you really believe that Roger Wheelhouse's behaviour was 'accidental'?
Did the behaviour of Roger Wheelhouse lead to loss of 'the power of truth'? According to Kevin Dare's testimony he had some 'fairly major' problems with some of Roger Wheelhouse interpretations. The word 'major' can be interpreted as: big; cardinal; central; chief; consequential; considerable; controlling; critical; crucial; essential; indispensable; main; meaningful; momentous; outstanding; paramount; predominant; primary; principal; significant; sizable; vital. How consequential or critical does interpretation have to be before you begin to cause division within a congregation or a Christian like Kevin makes some complaint about the teaching of doctrine? The evidence showed clearly that the overall behaviour of this pastor had led 'to division/parties' within the Body of Christ and, after they saw that the leader of their sect was removed from office, his 'sect' showed their allegiance by treating praise and worship meetings in the church like a secular night out, and cheering the defeat of those they saw as another 'party' when they were defeated in church elections. Can you really claim that Wheelhouse was not a heretic when he had clearly formed his own party, or faction, within the church, and one that followed his undisciplined leading even when he was gone?
Val James testified privately that her husband, Roy James (former elder) had a conversation with Roger Wheelhouse in which he asked him why he didn't just leave quietly rather than cause more upset. Roger replied that he 'couldn't do that - because I would take half the church with me.' Is this really the spirit of a pastor - or the spirit of 'the hireling' (John 10:12-16) who abandons the flock for money and cares nothing for causing division? We repeat the words of Kevin Dare:
He . . . . he seems to have found it very easy to use the position as chair, as he was earlier, to put forward his own particular views.'
Roger Wheelhouse clearly fits the description of heretic and too many would admit this in private, while many others re-interpreted the word 'heretic' to suit themselves and never followed the Biblical definition, as spelt out above by W. E. Vines. How often do we find this happening today? 'Another' gospel is the fare served up by heretics and lapped up by 'itching ears':
2 Timothy 4:3 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.
What words would you use to describe a man who continuously tramples on those who he sees as standing in the way of his agenda, in the ways described above, and who swings from an Antinomian view (against the Law) one month to a Nomian (keeping the Law) view the next?:
Antagonistic? Contentious? Discordant? Divisive? Quarrelsome? Unco-operative? Contradictory? Controversial? Dichotomous? Hostile? Incompatible? Inharmonious? Irreconcilable?
Strangely, these are all definitions of a person who is factious! And what is the tendency or characterisation of the factious? To form factions! A faction is simply a bloc, group, division, section, party, sect - or cult!
If you look up the Scriptural examples given by Vines in his definitions of heresy, heretic, and sects you find the word factious and factions occurring regularly, for example:
Galatians. 5 : 20 - 'parties' - such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage: (NASB) 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality (lewdness), 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger (angers), disputes (rivalries), dissensions (divisions), factions (sects from HAIRESIS ("\DXF,4H) and heresies from HAIRESIS ("\D,F4H), 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
2 Peter 2 : 1-3, where 'destructive' (R.V.) signifies leading to ruin: 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
1 Corinthians. 11 : 18-19 - For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions (heresies from HAIRESIS ("\DXF,4H)) among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.
Tit. 3 : 9, 10 - 9 But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious (HERETICAL from HAIRETIKOS ("\D,J46`H), primarily denotes causing division by a party spirit, factious) man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
So the final instruction from the inspired apostle Paul to 'reject a factious (HERETICAL) man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned' was wilfully ignored by Calvary Baptist Church deacons!]
Kevin Dare (continued): The problems with Bonnie have been mentioned, and there have been problems with individuals and it seems to me that that's where the issue lies. Not the question of whether Roger is absolutely one hundred percent orthodox. There's nobody here, except perhaps one person, or two people, who would put their hand up and say that 'they are 100% orthodox'. We all have our little foibles, we all have our little quirks, and peculiar beliefs - that's why we are called a peculiar people sometimes! But it's not that issue. There's a very, very serious pastoral issue to be answered here. And I would like that issue to be the one that's addressed. As I said - I've got no personal gripe. But I know there are people here who are hurting. More than have spoken. Sometimes those hurts run very deep. And that's the issue we need to be sorting out tonight. Let's let the heresy charge go by. It's - it's irrelevant, in fact, if the other issue is important - is the real issue. Because, if the issue is pastoral, then, if that is sorted out - and I believe it can be sorted out. If that is sorted out then heresy becomes - can be sorted out with it. People can talk about these things, but at the moment there is a culture of keeping quiet - that we need to be talking. And I hope everybody who wants to take the opportunity, will take the opportunity to speak and let their feelings be known. Because only then can we plan together what we're going to do.
[Sadly, the heresies and rank liberalism that abound in British churches today make it difficult to believe that many Christians are even interested, or know enough Scripture, to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3). When Kevin said of Calvary members: "There's nobody here, except perhaps one person, or two people, who would put their hand up and say that 'they are 100% orthodox', he was speculating again. Perhaps people are ignorant of the definition of orthodox (which means 'correct, straight, right'!), for not one person at this meeting protested in the slightest manner at being categorised in this way! But, of course, the evidence shows that this church, representative of most in Britain, is not orthodox - or orthodox in the manner of the un-orthodox Greek Orthodox Church! It is obvious who his comments were directed at, but these 'two people' would say that they are striving to be 100% orthodox, for Scripture certainly doesn't encourage us in any way at all to seek anything but the 'orthodoxy', the perfection, that is ours in Christ:
Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Philippians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you;
Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of your number, a bondslave of Jesus Christ, sends you his greetings, always laboring earnestly for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God.Hebrews 7:19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
If these Scriptures are true, then all those who cling to their "little foibles . . . little quirks, and peculiar beliefs" are despising the gospel truth, the 'orthodox' truth. Sadly, many in the church have followed the world in accepting that there are no absolutes in Christian life, let alone anywhere else and, again, this reflects the Antinomian attitude that is prevalent and accepted by such churches.
We are free to follow Richard Lewis's and Roger Wheelhouse's ludicrous leadings, and simply make it up as we go along, not bothering to be accurate and preach sermons from notes when we know we make mistakes, but ad lib as it suits us! It is a great blessing if you are wonderfully gifted and orthodoxy flows from your mouth when you stand up to talk without notes, but what happens when you make mistakes and refuse to acknowledge them? Those who are stumbled (Matthew 16:23;18:7; Romans 11:9; 14:13; 1 Corinthians 8:9; Revelation 2:14) or led astray by these inaccuracies may fall by the wayside or join cults. I know because I have spent twenty years witnessing at every opportunity and many cultists leave our church pews exactly because of these attitudes! By the gospel of Wheelhouse and Lewis it does not matter for it is, as an idiot British judge put it recently, "one of the vicissitudes of life!' As H.A. Ironside wrote:
Objection is often raised - even by some sound in the faith - regarding exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the brethren who assume this attitude forget that a large part of the New Testament, both of the teaching of our blessed Lord Himself and the writings of the apostles, is made up of this very character of ministry - namely, showing the satanic origin and, therefore, the unsettling results of the propagation of erroneous systems which Peter, in his second epistle, so definitely refers to as "damnable heresies."
This last point touches on the real problem today, for I am convinced that the world needs a New and Full Reformation before Jesus returns, because I fear He will find too many churches in the state described in Revelation 2-3 and will treat us like the church at Laodicea:
15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. 16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. 19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"]
58. Beware those who ignorantly chant the New Age mantra - 'All You Need Is Love' - and despise Scripture!
Mrs Ruth Nelmes: Yes, I just feel that when David came and took the microphone I do feel that for many reasons this verse came to my mind - and this concerns me greatly: 'If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.' And I'm sorry, I just sound very concerned that we see David has taken this microphone and quoted Scripture after Scripture to us, but personally, as just a normal housewife and mother of this church, I was appalled by receiving this letter early in December. I felt that it was a letter that was not written in love whether there was valid points in it or not. It was purely un-Scripturally written and I do feel that, at the very least, we could have been given an apology by David tonight. For the fact that he could acknowledge that he'd gone about this in a very un-Scriptural way and has caused a lot of us a lot of distress and unnecessary heartache at the coming of this church up to the Christmas period. And also putting no less than Roger and Sue through a huge amount of stress. I'm not taking sides in this - I know that there are other issues involved - and I completely agree with what Kevin has said. I think that it is very evident that this church - underneath - is chasms apart, and those things need to be addressed tonight. But I just ask that those of you who perhaps don't know your Bible very well, please do not be over-impressed by people who can quote Scripture - when it's very evident that they don't have love in their heart.
[First we notice Ruth relies a lot on 'feelings' - she repeatedly relies on: 'I felt ' and 'I do feel', and these are the sum total of her methods of determining truth - 'I felt that it . . . was not written in love.' In her naivety she then clutches at a single well known Bible verse to support her feelings! A little experience in reading her Bible and observing deception in the world would have taught her that 'feelings' are NEVER the criteria by which we judge truth - but they are the criteria used by the Mormon cult and other deceivers, such as Roger Wheelhouse, to determine the truth! No wonder the Mormons think they are Christians, and the fastest growing Christian group in the world - they are using the same criteria as ignorant Christians in the true church today! The Mormons would happily use 1 Corinthians 13 in the same manner and then whinge, 'You don't show love when you criticize us.' While they do this they forget the disgusting and abominable things their own leaders said and did long before any Christian church stood up to oppose the deception of their leaders. Ruth forgets that, when she accuses others of lacking love, she points the finger back at herself and the Wheelhouse's. Read this whole text thoroughly and try and find one scrap of evidence to support the way in which the Wheelhouse's treated many Christians in the church. Did Roy James or the deacons offend Roger - other than to try and question his sermons and methods? Try and prove the allegations of his faction! Roy James and the deacons erred in complaining about the false doctrine and practices of
|
|
