Roger Wheelhouse had already overstepped the boundaries of Scripture in every way in his handling of the body of Christ in the church.  What grounds does anyone have for believing that Wheelhouse was approachable and sincere in his dealings with other witnesses?  As I mentioned earlier both Wheelhouse and those like Peter and Elaine Smith, who claimed to have gone to him Scripturally, were un-Scriptural in not following up the commandments from Jesus in Luke 17:3:

3  "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  4  "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
 
When did Wheelhouse go to a brother or sister in Christ and say: "I'm sorry.  I've committed that sin against you again."  Unfortunately, the personal sin against another member of the body was not what we were largely complaining about, as I will explain later.

71. Beware those who make doctrinal decisions based on one portion of Scripture (Matthew 18:15-17)

Denis stated that:  "it would be nice to have an acknowledgment that the whole method was wrong . . . I really would like you to honour us and say what you did was the wrong method."  Again, Proverbs 17:27-28 makes it clear that there is a time to speak and a time to keep quiet:

27 He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.  28  Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.

Since this was the last statement made in this meeting concerning the issues of Matthew 18:15-17, I will give the answer to the accusations made by various members of the church.  Remember, these statements were made:

Peter Smith: "And yet the way in which the letter was sent out to members does not follow God's direct teaching. [Matthew 18] Verse 15: 'If any brother sins against you go to him privately, and confront him with his fault."

First, 'deacon' Smith never deals with the matter of a letter of this kind being sent to warn a fellowship.  Just like the full deaconate, he never addresses any of the Scriptures I brought to them at the private meeting with them.  He hinges his whole case on Matthew 18:15-17 yet, as shown here, he hits upon a main point when he quotes: 'If any brother sins against you go to him privately, and confront him with his fault." Remember this - 'If any brother sins against you!!!

Peter concluded his speech:  "So we must decide - do we accept the letter with all its implications or do we reject the letter and discuss the grievances of those who have followed our Lord's teaching."

His wife, Elaine Smith, took a similar stance: "I would urgently encourage any of you who have come here tonight with your grievances, who have not followed that Scripture, to hold your tongue tonight.  Because that's not Scriptural."

Is it really Scriptural to tell people to keep quiet when they have evidence concerning the nature of offences against the Word of God and the abuse of the body of Christ?  The evidence clearly shows that it was the abusive and factious behaviour of the pastor which prevented these matters being dealt with in private, or even within deacons meetings!

Ruth Nelmes stated:  "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 . . ."

Proverbs 26:4 shows us clearly when to answer:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.  5  Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.   

Again, just like the deacons and the Smith's, there was no attempt to answer the Scriptures which deal with this matter of the factious heretic.  I wonder if Ruth really understands what the word "purely" means, for there is no way that Matthew 18:15-17 deals "purely" with this kind of deception  - and it is always dangerous to take one Scripture on its own!

Most people fail to realise that Matthew 18:15-17 clearly deals with private (not public) sin committed by one brother or sister in the Body against another.  We read:  "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee..." (KJV). All translations agree that the subject is sin or trespass, not false teaching.  Although a few do not specifically state in verse 15 that this is a trespass by one Christian against another, the context makes this clear in all  translations. Look for example at verse 21, where Peter, in response to the Words of the Lord, asks Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?" (KJV).  Note, other translations render these words as:   "how often shall my brother sin against me" (RSV);  "how many times can my brother wrong me" (Phillips);  "how often shall my brother sin against me" (NASB), etc.

The entire context clearly has to do with a strictly personal problem between two Christians, where one has wronged the other, and is therefore to be kept private unless it cannnot be resolved in that manner.  In contrast, many other Scriptures make it very clear that sin which is known publicly is an offense to the entire Body and must be dealt with publicly:  "Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20, KJV). This is both for the benefit of the body of Christ and also to let the world know that the church does not tolerate sin.  Although, today, we know that it does!  False doctrine is not the subject of Matthew 18:15-17 but something else entirely, and does not come under the instructions Christ gives in that passage.

It is impossible for erroneous teaching that is presented publicly ever to be considered a private trespass of one person against another which must therefore be dealt with privately between the two.

Check out our letter in which I wrote:

'I recently promised that I would let you know the Scriptural objections that I had to any teachings you brought through your ministry.  I have therefore carefully detailed some of the messages that you have recently brought to Calvary Baptist Church and brought them to logical and Scriptural conclusions.  Obviously I write out of a deep concern for the well-being of Calvary Baptist Church as represented by my brothers and sisters in Christ - but I also write because I am most seriously concerned for you and Sue & your family, as well as others who may have come under your ministry in the past, or who may come under your influence at any time in the future.  The transcript I have typed contains the essential points from your work and I have not removed any material that radically alters the thrust of your message in any way whatsoever.  Of course, if anyone wishes to question the truth of this statement they can easily obtain the taped messages which are readily available via the tape ministry and verify these facts for themselves.'

The remainder of the letter dealt with prophecy/word of knowledge concerning the Wheelhouse ministry. There is a clear Scriptural example of a prophet writing to an offender to warn him of his appalling behavior, in verse 12 of 2 Chronicles 21:

1  Then Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David, and Jehoram his son became king in his place.  2  And he had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azaryahu, Michael, and Shephatiah. All these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.  3  And their father gave them many gifts of silver, gold and precious things, with fortified cities in Judah, but he gave the kingdom to Jehoram because he was the first-born.  4  Now when Jehoram had taken over the kingdom of his father and made himself secure, he killed all his brothers with the sword, and some of the rulers of Israel also.  5  Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.  6  And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just as the house of Ahab did (for Ahab's daughter was his wife), and he did evil in the sight of the LORD.  7  Yet the LORD was not willing to destroy the house of David because of the covenant which He had made with David, and since He had promised to give a lamp to him and his sons forever.  8  In his days Edom revolted against the rule of Judah, and set up a king over themselves.  9  Then Jehoram crossed over with his commanders and all his chariots with him. And it came about that he arose by night and struck down the Edomites who were surrounding him and the commanders of the chariots.  10  So Edom revolted against Judah to this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time against his rule, because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers.  11  Moreover, he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot and led Judah astray.  12  Then a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet saying, "Thus says the LORD God of your father David, 'Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father and the ways of Asa king of Judah,  13  but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot as the house of Ahab played the harlot, and you have also killed your brothers, your own family, who were better than you,  14  behold, the LORD is going to strike your people, your sons, your wives, and all your possessions with a great calamity;  15  and you will suffer severe sickness, a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the sickness, day by day.'"  16  Then the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabs who bordered the Ethiopians;  17  and they came against Judah and invaded it, and carried away all the possessions found in the king's house together with his sons and his wives, so that no son was left to him except Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.  18  So after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable sickness.  19  Now it came about in the course of time, at the end of two years, that his bowels came out because of his sickness and he died in great pain. And his people made no fire for him like the fire for his fathers.  20  He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years; and he departed with no one's regret, and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

Our letter dealt entirely with Wheelhouse's doctrine directly, then with the 'word from the Lord' and, finally, with the outworking of this doctrinal aberration.  As stated earlier, it is no coincidence that there is about twice as much Scripture in the New Testament dealing with doctrine as with right conduct.  This is because it would be impossible to know what right conduct is unless it was clearly enunciated in our doctrine!  We will see this more clearly later when we look at the history of Antinomianism.  Having repeatedly challenged the Baptist Union and Calvary Baptist Church to prove this to be wrong, resulting in no meaningful response from them, we have no doubt that this action was fully Scriptural and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

72.  Beware those who try to make false doctrine a private matter - when Scripture makes it clear that it is always to be dealt with publicly

On the wider issue, there is always someone who asks questions in the ignorant way Denis did:  'wouldn't it be better to just critique the teachings and let the personalities remain anonymous?' Or at least, why not address criticism of doctrines (such as 'Word-Faith teaching' or 'Dominion Theology' or 'The Toronto/Pensacola Experience'), rather than on people such as Benny Hinn, Nicky Gumbel, Gerald Coates, Rick Joyner, Colin Dye, Marilyn Hickey, the Copelands, etc.  This doctrine of addressing the errors of a preacher or writer as publically as they taught is not held to by many denominations today, and is usually handled in a hushed up manner through un-Scriptural bishops courts or the equivalent, such as the Baptist method, or Elim's 'superintendent' system.  In response to this I would say:

1. It is Biblical to name names. Paul did it both positively to commend ministries (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus in 1 Corinthians 16; Epaphroditus in Philippians 2; Onesimus and Ephaphrus among others in Colossians 4; and so on) and negatively to warn against ministries (Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:20; Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4:14; cf. 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:17 & 3:1; Titus 1:10-16).   The beloved apostle John is also unafraid to be specific: 'Diotrephes, who loves to have the pre-eminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words' (3 John 9,10).  Thus we see that much of the New Testament was written to publicly correct false teaching. Would Calvary Baptist Church and the Baptist Union presume to accuse the Apostle John of lacking love?
   
2. It is consistent to name names negatively if we are happy about praising people positively.  Nobody objects to biographies detailing the mighty works of men greatly used by God, such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield or Spurgeon.  These biographies are written not that we might admire them, but rather that we might 'imitate [them] just as [they] also imitate Christ' (1 Corinthians 11:1).  Is it not equally just that we should speak as clearly about men who are instrumental against God and who resist discipline by the body of Christ?  When we write letters it is not so that anyone might hate the perpetrators of error and heresy, but rather that believers might 'beware of [them], for [they] have greatly resisted our words [the words of Scripture]' (2 Timothy 4:15).
   
3. It is practical to name names. The sad facts are that people, as a rule, follow preachers rather than preaching - and this was clearly shown to be the case with the faction that followed Wheelhouse!  It is not so much that we hear that: `Brother Kendall is speaking on the law of Christ' that is said, as much as:  `Dr. R.T. KENDALL is speaking on the law of Christ'.  It should be no surprise that people like Wheelhouse fall into Antinomianism when they are clearly influenced by Kendall's books and the Doctor has clearly been shown to have an Antinomian outlook!  Principally, people go to hear men like Kendall because he is a big name and not so much because they are interested in the topics or passages of Scripture that are advertised.  If people will follow personalities, then we have no choice but to attack these `personas', because they have become, to a greater or lesser degree, idols in the minds of their followers.   This is why we hear people say things along the lines of:  `If Dr R.T. Kendall, or Pastor Wheelhouse says it, then it must be of God'?  Or the Yes-men who are in the heretics faction even go so far as to try and frighten you away from a Scriptural appraisal of a man's work with the ludicrous and un-Scriptural: `touch not the Lord's anointed' if you dare to level critique at their man!
   
4. It is historical to name names. Throughout church history, believers have not shrunk from clearly naming the men and women against whom they were objecting, as well as detailing the teachings that they spoke out against. Look at the titles of works by early church fathers, such as Contra Celsus or Contra Pelagius. Luther wrote Bondage of the Will as a direct criticism of Erasmus' Freedom of the Will, and was vociferous in his criticisms of that individual.  Of course, those were the days before flabby, mealy-mouthed, spineless Milquetoasts came to power!  In the apostolic, and post-apostolic era, men who daily lived in fear of death were still speaking out bravely in defence of the 'faith which was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 3:3).  Where once men spoke out in the power of the Spirit, now the pre-eminent dictum is `be nice and inoffensive and as vague as possible at all costs'. `Not hurting people's feelings' has become more important than 'speaking the truth in love' (Ephesians 4:15).  It is incumbent upon us to speak the truth in love, to protect our brothers and sisters who are in slavery to men who lie to them, cheat them of their money and take the minds captive to carnal philosophies and experiences. We will not keep quiet while these men practice their foul trade on the body of Christ.