Beware! Michael L Brown is dangerous to the Christian Faith.
In this article, it is our conviction that all Christians must steer clear of this man as he is not a Christian teacher, as he continues to make out in his many different avenues. There was a time, when we did believe him to be a good christian teacher just very confused in terms of his theological stance; but after all the evidence that has come to light; it is conclusive he is not a Christian teacher. And we must be clear that he has no place to teach any biblical truths.
Let us now turn to our reasons for this whole conclusion which all highlight something very serious.
(1) Indecisive terminology and statements. Over the years there has been many a time when Michael has used very indecisive words, terms and even statement; even in how he handles many issues.
For example, in the last few months, He has spoken on oneness theology. And when he did this, he could not bring himself to actually condemn in clear words that it is in fact heresy. Said the following:
He continues onto state:
First, he claims that there is only 3 options. And does not even list them; instead he offers a very slippery question. But beyond this, it should not even be three options; but only two. Is this position correct or incorrect; true or false. No third way. This is a very dangerous position to play with.
Second, he mention Dr James White on the issue of the Son. James question or inquiry is a good one. It is basically this: 'did Jesus eternally existed as the Son?' A vitally important question. And the answer will determine whether one is biblical and orthodox in their faith. Having that clear is essential. The use of 1 John 2:22-23 is beneficial in this line enquiry as well.
It is interesting that he mentions James White, because in 2010 both of these men debated two unitarians. And I thought that both were equally capable debaters and gave both of the unitarians a real good and instructive case and even refutation. But now I realise that Michael was not really the sole debater for the trinitarian side; and was in fact, being kept in line by Dr White. A very valuable debate to watch. And really ask what is the course of Michael's clarity.
Third, now notice that his question leaves plenty of room to wrangle, does it not? Even to ask such a question is totally imbalanced. Whom was it that came to earth to give his life upon the Cross according to their philosophy? Jesus or the Father or even both. Is it biblically based to say that the Father entered the human body of Jesus, so that in this one person, you have the humanity as Jesus and the divinity as the Father? Why not be straight in condemning this view?
(2) Man-centred Sermons. Let us get a vital point a cross concerning sermons; and that is the content of the sermon must be driven by the key verse, passage; section or chapter. It must be exegetically and expositional in nature. And also, we must allow the context determine the points and application. This is what any good book on preaching will outline as a beneficial setting.
And when we come to Michael Brown, he will start off okay and on track (but like the other purveyors of this ideology) what we end up with is nothing back a man centred eisegetical treatment that feeds to the man in sin. Let us notice a few example:
Let us note his words at 16:50 minute mark: 'we won't correct or rebuke because it hurts my feelings.' Interesting way to put your own short coming out for us to deal with. Remember how you would not rebuke certain men in the Charismatic movement. And yet you state this.
In another sermon he states based around 1 Samuel 17:1-10:
Now another irritating thing to note is that he not only abandons the text in this way; but he likewise abandons it to give an illustration from the current context of Isis (I am not against using illustrations) but here is the question: how does this illustration serve to give us any understanding of what was going on in 1 Samuel 17:1-10? It simply does not. As a preacher and teacher, the first and foremost priority to to deal with the text in its actual historical setting and context. And neither have been fulfilled. And this was preached at the same church as the above one on 2 Timothy 2 which leads to this vitally important observation.
Did they forget his statement about not preaching in the vain of some of the modern-day scripture twisters when he said 'There is this teaching in America which is a perversion of the cross; whereby they teach that you are the central point of everything; and not God.' Not a very observant church it appears.
In another sermon based around Matthew 10: 24-33:
Let me give you an example, he mentions verse 24 'A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master.' How are we to understand this statement? What are its implications for Christian slaves and masters and teachers and students in that time and place? And even more so, how do we apply it for our own situation? are both, or just one or even none applicable? None of this is even approached. What do have is a comment that is not even addressed in the text as the main thing. And this is what makes one a great exegete and great at explicating the word. And we are not to assume that he did not have time for it as the sermon was 1hour and 23 minutes long. Clearly enough time to do a real in depth teaching on this statement.
Apart from these important observations, this was not a bad introduction. It is a shame that what followed fell flat as he no less mention 3 personal stories in the space of about 5 or 6 minutes that we clobbered around one textual verse. Even if what he was saying was important for this day and age; why? Why in the form of personal stories in such a way that it clouds out the passages proper intent? For example, how in the text, does the "do not fear" statement relate back to the previous section? We are not informed by this serum and yet the text clearly shows a link.
In another sermon based around Jeremiah, chapter 1:
But now let me be clear even as one who believes that these particular gifts have ended, that is not my intent at this point. I simply want to ask why does he go to establish his point by using as his main text, a text which in all reality has no bearing on the subject at hand. Why not make a case from the more relevant texts? Let us note something in the text that he does use. There we read: 'Then the Lord stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms,"' This is not about the church which is concerning multiple persons; but a single person from many years ago. While we can learn a lot from it about God dealings with this man (and others); there is no link between a prophet utterance like that and some babble of today. The question is this: has God spoken today in this manner or has he ceased from it? That question must be simple.
He has ended speaking in this fashion. But my concern here is what is the connection between Jeremiah' calling and what he is seeking to establish about what he believes about the Charismatic gifts (or revelatory signs)? There is simply no connection whatsoever in these matters.
In another sermon based around Luke 12:
But notice how he goes about this matter, he states: 'But when we read the words of Jesus here; we see anything but complacency. We see anything but indifference.' How do you go from the text which is about his work on the cross to this idea of "complacency; indifference" that you say that he was anything but that. No contextual support whatsoever. It seems as if this statement is nothing more a portal in which you can slip in a boat load of self-centred ideals. And this can be seen in the fact that he follows it up with a load of experiences from his own life. While it maybe good testimonial witness (not that it is); but it makes bad sermon material. so this is the fifth "sermon" where this kind of trend has been seen to use a text of scripture to promote your own selfish gain. A very dishonest thing to do.
We may notice that in his forty-five second dealing with the text before his tactical manoeuvre. He states of what Christ said that it is something that the Messiah alone would do; and even highlights and strengthens it but alluding to what the Jewish Tradition said in regard to the Micah passage. Now, what of the two statements of the Lord? The first, 'I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled' Michael, I believe would have us see this as referring to revival. But that is invalid. For this has primarily to do with what Christ came to do. It is a result. Then the second, 'But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!' this is about nothing other than Christ death for mans sins. He will be put to death and have man's sins imputed to his own account and be buried and raised again. That is the baptism he refers too. And nothing more. Now the first statement logical follows this one it is the result of this one and the quote from Micah elucidate this.
So now, we may ask and rightly: why has Michael failed to deal with this passage in an adequate fashion? The answer is simple. It does not help his course.
(3) Incomplete biblical understanding and misidentification. Now we come to a third area that must be considered as this man has been put forth as a man great biblical understanding. And this erroneous claim has lead to a further issue of not handling the word correctly in several ways. Let us note that while this is a serious point; it in no way disproves him as a Christian.
He, however, on this basis should never have stepped forth as teacher of the word. The above reason is serious enough to make this clear. Now let us see how this next reason is fully demonstrated:
He starts out 'As I understand scripture' this is where the first error creeps in. I don't care what your understanding is; we want the scriptural definition and not your understanding. In fact, in a sermon he said that when someone came to him and asked something very particular and he said 'the Lord has not spoken to me on this matter; but I can give you my opinion." He said, that his wife rebuked him saying 'who cares of your opinion; he wants the Lord's word.' And so I will take his wife's words "who care about your opinion. Where is the biblical truth.
He then states 'a false prophet is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A false teacher is a heretic leading other to hell.' What in the world has this gotta do with anything. For a start, in New Testament teaching a false prophet and teacher are interchangeable. So the differentiation is mute. But the Old Testament and New Testament are united on one core thing that identifies a false teacher and Prophet: their teachings. It is their teaching that are to be tested
Take for example: In Deuteronomy 18 when it states:
The second, that they do not 'speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' Here is where the scriptures give us an additional piece of information, just a few chapters earlier on. We read:
The second thing we will consider here is another question and answer; of which the answer is very interesting.
Now with this in mind, let us note some striking issues that crop up in this answer. First, he instead of answering the question directly, he gives an anecdote, an illustration to try and make the point. But in reality it raise a whole load of questions about his views. Now revivals when they credible will always have one common thing at the heart of it God's word being powerfully proclaimed. And all the sermons from Brownsville and other charismatic revivals have been largely based on experience and the twisting of scriptures. God was not honoured. Second, in raising the question: 'what is a berean?' in his answer. He quickly changes the question 'what does it mean to have the berea attitude?' and therefore, he changes the scope of the answer. It is called Equivocation. In other words you have a question on a particular issue; and then in a second you change frame of the question while remaining with the word.
Another important fallacy is knowing as shifting the burden of proof. And Michael engaged in this. By changing the frame of question; he was able to then question the integrity of the people who would be against such a movement on biblical ground. He said, 'they would say this is not of God' and then said 'prove it.' You see the problem is that Michael is in this instance making it clear that he does not care for criticism. The burden of proof lies in the hand of the one who claim that a movement is of God and not the one who rejects. He does not realise what a slippery slope this mind set is. On this basis, every false religion and cult can use Michael' argument against him.
The third example that I want to consider comes from a sermon called: 'Are spiritual gifts in operation?' Which he states this in his personal testimony:
First, notice that he said that 'In other words, it was taught in scriptures; and it was what we're seeing and believing. So, of course, we believed it. And it was strange to me that not everybody believed or thought that way.' You would not come to the conclusion that something was for today unless you had been told that it was. And then went to see if it were true. This is confirmation bias. And this is what he tries to worm his way out of but nonetheless tells us is the case. How do, we for example, know what is being manifest today as "tongues" is in fact what the scriptures teach regarding "tongues? Has it actually been verified? Or are to assume that this just what you want to believe? Nothing has been proven.
Second, notice the way that he starts this whole diatribe: 'The Church where I was saved believed in speaking in tongues; believed in prayers for the sick; believed that people could be delivered from demons.' It is hard to believe that Michael would use this kind of logic in this matter knowing that the Homosexual advocate uses a similar argument. To 'overload the dock' with many irrelevant points to try and dislodge a valid argument. The advocate of Homosexuality would say you christian use Leviticus against but you know what about this law? And this is what Michael is doing here. By putting speaking in tongues with these other thing which have been the issue is illogical. What the bible teaches on the issue of tongues has no connection with praying for the sick or being delivered from demons. No basis.
Third, based on these two other things, he can now make the claim that tongues is still in operation with no actually evidence. And in the process he misrepresents what the scripture says. He states 'And I prayed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and about 5 weeks later after coming to faith I began to speak in tongues at a prayer meeting and I knew it was real and powerful. So I was reading scriptures; and it says 'if you speak in tongues; you should pray to interpret.' Notice, the last words which is apparently a scripture. And it is. But it is not what it means. Here is what it states 'Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.' The point here is not that the person is speaking in a real tongue, but that he may actually be speaking nothing but nonsense, gibberish and hence the need for interpretation to actually prove it is a real tongue "language" is necessary. It is also vital as well.
To put this in modern lingo "you claim to be speaking in tongues; prove it" in effect Paul in this statement like others in the chapter is mocking the idea. That is the essence of this chapter he is mocking and ridiculing the people for what they are doing.
And Just as Christ divinity is the subject of John one which WT does its best avoid like a plague; so to John 6 is about God's sovereign hand and rule over salvation which of course Michael avoided like a plague. Let us ask a simple question: Is this even a good practice of drawing a meaning from the text? I mean, let us consider Romans 1 for a moment and the Sinfulness of man. Do we go to verse 23 and read that back into the whole thing and come away with the idea of 'idolatry' being the issue and not creation in sin as the Homosexual sinners do? Or take Romans 3 and leave the context go to a different context and read it back into Romans 3:21-5:1 and say see no Justification by Faith alone because we have to do something?
Let us note an interesting way he completely refute himself twice in Romans 8-9. He says at one point: 'there is no mystery' evidently meaning that the reformed position says there is (on that I could be wrong). But here is the most fascinating thing this whole speech has been based on such a premise he no less than 5 times offers up what he says could be 'potential' understands. But never gives us what he believes it be referring too. So it turns out he is advocating a mystery. The second contradiction is in the last few words that nothing has the power to pull us away (quite true) so what of this 'unless we ourselves decide to renounce him.' So does some have the power or not? And before we get started John 6 and 10 contradict him. Nothing and no one has the power not even the man himself.
In the Ephesians 1 take from Michael, we see yet another butchering of what it means. It is shocking at lengths some will go to deny and reject the only interpretation of the context that does not do harm to the main point. The reformed argument is not individual election but personal election. God knows (an intimate relations) persons on a one to one basis; and therefore, it is individual in that sense; but it like wise is a corporate reality in that the individuals chosen on a personal basis made up the corporate church. but the election is never corporate.
Is this all just the plainest example of the fact that Michael falls into boarder line eisegesis when he deals with John 6:35-45. I simply do not understand this poor method of reading and reasoning from the scriptures. But then again, from what we have seen in His sermons alone is any wonder that Charismatic are serious trouble.
(5) Defending heretics and denouncing criticism. By far the most interesting aspect of Michael's whole approach is what can be documented with clarity and certainty. In the last few year, there has been much coverage of the fact that this man is willing to share the stage with men whom have been out as heretical teachers. And this is the most very dangerous thing to do.
Now if we are consistent in dealing with James White's recent compromise in allowing a muslim to come to church and spew his lies (without being challenged); then we must likewise out this tendency with Michael Brown too. And this is precisely what needs to be done.
And the first example of this is to be found in Michael sharing the stage with Benny Hinn and not challenging him. I will provide some excerpts:
The issue here, then, happens to be that the Benny Hinn issue was made known to all people-- every where. These other things as bad as they are; were not made known in such a public way. And what makes this worse is this, only a short time before, he responded to Pastor MacArthur's Strange Fire in such a short space and with what appears to be, in his own words, "I don't have time to research every body" a sloppy critique because if it were careful then he would have known that Pastor MacArthur exposes Benny Hinn as the fraud he is in the 8th chapter.
How, then, can we believe that God would use someone that has no discernment to bring clarity to a heretic? It simply cannot be done. Based on everything else we have considered, this man is falling under the strictest judgement of the Word 'Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.' But there is a further problem in all of this. Notice these words 'And since Pastor Hinn seems very desirous of further interaction with me' Notice the wording "Pastor Hinn" biblical speaking the one thing such a person is charged with is teach and preach the word accurately and faithfully. And there is great amount of evidence that this man has no ability to such a thing. Let us note a number of other false teachers and heretics that Michael Brown has defended as if they were true belittle teachers; and even Christians (1) Bill Johnson (a leader of NAR movement) (2) Carl Lentz (Hillsong) and (3) Jennifer Le clair. This is something that alarm us.
Now here is the flip side to this whole issue. Many good biblical teachers and discerning persons have spoken against these movements over the last number of years. One example happen to be John MacArthur who wrote a top notch book against the Charismatic movement and all its aberrations called Strange Fire (and two earlier one: Charismatics; and Charismatic Chaos). Matthew Brown went after him in 2013 Of which the following statement arose from him responding to quotation of MacArthur:
Conclusion.
All that we have put forth makes it clear that Michael has no sermon skill, no discernment, no biblical understanding, no real basis for any one to listen to him.
Let us now turn to our reasons for this whole conclusion which all highlight something very serious.
(1) Indecisive terminology and statements. Over the years there has been many a time when Michael has used very indecisive words, terms and even statement; even in how he handles many issues.
For example, in the last few months, He has spoken on oneness theology. And when he did this, he could not bring himself to actually condemn in clear words that it is in fact heresy. Said the following:
Oneness Pentecostal churches wouldn't normally identify as 'charismatics' they strictly identify as Pentecostal, in my experience; sometimes it's just a fine line between the two. But yet, they are ones who preach Jesus is the Father, son and the Holy Spirit. They say we're to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Not the names of. And they say, 'what is the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit? Well, Acts 2:38 'be baptised in the name of Jesus. And in Isaiah 9:6 one of the titles for the Son of God born into this world is 'everlasting father.' Jesus is the Father.Now that is good as far as it goes. No real issue to point out. So he does say true things at some points. However, it slips very fast and before we can even get time to make any additions to this.
He continues onto state:
There are three options only. A large number of believing Christian teachers and theologians say it is apostate and heretical; and it is understandable. A point that Dr James white says at this point is very effective; but I cannot articulate it in the way he does. But I would say 'if they have son they have the Father.' 1 John 2. That would be the way I put it.
Could it be, even in the midst of extreme error, that they have still rightly believed in Jesus as saviour and Lord and son of God?Now the cogs begin to fall away. This is a very dangerous position to put oneself in when it comes to one of the most central, if not the most definitional truth of all the scriptures. This indecisiveness has no place in Christian thinking and theology. Let us note a number of things:
First, he claims that there is only 3 options. And does not even list them; instead he offers a very slippery question. But beyond this, it should not even be three options; but only two. Is this position correct or incorrect; true or false. No third way. This is a very dangerous position to play with.
Second, he mention Dr James White on the issue of the Son. James question or inquiry is a good one. It is basically this: 'did Jesus eternally existed as the Son?' A vitally important question. And the answer will determine whether one is biblical and orthodox in their faith. Having that clear is essential. The use of 1 John 2:22-23 is beneficial in this line enquiry as well.
It is interesting that he mentions James White, because in 2010 both of these men debated two unitarians. And I thought that both were equally capable debaters and gave both of the unitarians a real good and instructive case and even refutation. But now I realise that Michael was not really the sole debater for the trinitarian side; and was in fact, being kept in line by Dr White. A very valuable debate to watch. And really ask what is the course of Michael's clarity.
Third, now notice that his question leaves plenty of room to wrangle, does it not? Even to ask such a question is totally imbalanced. Whom was it that came to earth to give his life upon the Cross according to their philosophy? Jesus or the Father or even both. Is it biblically based to say that the Father entered the human body of Jesus, so that in this one person, you have the humanity as Jesus and the divinity as the Father? Why not be straight in condemning this view?
(2) Man-centred Sermons. Let us get a vital point a cross concerning sermons; and that is the content of the sermon must be driven by the key verse, passage; section or chapter. It must be exegetically and expositional in nature. And also, we must allow the context determine the points and application. This is what any good book on preaching will outline as a beneficial setting.
And when we come to Michael Brown, he will start off okay and on track (but like the other purveyors of this ideology) what we end up with is nothing back a man centred eisegetical treatment that feeds to the man in sin. Let us notice a few example:
Our text is 2 Timothy 2. cite verses 1-3. Elsewhere in the new testament Paul writes to a fellow worker and refers to him as a 'soldier' and then he goes on and says in 2 Timothy 2:4. There must a focus and there must be loyalty when serving in the army and if you've grown up in Israel its a way of life for you. You're not there to do your own thing; your own will; you're not to tell people what meals you like and what time you like to get up at; and what colour you prefer You are there to serve and under command. And these are the analogies Paul is using here. Verse 5. Another image Paul uses in 1 Cor. 9:24-27. The writer to Hebrews in the 12th chapter tells us 'Run the race with perseverance.' 2 timothy 4 about 'finishing the course; finishing the race.' So the image of an athlete is a biblical one. Verses 5-7. When Jesus taught his disciples and explained to them 'they had to deny themselves; take up their cross and follow me.' It wasn't just a metaphorical image; a figure of speech. They understood he was going to his death and they would have to follow in his footsteps. Peter is an example. In verse 8 Paul makes it clear that this is your lot. (Michael Brown: Living for Messiah's glory; 8:27-12-30)He then goes onto state the following interesting thing which I will paraphrase 'there is this teaching in America which is a perversion of the cross; whereby they teach that you are the central point of everything; and not God.' I do agree with him on this point; there is a modern version of the Gospel that perverts the gospel and the cross. But unfortunately he will not spell it out by its actual name, as he is heavily invested in it. To use his words 'a Jesus that died to make you a bigger and better you.' That is, of course, the health and wealth gospel or the prosperity gospel which is just another variant of the whole Charismatic movement.
Let us note his words at 16:50 minute mark: 'we won't correct or rebuke because it hurts my feelings.' Interesting way to put your own short coming out for us to deal with. Remember how you would not rebuke certain men in the Charismatic movement. And yet you state this.
In another sermon he states based around 1 Samuel 17:1-10:
I mean they get worked up, they get ready; 'come on' we're going to war come on. And they get to the front line and they see him and they run. There's something about Goliath; there's something about this intimidating thing- this intimidating force. It takes the courage right out of you; it takes the confidence right out of you; it cuts your knees right from under you. And you feel you got no fight. You might be praying, fasting, so full of power- and you run right into this thing and hit a wall. And its absolutely intimidating. When you look at video's that Isis put out with it's in that same mentality. One night I saw that they posted online "Jordanian Pilot burned alive." Horrific video. I thought 'what a tragedy! What What a horrific thing! What a barbaric act.' And i thought to myself 'I just go back to writing' I say 'wait! that not right' This guy's burned alive and it's not impacted me. So I made a mistake of watching it. And these videos are meant to in still terror in the hearts the enemy. (Michael Brown; facing goliath; 9:20-10:45).It has to be noted that this "sermon" by Michael brown reveals that he cannot even stick to a text for longer than five second. He says 'they' referring to the Israelites in the context before him; but without out any guilt he switches the statement to "you." And therefore, has violated the sermon rule. Preach the text not yourself. Whom is the text speaking of? Goliath and Goliath alone.
Now another irritating thing to note is that he not only abandons the text in this way; but he likewise abandons it to give an illustration from the current context of Isis (I am not against using illustrations) but here is the question: how does this illustration serve to give us any understanding of what was going on in 1 Samuel 17:1-10? It simply does not. As a preacher and teacher, the first and foremost priority to to deal with the text in its actual historical setting and context. And neither have been fulfilled. And this was preached at the same church as the above one on 2 Timothy 2 which leads to this vitally important observation.
Did they forget his statement about not preaching in the vain of some of the modern-day scripture twisters when he said 'There is this teaching in America which is a perversion of the cross; whereby they teach that you are the central point of everything; and not God.' Not a very observant church it appears.
In another sermon based around Matthew 10: 24-33:
It is a costly thing to follow Jesus! In this chapterJesus sends out his 12 disciples to preach. And then then as the chapter goes on, it moves into an extensive warning that Jesus was giving His disciples about what they're going to face. It obviously moves beyond just that account of going out to preach then; it moves a head into their ministry and what they're going to experience in the future. And he says, beginning at verse 24, 'A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!'Now his disciples got to see how their master was treated; they got to see him rejected, beaten, and crucified. And he said it is enough for you to be treated like me. In fact, you can be expected to be treated worse. And then he says this, 'Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.' And I look at this as a word of comfort, Jesus is about to speak to his disciples and tell them why they don't need to be afraid. 'Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.' In other words, don't fear people because the worse they can do is kill you. It's a very different way of thinking. This is the Jesus way of thinking and it's the way the disciples lived. (Michael Brown; It's a costly thing to follow Jesus. 11-15 mins in)Now after opening once more with his testimony and personal info which has no place in the sermon at all. And that took 11 mins. He comes to the actual sermon itself (if you can call it that) And what do we get a commentary based dealing of Matthew 10 which is not a sermon. With each statement of the scripture, we do not get even the first basic point concerning it. What does it means, what can we take from it, how do we apply it to our lives if necessary? If this were a sermon these thing would be addressed. It is a very poor handling of scripture; and even worse, a sorry excuse for a sermon. And this has to be mentioned.
Let me give you an example, he mentions verse 24 'A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master.' How are we to understand this statement? What are its implications for Christian slaves and masters and teachers and students in that time and place? And even more so, how do we apply it for our own situation? are both, or just one or even none applicable? None of this is even approached. What do have is a comment that is not even addressed in the text as the main thing. And this is what makes one a great exegete and great at explicating the word. And we are not to assume that he did not have time for it as the sermon was 1hour and 23 minutes long. Clearly enough time to do a real in depth teaching on this statement.
Apart from these important observations, this was not a bad introduction. It is a shame that what followed fell flat as he no less mention 3 personal stories in the space of about 5 or 6 minutes that we clobbered around one textual verse. Even if what he was saying was important for this day and age; why? Why in the form of personal stories in such a way that it clouds out the passages proper intent? For example, how in the text, does the "do not fear" statement relate back to the previous section? We are not informed by this serum and yet the text clearly shows a link.
In another sermon based around Jeremiah, chapter 1:
I wanna talk about the power of the Spirit, the moving of the Spirit, what the Holy Spirit does? To explain why I believe and I'm utterly convinced that these (gifts) are to be normative for us today. (and then come back to some experiences that I hope will build you up and edify you). Speaks on verses 4-5 in Hebrew and translates it. (fine, thus far). He asks: how does he respond? Continues on with the hebrew and translate it, from verses 6-10. Here just a man whose been given authority over nations and kingdoms; and by his words his gonna tear down and uproot and by his word his gonna build and plant. Why? Because the Holy Spirit was upon him, because the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. It was not his own wisdom, ability, life experience when he would prophesy to a king or nation. Those words carried authority because it was the Lord speaking through him. When we speak of "spiritual gifts" the things of the Spirit. It is not a matter of our ability; but of God's ability. (speaks of a man called an "Apostle of the faith" who died in 1947. Miraculous healing had come out of his handed had healed some one). (Michael Brown, are spiritual gifts in operation?, 10:15-16 mins)Here we have another vital "sermon" from Michael Brown which can help to establish the central point, that he has no business even in the pulpit as a preacher. Note that he spends the first 10 minutes nearly in giving his testimony which is rather enlightening. Even for two reasons: the first, what he describes as being the method of "interpretation" sounds like what a particular cult from Utah states about how their "prophet" translated their scriptures. Interesting. And that is serious enough; but it gets worse. The second thing is that clearly and most definitely misrepresents the scriptures he said the bible teaches that the same one who speaks a tongue will be able to interpret it. And no such place speaks in this way: it same to one the gift of tongues; to another the interpretation (1 corinthians 12 and 14.
But now let me be clear even as one who believes that these particular gifts have ended, that is not my intent at this point. I simply want to ask why does he go to establish his point by using as his main text, a text which in all reality has no bearing on the subject at hand. Why not make a case from the more relevant texts? Let us note something in the text that he does use. There we read: 'Then the Lord stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms,"' This is not about the church which is concerning multiple persons; but a single person from many years ago. While we can learn a lot from it about God dealings with this man (and others); there is no link between a prophet utterance like that and some babble of today. The question is this: has God spoken today in this manner or has he ceased from it? That question must be simple.
He has ended speaking in this fashion. But my concern here is what is the connection between Jeremiah' calling and what he is seeking to establish about what he believes about the Charismatic gifts (or revelatory signs)? There is simply no connection whatsoever in these matters.
In another sermon based around Luke 12:
Jesus says this to his disciples, beginning in verse 49: 'I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.' And here Jesus is referring to the words of Micah the Prophet, in the 7th chapter about division that would come. And the Jewish Traditions of that time held it to at the time of coming Messiah it would be fulfilled and that these divisions would come. But when we read the words of Jesus here; we see anything but complacency. We see anything but indifference. His burning... His burning to bring fire on earth. He has a mission to accomplish, He has a baptism to undergo. His burning on the inside until it comes to pass. (Michael Brown; Burning heart to change the world; 17-20 mins in)Now we come upon another instance of false teaching from this charismatic leader. But let us give him some red where it is due. He choose a text and then comes and give a little bit of truth to it. He tells us about the Old Testament citation, and the Jewish expectation of the Messiah fulfilling it. But this is all we get two important points; and no sooner he lay this foundational reality, does he abandon contextual exegesis. He moves from the realm of what the context allows for in preaching to dumping a truck full of false statements that helps him introduce the modern day Charismatic bent. And that is eisegesis at it finest and it is deplorable.
But notice how he goes about this matter, he states: 'But when we read the words of Jesus here; we see anything but complacency. We see anything but indifference.' How do you go from the text which is about his work on the cross to this idea of "complacency; indifference" that you say that he was anything but that. No contextual support whatsoever. It seems as if this statement is nothing more a portal in which you can slip in a boat load of self-centred ideals. And this can be seen in the fact that he follows it up with a load of experiences from his own life. While it maybe good testimonial witness (not that it is); but it makes bad sermon material. so this is the fifth "sermon" where this kind of trend has been seen to use a text of scripture to promote your own selfish gain. A very dishonest thing to do.
We may notice that in his forty-five second dealing with the text before his tactical manoeuvre. He states of what Christ said that it is something that the Messiah alone would do; and even highlights and strengthens it but alluding to what the Jewish Tradition said in regard to the Micah passage. Now, what of the two statements of the Lord? The first, 'I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled' Michael, I believe would have us see this as referring to revival. But that is invalid. For this has primarily to do with what Christ came to do. It is a result. Then the second, 'But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!' this is about nothing other than Christ death for mans sins. He will be put to death and have man's sins imputed to his own account and be buried and raised again. That is the baptism he refers too. And nothing more. Now the first statement logical follows this one it is the result of this one and the quote from Micah elucidate this.
So now, we may ask and rightly: why has Michael failed to deal with this passage in an adequate fashion? The answer is simple. It does not help his course.
(3) Incomplete biblical understanding and misidentification. Now we come to a third area that must be considered as this man has been put forth as a man great biblical understanding. And this erroneous claim has lead to a further issue of not handling the word correctly in several ways. Let us note that while this is a serious point; it in no way disproves him as a Christian.
He, however, on this basis should never have stepped forth as teacher of the word. The above reason is serious enough to make this clear. Now let us see how this next reason is fully demonstrated:
Question: What is a false prophet/ teacher?: 'As I understand scripture, a false prophet is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A false teacher is a heretic leading other to hell. A false prophet is not some one who loves the Lord and prophesies falsely. Remember we are not under the Old Testament where people were dependant on prophets to lead them. So I would say that if someone prophecies today: they are corrected for it; they can be believer who loves the Lord but makes a mistake; they speak in the flesh; they confuse the voice of the Spirit with their own thoughts. And they speak falsely. I will not brand them a false prophet or a false teacher based on New Testament terminology, that these people are wolves in sheep clothing and are servants of Satan. I will say this. If I said something publicly. I got upon radio and said God has shown me that Ted Cruz is going to be our next president. And it didn't happen. That would not mean I am a false prophet but prophesied falsely.'Here is a vitally important statement which needs to be considered as it reveals the very ignorance that the "Charismatics" as a whole displays. The question we are told is this: 'What is a false prophet or teacher?' Would we be in the right to say that such a question demands and warrants a clear and concise answer? Yes or No. So, what do we get in this instance? Confusion on Michael's part. Let us document this to see it clearly as it can possible be.
He starts out 'As I understand scripture' this is where the first error creeps in. I don't care what your understanding is; we want the scriptural definition and not your understanding. In fact, in a sermon he said that when someone came to him and asked something very particular and he said 'the Lord has not spoken to me on this matter; but I can give you my opinion." He said, that his wife rebuked him saying 'who cares of your opinion; he wants the Lord's word.' And so I will take his wife's words "who care about your opinion. Where is the biblical truth.
He then states 'a false prophet is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A false teacher is a heretic leading other to hell.' What in the world has this gotta do with anything. For a start, in New Testament teaching a false prophet and teacher are interchangeable. So the differentiation is mute. But the Old Testament and New Testament are united on one core thing that identifies a false teacher and Prophet: their teachings. It is their teaching that are to be tested
Take for example: In Deuteronomy 18 when it states:
But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die (verse 20)According to this divinely revealed word, there are only two ways of knowing whether someone is a true Prophet. The first, that they do not 'speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak.' So if they say something such as a known person will die in 1995 and it is now 2016 and that said person is still alive. And this word is said to be directly from the Lord. That is a false prophecy and it is warrant enough to say that the person who delivered it is a false prophet. There is no limit on how many false and erroneous prophecies make a person one. But there is such a thing as a false Prophet.
The second, that they do not 'speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' Here is where the scriptures give us an additional piece of information, just a few chapters earlier on. We read:
If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)Now this introduces the fact that a prophet can say and do all the right things that are in accord to the truth. But if they 'Let us go after other gods' then we know that they are not true Prophets. And ultimately most of the teachers in the whole Charismatic movement lean toward this tendency. The god they want people to go after is the god of self. So with this all in view we must come to the New Testament and ask what does it say; for we read in Matthew 7:
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.Surely Michael is not teaching us that the New Testament tells us we can know a false prophet by the way he is dressed or the way he carries himself, when he says 'a false prophet is a wolf in sheep's clothing.' For that would mean that no one can know at all if someone is true or false in this matter. No, in fact, Jesus is more precise in his words than Michael wants Him to be, and he fully confirms the Old testament warnings of the teaching and whom they point other too. In the words 'You will know them by their fruits.' (Verse 16). It is not the person themselves that matters. It is the doctrine. And the Charismatic movement is rife with false teaching regarding man, and even the God of the universe. Too note this read Charismatic Chaos or Strange Fire by John MacArthur for full documented evidence which Michael never refuted but made it worse.
The second thing we will consider here is another question and answer; of which the answer is very interesting.
Question: What is a Berean?: 'When I was a leader in the Brownsville revival, I often dealt with revival critics. Often very sincere people; who were very disturbed what they heard about the revival. Certain things they saw and said 'how can this be of God!' And some even referred to themselves as "bereans." And when I interacted with them and said 'Yeah. Let us all be Bereans' we know that we all can have controversy without revival. You can have controversy because you may err, because of contention and things like that. But you cannot have revival without controversy, when God moves in certain power and intense ways there's always controversy with it. It happened in the bible. And even when God moved in certain ways like in the out-pouring in the book of Acts and the second chapter. It happened in the ministry of the Lord Jesus and the Prophets bringing their message. It happens through history. But what does it mean to be a berean? What does it mean to have a berean attitude? This is what is written in Acts, the 17th chapter. It's where we get this concept from. So in Acts 17. 'The Jews in Berea had been more noble than those in Thessalonica. ' And this is what they did 'They eagerly received his message then studied the scriptures to see if what he was saying was accurate.' This is what I see is the key to a true berean attitude.'Let us at the beginning note the question 'what is a berean?' That is the issue we need some clarification on. And which we do not get any. First off, let me tell you what a berean is. It is a Jewish person from the first century who became a Christian upon the preaching of Paul. Now there is a distinct characteristic to this type of person, and it is one that all true Christian must adhere too. And that is that the scriptures are the foundation of their whole belief system and world-veiw; and therefore, we like them must test everything according to scriptures as Paul would later tell the church at Thessalonica to do. But that is the characteristic that Luke commends them on.
Now with this in mind, let us note some striking issues that crop up in this answer. First, he instead of answering the question directly, he gives an anecdote, an illustration to try and make the point. But in reality it raise a whole load of questions about his views. Now revivals when they credible will always have one common thing at the heart of it God's word being powerfully proclaimed. And all the sermons from Brownsville and other charismatic revivals have been largely based on experience and the twisting of scriptures. God was not honoured. Second, in raising the question: 'what is a berean?' in his answer. He quickly changes the question 'what does it mean to have the berea attitude?' and therefore, he changes the scope of the answer. It is called Equivocation. In other words you have a question on a particular issue; and then in a second you change frame of the question while remaining with the word.
Another important fallacy is knowing as shifting the burden of proof. And Michael engaged in this. By changing the frame of question; he was able to then question the integrity of the people who would be against such a movement on biblical ground. He said, 'they would say this is not of God' and then said 'prove it.' You see the problem is that Michael is in this instance making it clear that he does not care for criticism. The burden of proof lies in the hand of the one who claim that a movement is of God and not the one who rejects. He does not realise what a slippery slope this mind set is. On this basis, every false religion and cult can use Michael' argument against him.
The third example that I want to consider comes from a sermon called: 'Are spiritual gifts in operation?' Which he states this in his personal testimony:
The Church where I was saved believed in speaking in tongues; believed in prayers for the sick; believed that people could be delivered from demons. So was saved in that environment. And now I read the scriptures and I saw it taught there plainly. So it was pretty simply. In other words, it was taught in scriptures; and it was what we're seeing and believing. So, of course, we believed it. And it was strange to me that not everybody believed or thought that way. ---- For me, I read the scriptures about the baptism of the Spirit; and speaking in the tongues. Of course, that would be strongly emphasised in Pentecostal circles. And I prayed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and about 5 weeks later after coming to faith I began to speak in tongues at a prayer meeting and I knew it was real and powerful. So I was reading scriptures; and it says 'if you speak in tongues; you should pray to interpret.' I wanted to have gift of interpretation.Now unlike the previous two examples which were questions he answered on his radio broadcast (falsely); here, however, we have the introduction to a sermon and like other sermons that we have considered it has his testimony which varies in length from one to another based on what he is putting forth. What this serve to demonstrate is that it beyond question this man should never taken to teaching or preaching for he is poor in his handling of the Divine writ. And in the process of this statement we find ourselves thrust into a difficult area of his use of fallacies and inadequate references. Let us proceed to demonstrate this all in this manner.
First, notice that he said that 'In other words, it was taught in scriptures; and it was what we're seeing and believing. So, of course, we believed it. And it was strange to me that not everybody believed or thought that way.' You would not come to the conclusion that something was for today unless you had been told that it was. And then went to see if it were true. This is confirmation bias. And this is what he tries to worm his way out of but nonetheless tells us is the case. How do, we for example, know what is being manifest today as "tongues" is in fact what the scriptures teach regarding "tongues? Has it actually been verified? Or are to assume that this just what you want to believe? Nothing has been proven.
Second, notice the way that he starts this whole diatribe: 'The Church where I was saved believed in speaking in tongues; believed in prayers for the sick; believed that people could be delivered from demons.' It is hard to believe that Michael would use this kind of logic in this matter knowing that the Homosexual advocate uses a similar argument. To 'overload the dock' with many irrelevant points to try and dislodge a valid argument. The advocate of Homosexuality would say you christian use Leviticus against but you know what about this law? And this is what Michael is doing here. By putting speaking in tongues with these other thing which have been the issue is illogical. What the bible teaches on the issue of tongues has no connection with praying for the sick or being delivered from demons. No basis.
Third, based on these two other things, he can now make the claim that tongues is still in operation with no actually evidence. And in the process he misrepresents what the scripture says. He states 'And I prayed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and about 5 weeks later after coming to faith I began to speak in tongues at a prayer meeting and I knew it was real and powerful. So I was reading scriptures; and it says 'if you speak in tongues; you should pray to interpret.' Notice, the last words which is apparently a scripture. And it is. But it is not what it means. Here is what it states 'Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.' The point here is not that the person is speaking in a real tongue, but that he may actually be speaking nothing but nonsense, gibberish and hence the need for interpretation to actually prove it is a real tongue "language" is necessary. It is also vital as well.
To put this in modern lingo "you claim to be speaking in tongues; prove it" in effect Paul in this statement like others in the chapter is mocking the idea. That is the essence of this chapter he is mocking and ridiculing the people for what they are doing.
(4) Cultic handling of scriptures. Now we come the fourth area that must be discussed as it is very problematic to see a 'professing Christian' do this. And that is treat the scripture in a very poor fashion that is akin to the cults and how they hand certain biblical themes. It pains me to see this from anyone. Let us note first a cultic way this is done for comparison purposes:
With this in mind, let us turn to the first argument put forth by Michael L Brown and that is his handling of John 6:John 1:1 states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (King James Version) Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that “the Word” is Jesus. (John 1:14) Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God.Here is an example from the Watchtower on the Trinity and its denial of this biblical based truth. And we note that there is no real interaction with the passages mentioned, no interaction with the arguments put forth by trinitarians at all, and no interaction with the other sources that they quote to substantiate their claim. It is merely an assertion with no real basis.
And also on Romans 8:30-9:24:To get a better feel of the text we need to start back in john 1 and work through to this point to get a more accurate feel of the point at hand, and when we do we see that in ... john 1 :12 "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God", then in john 3 :16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." and in john 3 :36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them". as well we see the same thing in john 4 :14, 4 :23 and 35, and in john 5 :43 -44, 46 -47, Then in john 6 35 -36, who are the ones who are given .. who the Father now entrusts to the son .. well in the history of the Jews there has been a remnant .. some who after Gods heart .. they are the lowly and contrite of heart. We see this them in such passages as the following: Malachi 3: 16 -18, Isaiah 57 : 15, Ezekiel 9 :3 -4 Jeremiah 29 : 3 -7 and also Luke 1 :17. This interpretation is confirmed in vs. 45 of john 6, and make much more sense than importing an arbitrary predestination into the passage. John 6 :38 -39 ... the emphasis is clearly on the keeping power of the son of God, we see the same thing in john 10 :27 -29 .. there are two possible ways to understand this
1) all those given to the son will persevere and infallibly be saved until the last day
2) Jesus will do his part in keeping safe those entrusted to him, nothing can snatch them out of his hand .. yet those given can turn away as Judas did .. which read in john 17 : 12
And lastly on Ephesians 1:4-14:Beginning with the Phrase 'For those He foreknew' this could be potentially referring to chosen based on foreknowledge-- 1 Peter 1:1-2 the believers are elect according to God's foreknowledge; with a prior example found in Genesis 19 with 'Yada.' Or it could be referring to God's corporate electing of a people- acknowledging them as his covenant partners. It is His plan as in Ephesians to have a people who are conformed to the image of his son. As to how the individual becomes apart of corporate body, Paul has told us repeatedly it is those who are justified by Faith. Note that 'saving faith' is mentioned 17 times in 3:21-4:25. There's no mystery here. To the basic programme of his people; then, the destiny of those on this ship is set forth in vs 29-30 it's to become like Jesus: called pretend as God's own sons and daughter just as Abraham's seed was called through Isaac in 9:7 Justified; again, we know how this process takes place. And glorified; refers to what God does with this group. So one possible reading is that he fore who would believe in his son and then chose. The prior knowledge view. Another reading id God chose a corporate people, his church, his messianic congregation. Verse 31-39 just as John 6 and 10 Jesus will keep us to the end and nothing has the power to pull us away from him unless we ourselves decide to renounce him.
I actually agreed with a good portion of what you said. More than the others. Okay. the key points that need to be made: our election is in Christ, and just as Israel's election was corporate, so is the election of the church. 'We' plural are chosen in Him- at the end of verse 1 'the faithful in Jesus Christ.' And even more emphatically at the end of verse 3 'blessed us in Christ.' here is what we need to notice, the emphatic uses of 'in christ' in verses 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11,12, 13 (nine times). The verb 'proorizó' means to decide beforehand, to determine. So it means that God determined certain affairs to conform believers to the image of Christ. The same verb is used in 1 Corinthians 2:7 as in verses 11-12. Paul affirms that God determined to adopt us into his family by the redemptive work of Christ. As William Kline points out 'I must observe that Paul never uses this verb to assert that God has determined the specific individuals to save nor has he by means of specific individual to salvation.' In other words, God doesn't predestine some to have faith.Now while I am not going to defend the Reformed position (although I am one); I simply want to point out that this is exactly the manner in which the Cultist would use to get around the exegetically drawn truths of scripture. Just as the JW evades the topic of any given passage by reading a foreign concept into the passage 'a god' in John one; likewise in a very similar fashion Michael has to leave the topic of John 6:35-45, Romans 8:30-9:24 and Ephesians 1:4-14 and go to every passages in the scripture and read that falsely backing the context and never deal with the subject in a fashion that the text deserve and demands.
And Just as Christ divinity is the subject of John one which WT does its best avoid like a plague; so to John 6 is about God's sovereign hand and rule over salvation which of course Michael avoided like a plague. Let us ask a simple question: Is this even a good practice of drawing a meaning from the text? I mean, let us consider Romans 1 for a moment and the Sinfulness of man. Do we go to verse 23 and read that back into the whole thing and come away with the idea of 'idolatry' being the issue and not creation in sin as the Homosexual sinners do? Or take Romans 3 and leave the context go to a different context and read it back into Romans 3:21-5:1 and say see no Justification by Faith alone because we have to do something?
Let us note an interesting way he completely refute himself twice in Romans 8-9. He says at one point: 'there is no mystery' evidently meaning that the reformed position says there is (on that I could be wrong). But here is the most fascinating thing this whole speech has been based on such a premise he no less than 5 times offers up what he says could be 'potential' understands. But never gives us what he believes it be referring too. So it turns out he is advocating a mystery. The second contradiction is in the last few words that nothing has the power to pull us away (quite true) so what of this 'unless we ourselves decide to renounce him.' So does some have the power or not? And before we get started John 6 and 10 contradict him. Nothing and no one has the power not even the man himself.
In the Ephesians 1 take from Michael, we see yet another butchering of what it means. It is shocking at lengths some will go to deny and reject the only interpretation of the context that does not do harm to the main point. The reformed argument is not individual election but personal election. God knows (an intimate relations) persons on a one to one basis; and therefore, it is individual in that sense; but it like wise is a corporate reality in that the individuals chosen on a personal basis made up the corporate church. but the election is never corporate.
Is this all just the plainest example of the fact that Michael falls into boarder line eisegesis when he deals with John 6:35-45. I simply do not understand this poor method of reading and reasoning from the scriptures. But then again, from what we have seen in His sermons alone is any wonder that Charismatic are serious trouble.
(5) Defending heretics and denouncing criticism. By far the most interesting aspect of Michael's whole approach is what can be documented with clarity and certainty. In the last few year, there has been much coverage of the fact that this man is willing to share the stage with men whom have been out as heretical teachers. And this is the most very dangerous thing to do.
Now if we are consistent in dealing with James White's recent compromise in allowing a muslim to come to church and spew his lies (without being challenged); then we must likewise out this tendency with Michael Brown too. And this is precisely what needs to be done.
And the first example of this is to be found in Michael sharing the stage with Benny Hinn and not challenging him. I will provide some excerpts:
I know it's late, but for those of you who are still up, here's a quick question (meant honestly): How many of you are fine with my friendship with men like Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, and Reinhard Bonnke (whom I believe to be true men of God), and my involvement in and endorsement of the Brownsville Revival (which I believe to be a wonderful move of the Spirit), but you're just concerned about my appearing on Benny Hinn's TV show?
Thanks, friends, for sharing your thoughts and concerns re: my appearing on the Benny Hinn show. While I'm quite aware that some of you feel he is the ultimate false teacher and charlatan while others believe him to be a wonderful man of God, I have actually not monitored his ministry over the years. When I received the invitation to appear on the show, I felt I was to take it and exalt Jesus the Messiah and expose hyper-grace (and exalt true grace) to millions of viewers. And since Pastor Hinn seems very desirous of further interaction with me, I would encourage those of you who have grave concerns about his ministry to pray that God would use me to be a blessing in his life. (MLB'S defence of his actions)This whole issue cannot be over looked. The very mentioning of three men who are false teachers and "brownsville revival" only makes things ten times worse; they in no sense alleviate the issue but compound it. And what is worse, to label the "Brownsville" revival as a "wonderful move of the Spirit" reveal a further problem. One that we have noted before now but must of necessity be raised up again. That is the very fact that this man has no discernment at all.
The issue here, then, happens to be that the Benny Hinn issue was made known to all people-- every where. These other things as bad as they are; were not made known in such a public way. And what makes this worse is this, only a short time before, he responded to Pastor MacArthur's Strange Fire in such a short space and with what appears to be, in his own words, "I don't have time to research every body" a sloppy critique because if it were careful then he would have known that Pastor MacArthur exposes Benny Hinn as the fraud he is in the 8th chapter.
How, then, can we believe that God would use someone that has no discernment to bring clarity to a heretic? It simply cannot be done. Based on everything else we have considered, this man is falling under the strictest judgement of the Word 'Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.' But there is a further problem in all of this. Notice these words 'And since Pastor Hinn seems very desirous of further interaction with me' Notice the wording "Pastor Hinn" biblical speaking the one thing such a person is charged with is teach and preach the word accurately and faithfully. And there is great amount of evidence that this man has no ability to such a thing. Let us note a number of other false teachers and heretics that Michael Brown has defended as if they were true belittle teachers; and even Christians (1) Bill Johnson (a leader of NAR movement) (2) Carl Lentz (Hillsong) and (3) Jennifer Le clair. This is something that alarm us.
Now here is the flip side to this whole issue. Many good biblical teachers and discerning persons have spoken against these movements over the last number of years. One example happen to be John MacArthur who wrote a top notch book against the Charismatic movement and all its aberrations called Strange Fire (and two earlier one: Charismatics; and Charismatic Chaos). Matthew Brown went after him in 2013 Of which the following statement arose from him responding to quotation of MacArthur:
I calculated that someone visiting us for five days, attending the day sessions, night services, Sunday school and Sunday morning service would hear the Word taught and preached for almost a dozen hours, while students in our ministry school would be immersed in the Word for another 16 hours a week. Yet because we freely welcomed the move of the Spirit—although not as described by Pastor MacArthur—we were allegedly experiencing a mindless, irrational, emotional orgy.Now this is a very telling statement. It says that 'someone visiting... Sunday morning service would hear the Word taught and preached for almost a dozen hours.' That is a bold claim that is stated. But unfortunately it is unsubstantiated one at best. Of course, the scriptures are read. No problem. But the remainder of the "sermon" is filled with nothing but personal experience and testimony as it has been established. And as I have made clear: a sermon is not for you to preach you, but Christ alone must be preached. That is not a sermon basis.
Conclusion.
All that we have put forth makes it clear that Michael has no sermon skill, no discernment, no biblical understanding, no real basis for any one to listen to him.
