73. Beware those who don't allow Scriptural, and logical, cross examination!
The Calvary Baptist Church/Baptist Union fiasco continued in this manner:
David Williams : How long are you going to give me, please?
Richard Lewis : 'It's ten to ten - ten minutes.'
David Williams : What I would like to have asked every one of the deacons was: 'If you were, um, asked to describe in one or two words the behaviour you witnessed towards yourselves and others, at the hands of Roger, what words would you have used?' I think the words that have already been used make it very clear that the words I actually used were very appropriate. I would also have liked to have asked the deacons: your recent letter stated clearly: 'We have considered the more serious changes made and we believe that Roger does not deliberately preach heresy and desires to serve the lord in all things.' I'd like to ask you individually to answer a question: Did Roger, in any way at all, try to influence the way in which you came to that meeting and the way in which you came out with that letter?
[Interrupted here by Richard Lewis : 'Can I stop you at that - because this was arrived at in the absence of the minister who had no influence over the writing of the letter at all.']
[Note: I believe that it is clear that Wheelhouse had already manipulated the diaconate thoroughly with his factious bullying tactics, and therefore the fact that he was not present when they drew up the letter does not alter the coercive influence that he had on them, so to state that he 'had no influence over the writing of the letter at all!' is nonsense.]
David Williams : [to Roger Wheelhouse] 'You didn't influence any individual in any way at all? Right! [disbelief!] We'd also like to ask - individually - whether the deacons could answer this: 'When you realised that Roger had spoken against keeping the Law, which I called Antinomianism, and when you realised that he'd taken a whole baptismal message to teach that we should be struggling to keep the Law, before baptism, and failed to mention, in any form whatsoever, the Good News of the Lord Jesus Christ. When you actually met with me and Zoë, which definitions did you use to determine what heresy, or a heretic is? I mean - tonight, people have already brought their individual definitions! I used the Scriptural one from a Greek expert. If people are going to come up and re-define Scripture as it suits them you can prove anything you want to prove. I'd be very interested if you can tell us what sermons you actually listened to over the last two years; how many people did you interview to come to this conclusion - that resulted in this statement in the letter? If you listened to any sermon - er, didn't you listen to any sermon when you failed to pick out the previous errors? If you didn't speak to individuals, how come you came to the conclusion that, 'Roger desires to serve the Lord in all things'? I think from what you've already said you've contradicted yourself in that statement. I think that many of you who have come up here as deacons have not told the whole truth. The things you've said privately are very different from the things you've come out with tonight. How can you make a statement like you've made when you haven't examined any evidence? I'd like to make a reply to some of the things that people have brought out: As has already been mentioned, Roger did come under false pretences. So you have to ask yourselves about the way in which people - I mean, what were you voting for when this nearly unanimous decision was made? [to accept Roger Wheelhouse as pastor!] Apart from some of the things Roger's come out with - he has continued to show, since the December 3rd letter - by the way I would like to mention now that I was in contact with deacons about the letter, and they did get it before the rest of the church and they did have opportunity to respond to it. So it didn't just go out willy-nilly to everybody. If the deacons had said - and given good reason - what was wrong with the letter, I might have still have sent it out. I almost certainly would. Because, quite honestly, all the division, and everything that has gone on underneath has already been revealed as being true. You've also got to ask yourselves, since that letter went out, what has Roger's preaching been like? Has anybody noticed any 'gaffes' at all?
[We had waited over a year since speaking to the deacons about our concerns regarding Wheelhouse's doctrinal teaching and they had clearly done nothing that was having a substantial effect. I was not present for every service, being absent in other churches as a lay-preacher, so I asked because I may have missed something (although my wife and genuine brothers and sisters in the fellowship were at the meetings I missed). But in the services I attended after we sent the letter, Roger was very low-key, subdued even, and I did not hear one trace of heresy or recommendation of heretical elements in the worldwide church. This is the effect I would hope would result from stern discipline of the kind the deacons should have mêted out if they were really leaders in the church].
David Williams cont. : It's been very low-key, hasn't it? If you can do that in the month since, you have to ask yourself, 'Why not previously?' And that, in itself, answers a lot of the questions, for instance, that Kevin [Dare] brought up. You know, the very fact that people can be careful and accurate with the Word of God - if they need to be! I have to say that when this huge vote did vote Roger in, you have to recognise the years of frustration - that people had been waiting! You have to consider for yourselves that - would they have voted for anybody?
[After this rhetorical question there was a huge outcry in the church meeting and, having heard the testimonies of pride and refusal to accept that it was either not God's will to install Wheelhouse as pastor, or His will to bring judgmental oppression to the church, I now goaded this huge protest from the fellowship to prove that the church still refused to accept that sinful pride and ignorance had resulted in this heretical ministry filling our pulpit!]
David Williams : Don't forget that Roger was recommended by the elders - elder and deacons. You know, we actually did listen, and people trusted the leadership. The quote from 1 Corinthians 13 - about love? You know, if I didn't care about you I wouldn't have bothered to write the letter. I could see no way in which any of these things were going to be resolved. It was just going to go on - year after year. I'm certain that it's happened in other churches Roger's been in. [someone shouted out questions about the manner of writing the letter]. I've already answered that one, actually [to the deacons at their meeting in which they made no response at all]. If you read 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, and the chapters preceding, you'll see that there was actually division within the church - and therefore it was a situation where the leadership simply wasn't functioning. Read Galatians 2, as well. [someone shouted out that Matthew 18 gives us the 'words of Jesus'] Of course they're the Words of Jesus [some people seem oblivious that Scripture as a whole is the Word of Jesus, the Word of God!]. The fact is, I had already spoken to Roger, privately, and found that he was willing to do whatever he wanted to do with the Word of God, just as he does sometimes in sermons. [more calling out questioning 'the process to follow'] There is a process to follow, but you don't use just one Scripture. [Richard Lewis called out to the fellowship to try and stop the interruptions from the meeting: 'Please continue.'] Sorry - OK?
Richard Lewis : 'Yes, thank you David'
David Williams : Peter [Smith] did tell me in the deacons meeting that he'd been talking to Roger and things had been improving over the last six months. Well, I'm sorry, I didn't see any of that. The fact is, between October and November, the same things were going on. The same people were being trampled on, many of whom were so hurt they won't even come up here and talk about it. Mike wanted us to be a Scriptural church - well, who doesn't! I mean, the very fact is - most of us want to be Scriptural, but when we are going to re-interpret Scripture as it suits us, as I say, we can prove anything we want to prove. I could quote from other sermons that Roger's come out with - because quite honestly, he has encouraged us to blaspheme against God. If you had listened carefully, you would have heard it. I mean, where were you on April 12th? I seem to have another five minutes so -
Richard Lewis : 'You have 3!' But, if you've finished, then we'll ask Roger to come.'
74. Beware those who have altered the Biblical definition of blasphemy!
David Williams: On April 12th  Roger gave an account of 'a woman who married late, in her 40's.' She thought it would be her final hope of having a baby and became pregnant and was looking forward to having the baby - but had an early miscarriage. So Roger went to her and - these are his words:
'.....she was such an angry lady. And I said 'Tell Him.' She said, 'I can't - I can't tell him how I feel' - He's not come up with the goods' - you know she didn't say that! I said, 'Tell him!' She said, 'but I shall scream at him, I shall shout blue murder at Him.' 'Well tell Him - He knows what's going on in your heart so you might as well tell him.' Why do we try to pray church (sic), why do we try to pray religious, why do we try and not be normal? You know, Jesus is quite thick-skinned and quite used to it - well He must be because He's got me as one of His disciples and I'm always complaining to him - and He hasn't spat me out yet. He hasn't let go yet! Yeah - so she was able to scream out - this lady was able to scream out - and, do you know, in that there was tremendous healing. I saw that lady transformed because she'd got it off her chest. She told Jesus exactly what she thought of Him - and then she carried on with her Christian life - and as far as I know is still going on with Christ. You know - don't worry so much about saying - He wants to hear - He's probably crying out and saying, 'Tell Me how you really feel - come on, stop playing religious games, stop putting this nice smile on your face. Stop coming to church intending to show everybody in Calvary that you're quite alright. Why don't you come out with it and say - No, you're not. And say it - because there is healing in there.''
So we have a pastor encouraging sinful prayer - telling her to tell 'Jesus exactly what she thought of Him.' And then he says 'she carried on with her Christian life'! With an incorrect view of the God of the Universe! Now believing that blaspheming against God will bring healing!
If you find that true I suggest you look through your Bible and find -
[angry shouting, quoting Jeremiah and Job, from the floor and Richard Lewis also called across to me from the microphone he was in front of and said: 'We look at that differently today!' As the mob howled I was reminded of a verse from Proverbs:
Psalm 35:16 Like godless jesters at a feast, They gnashed at me with their teeth.
David Williams (continuing when the hub-bub died down) : Job [meaning the book] is an excellent example of actually being rebuked for the advice of his friends. I don't know what you think about that Scripture. I mean, quite honestly, many of you are clearly confused. Kevin's already told me I'm confused! But quite honestly - [interrupted by Richard Lewis]
Richard Lewis : OK! I think I'm getting close to the edge of my tether. Both Jeremiah and Job berated God on a number of occasions - it was not his friends, Job's argument was with God!
75. Beware those who mis-interpret Scripture
[Richard Lewis here missed the analogy I was making with a believer, Job, being given bad advice by his friends - the very thing Roger Wheelhouse did for this unfortunate lady! If I had been allowed to finish I would have pointed out the lessons to be learnt from the Book of Job that have been passed by today - particularly lessons about the self-life. In the book of Job, we see the death of the self-life through the fires of affliction and the new vision as God sees Job. The self-life, with its self-goodness, self-reason, self-religion, self-esteem, and self-everything, is laid bare so all can see. The man who at first was said to be the most 'righteous' man on earth (Job 1:8) is found at last on his face before God, saying, 'I abhor myself in dust and ashes' (Job 42:6). Orthodox scholars believe that the book of Job is at least as old as the time of Abraham. Since the book contains no reference to the established worship system in effect from the time of Moses, it is assumed that the events occurred at least during the patriarchal period. Its setting is in the land of Uz. We are not certain where that was located, although many believe that it was in Arabia. It could be anywhere, and everyone who reads the book can associate with it in some way. But born-again, orthodox, Christians should also be aware of the context in which we place Job's history in the light of our much fuller knowledge of the Word of God. Or, I should say, the greater knowledge we should have today! However, if you have been heavily influenced by the abundance of heretical teachers' and their widely available writings, you are going to swallow Word-Faith garbage concerning the way in which you can order God to do your will. Wheelhouse's connections with Toronto inevitably led him to begin teaching his flocks that they can also berate God in this blasphemous manner. The Baptist Union's ecumenism has led many of its own pastors to rub shoulders with error which has polluted their minds and their pulpits in the same way.
76. Beware those who support the Satanic view of God's relationship with man
In Job 1:1, we are introduced to Job, a man blameless and upright. He feared God and eschewed evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and was very wealthy. In material possessions he lacked for nothing. Many people try and associate their ills and complaints against God on the basis of the Book of Job. If they are going to do this they must first share the attributes of Job: was Roger Wheelhouse's 'angry lady friend' a woman who was 'blameless and upright . . . who feared God and eschewed evil'? (Job 1:8)
After introducing us to Job and his various religious practices, the Holy Spirit pulls back the curtain of heaven and allows us to listen to a conversation which takes place between God and Satan. In reply to God's question as to where he has been, Satan responds that he has been walking throughout the earth (v7). God then throws down the gauntlet of challenge: 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth?' Satan's response represents the greatest calumny against God that had ever been delivered. Its gist was that a person who served and loved God was interested only in His rewards. According to Satan, no one would love God just because of who He is. If you were not so good to him, Satan intimated to God, Job would curse You to Your face. To prove him wrong, God threw down the gauntlet:
'All that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.'
Satan departed and tragedy began to fall upon Job in rapid blows, one after another. The Sabians attacked (v15), fire fell (v16), the Chaldeans raided (vs. 17), the house was blown down and killed all his children (v18). Each report came on the heels of the preceding one. In a few minutes time, Job learned of the loss of all he valued: possessions, crops, animals, servants, children. Yet, he did not curse God or shake his fist at Him. Instead, he tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell to the ground. His statement in verse 21 is the answer to the most profound issue of human existence. 'Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither. the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
Much of the content of the book of Job revolved around the concept of theodicy. Theodicy comes from two Greek words, theos, meaning God, and dice, meaning justice. In other words, how can we vindicate the justice of God in relation to evil? How can we justify God's holiness and the existence of evil? It is the continuing theme throughout the book.
Job had lost all his possessions but still had his health. Chapter 2 pulls back the curtain once again and we are now listening to another meeting in the heavenlies. God pointed out that Job 'holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause ' (v3). 'No wonder,' is Satan's reply, 'You have not touched him physically. ' 'Put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.' (v5) Again God gave Satan a limited power: 'Behold, he is in thine hand, but save his life' (v6).
77. Beware those who refuse to believe Scripture - 'Job DID NOT sin with his lips'
When Satan was allowed to inflict Job with boils from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head. Job sat out on an ash heap and scraped himself with a potsherd (a piece of broken pottery), the only thing available to scrape the scabs from his body. Notice that, at this point, although Job was still secure in his faith, his wife had experienced too much, and said, 'Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.' Later on we will find Job beginning to question and challenge God, and to vacillate between despair and trust. But, at this point, his integrity is intact. He responded to his wife: 'Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh'. Verse 10 adds, 'Job did not sin with his lips.' Although Job's wife encouraged him to curse God, to tell Him 'exactly what he thought of Him' - just as Wheelhouse foolishly encouraged the unfortunate member of his flock to do - Job had the integrity to refuse to follow the leading of Satan. But Richard Lewis of the Baptist Union here agrees with Wheelhouse's view--which is that of 'foolish women'-- and endorses Satan's claim too!
How can 'pastors' of this ilk read a Scripture in which the challenge Satan issues to God is that Job will curse Him to His face when things go wrong in his life, and then miss the clear point that Job resisted the temptation to do what Satan planned - while they encourage a believer today to follow Satan's plan? This is how corrupt much of the clergy of today have become as they mimic the world in lax morals while protecting their job's and pensions! Do you really wonder why the cults are able to make so much capital out of the state of the contemporary church? Consider how little the Word of God was defended in this meeting, where emotions ran amok, compared to the defending of egos. Who comes first, man, or the name, honour and Word of God?
78. Beware the Baptist Union which now supports the theology of Job's wife and Satan!
Job has many lessons for us today, for he had three friends who heard of his disaster and they were, at least outwardly, 'righteous men'. If we study the Imprecatory Psalms, and learn something of the mentality of the eastern mind in Old Testament times, we find a strong leaning towards the belief that suffering had to be God's judgment on sin in the individual's life. Strangely, this is a belief that has been revived today by the Word-Faith heretics and, as we will see later, was also embraced by the Wheelhouse's. If Job were truly righteous, all this could not have been happening. We should know differently because we were witnesses to the two conversations in heaven, but Job did not know about them - and this is another important point missed by Wheelhouse and Lewis! Job will go through the entire ordeal and never learn why it happened. Nor did his friends ever know. In their eyes, Job had to be a sinner. Their position and their theology were shaken to the core because they believed that if Job were righteous and all this had befallen him, they also might experience sudden calamity. They had to prove that there was sin in Job's life in order to vindicate their theology at this point in their history. At first because of the boils and dust, they did not recognize him. They wept and tore their robes and threw dust on their heads in typical oriental mourning. They sat on the ground for seven days and seven nights, not saying a word. Do you know anyone who would sit with you a full week because he grieved with and for you? Do you believe that Roger Wheelhouse, or anyone in his flock, did this with the bereaved woman? No, the quick, slick, 'must have it now' solution was applied! Rant and rave at God is Wheelhouse's solution, 'because there's healing in there'! 'We haven't got the time to sit for a week without saying a word' they would claim. Do you know Christians who have sat up all night praying for a sick one? Or who have fasted for days or weeks to seek the will of God?
The nominal faith encouraged by pastor's of Wheelhouse's ilk cannot begin to appreciate the word of God and it's depths. The quick, slick, 'eat the fruit to gain the knowledge' is their answer. In their own way, Job's friends cared about him and it was their unselfish behavior which demonstrated their genuine concern and compassion. But it was still their sinful suggestions that goaded Job into error.
79. Beware those who refuse to believe that Job cursed himself - but not God!
Job 3:1 to 41:34 is a series of dialogues among this small group of eastern 'sheiks' sitting in typical eastern fashion and discussing the verities of life. It was Job who broke the seven-day silence by cursing the day he was born (Chapter 3) for, at this point, his state of mind was the lowest it will be throughout the book. It is revealed in such statements as 'Let the day perish wherein I was born' (3:3); 'Why died I not from the womb?' (v11); 'Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery?' (v20). We notice that Job does not curse God, as Satan had predicted and as his wife advised but, rather, he turned the curse on himself and the day of his birth. There is a similarity between verses 2-10 and Jeremiah 20:14-18 where Jeremiah also cursed the day of his birth. The curse is not directed just at his day of birth as such, but against his life in general, now so full of anguish and pain that he wishes he had never been born. It is not uncommon for a person with a terminal illness, or some other severe problem in life, to wish he could die; but to wish that one had never even been born, thus rejecting the good years with the bad, is one step further down the ladder of depression. In verse 13-16, Job expresses such anguish that, 'As a hidden untimely birth … as infants which never saw light,' in his morbid flight of imagination he asks, rhetorically, why he was not aborted as a dead foetus, a miscarriage which is discarded, passing directly from the womb to the grave without ever seeing light. Some commentators think of this entire passage (3:1-10) as an imprecatory poem, similar to some of the imprecatory psalms (cf. Psalm 35, 52, 58, 109, 137 etc.). Certainly, Job is in serious need of comfort but his friends are in no way equipped for the task and, in fact, are the ones who sin (see Chapter 42:7-9) and Job is called to pray for them!
The motif begins in chapter 4 and is a continuing cycle of speeches. Eliphaz speaks and Job gives his rebuttal. Bilded speaks and Job responds. Zophar speaks and Job answers. Then we have the cycle of speeches: Eliphaz-Job; Bildad-Job; Zophar-Job; throughout the text. Then communication deteriorates and Zophar does not respond. Throughout the cycle, each man tried to discover what was wrong in Job's life. It was thrust and parry, as if they were in a fencing match, for five weeks! In chapter 4, Eliphaz began by suggesting that Job could not take for himself the counsel he had offered others in trouble. Verse 3: 'Thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands.' Verse 5: 'But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled.' Verse 7: 'Who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?'