As one critic put it, Peter went up on the house top (roof) to pray at the sixth hour. That is supposed to be another proof text for planning prayer today. But it is not. As he says openly – it was a Jewish custom. Is my Calvinistic brother really telling me that a Jewish custom underpins the Christian faith? Is he saying that this text ‘proves’ the need to plan prayer? If that is what he is saying, then he is wrong. Jesus did not come to reinforce Jewish customs, but to give life eternal, which is spiritual. He gave us freedom; He did not shackle us to men’s ideas and to past customs. Readers must bear in mind that some things that occurred in the New Testament were for the Jews, not for us. Many texts refer to historical narratives that should not be used by zealous men as modern-day commands. Legalism rears its head otherwise.

Jesus, my critic says, did not condemn Peter and John for going to the Temple to pray. That is true. This was because He had not yet risen, and so they still had to observe Old Testament, Jewish custom. As Jesus told them – do whatever the Pharisees say (from scripture) but do not follow what they do, because they were hypocrites. That is, actors, pretending to be what they were not. That is the very real danger in prayer meetings...people attend though they really do not want to. Or, they enact what is not given to them to do by the Spirit. The Jewish custom, or Jesus not disagreeing with disciples going to the temple, is NOT proof for prayer meetings or for praying at set times.

11. Confusion?

‘There will be confusion if there is no set time for a prayer meeting’? Who says so? This assumes that modern prayer meetings are valid and that they are necessary in their present form. This is without scriptural warrant. “Everyone would be wondering what time and what night we are going to come together to pray”. Once again, this is Arminian fallacy speaking, not scripture.

If men and women were truly called together and were of one mind and with one accord, they would not need to know times and days, for they would all be prompted to attend anyway! So, once again, Arminianism is triumphant in the thinking process. If everyone was left wondering what to do and when, it shows that God is not in it.

The critic tells me it is ‘not wrong therefore’ to plan prayer meetings. But, all along he is assuming that his argument is water-tight, when it is definitely not. As we can see from the above responses, he has not proved one single point that he makes.

12. Prayer Requests or Menus?

The critic mistakenly equates a prayer request with a prayer menu. In the Article I clearly defined what I meant by a menu. We all recognise what is meant by it. Requests for prayer are legitimate, but invented menus, without regard for the Holy Spirit, are useless and sinful. Please do not make me say what I have not said!

Under this category comes the Lord’s Prayer, which is held to be proof of a planned prayer. No it is not. Jesus did NOT give the prayer to provide us with ‘headings’. He was showing us an attitude toward God and the kinds of things that God wanted to hear (which He would hear if we were faithful to His promptings!). In no way is the prayer supposed to be a formula, or even a list of ‘headings’.

Paul requested the brethren to pray for him. That is because he obeyed the Spirit, Who prompted him to make the request in the first place. Paul was called of God to his task. He was inspired directly by God to speak and to preach. There is the difference, for many men I have heard are not called to preach or to teach. We see this every day in our pulpits, as men waffle and invent things to say.

No, it is not unreasonable for a pastor to bring requests before the people, though there is no hard and fast rule for him to do so anyway. To say the pastor should do this is to misunderstand the pastor’s role. He is not necessarily the ‘leader’. He is a shepherd who guides on behalf of the Lord. Anyone, then, can make such requests on the behalf of others.

When we have such requests, we should not pray unless we know who or what we are praying for. Otherwise, we could be praying for things not in the will of the Father...and this error occurs all the time in our churches.

And even if meetings are left open for people to pray as they wished...are these good folk really praying to God? Or are they praying because they feel they ought to? Or because they have a sense of emotional wellbeing? This can often be the spur to ‘prayer’ and it can be a very close mimic of true prayer. I have witnessed many of these occasions. Are they all praying with one accord, one mind and one heart? Listen, and the answer is ‘no’. I will not apologise for what I have observed.

So, it is not wrong to bring requests before the people for prayer....IF the one making the requests is burdened by the Lord to make such requests and if individuals who are asked feel a reciprocal burden for the same thing. This burden might come upon just one person in a meeting, or all...or none The emphasis is on ‘likeminded’ and ‘one accord’. Do you really know what a spiritual ‘burden’ is? It is overwhelming, and it takes precedence in the heart and mind. It presses a man or woman like nothing on earth can do. It prompts and pushes until we respond and take it back to the Lord. If all of this is found in your prayer meeting, then I thank God for it and you are truly praying aright. But I know from long observation (and woeful participation) that this does not happen, except on very rare occasions.

Critics say that I call everyone who attends a prayer meeting an hypocrite. This is not true. I merely question whether prayer meetings as we have them today are scriptural. I have said that most folk attend dutifully, but they are cold. I attribute this coldness not to their hearts being cold, but to their proper spiritual reaction to something that ought not to occur – the organised prayer meeting. Such people are not hypocrites – they are just untaught and know no better. However, there are hypocrites aplenty in our churches, who love the pre-eminence, and love to ‘pray’ in public. They are eloquent rather than called to prayer. They love to be emotionally involved. They do not understand what prayer is, or the sovereignty of God.

Do we need guidance in evangelism and in children’s work? (two examples given by a critic). Of course we do. Again, though, I question what is happening. More often than not, the reformed man automatically puts these things on the agenda. They are done because others do them, and not because there is a burden from God to do so (those who have to ask what a ‘burden’ is like, have never had one). For example, only the evangelist should evangelise. That is his calling from God. He is gifted to that end. But that does NOT necessarily mean others are called to do the same thing, or even to go with him. How many Christians dutifully trudge door to door, inwardly wishing they were somewhere else? Too many! That is because they have never been called even to be helpers to the evangelist. The whole thing is, once again, Arminian and sinful.

The order above should be:

1. An evangelist is called to his office by God, and is gifted in order to perform that office.

2. He is called to speak to specific persons (singly or in groups) at a specific time and in a specific place.

3. Only the evangelist is given the office, gifts and command.

4. If others are to ‘help’ (?) then they, too, must be called by the Holy Spirit.

5. All of this depends on God’s will and counsel. Therefore, to call on His guidance is superfluous except in a day to day sense of maintaining one’s walk.

Calling for ‘guidance’ to go out and evangelise, or to hold prayer meetings, is indicative of a people who have never been called to a task in the first place. It is Arminian in theology and in practice. It means that one has gone out and done something without ever being called to the task.

The critic says that because we need God’s blessing on all that we do, ‘therefore’ it is not wrong for us to hold prayer meetings. One is not cohort to the other! There is no logical connection between these two assertions. Now, if he said there was a connection between prayer and God’s blessings, I could accept it. But there is no necessary connection between prayer meetings and blessings. (Note: I have used the word ‘necessary’ throughout this paper. It is used in its proper research sense here).

The main objection I have to many critics is that they use literary devices rather than scripture. The only legitimate device we may use as Believers is ‘straight scripture’. That is, scripture to prove scripture. Not intricate and convoluted human arguments.

13. Strange Protestant!

I am, apparently, a ‘strange Protestant evangelical’ because I dare to ask if the prayer meeting is valid. Unwittingly, the critic who made that statement only serves to confirm me in my staunch rejection of this hallowed, but wrong, tradition!

The question of validity was raised quite some years ago because, time and again, I saw what a farce it all was. I tried to raise very modest questions with my then pastor, but all I got was a severe and bitter attack. I had done nothing to deserve it. As time wore on, it became painfully obvious that what had happened to me had also happened to many, many others in the same church.

Later, as BTM conducted its work, the numbers who agreed with my own observations grew to mighty proportion, until several thousands had confirmed similar experiences. They also confirmed their own doubts about the validity of prayer meetings. My critic would, along with others of the reformed persuasion, like to sweep all this under the theological carpet. It is not in their best interests to make the mess public...or so they think. But it is already very public...it is just that most churchgoers are reluctant to speak about their doubts and fears openly because of the fear of reprisals. What kind? Being consigned to the ‘backslider’ bin for one. Being shunned or talked about behind their backs, for another.

It is not me who is strange, but all who follow the reformationist error. (Note: I am not referring to true reformed men who are continually reforming). My questions are borne of honesty, not hatred or any subversive reason, as some critics suppose. How can I be subversive, when my aim is to honestly discuss scripture in all its fulness, so that we might believe and live aright? When, at every turn, I point men and women back to scripture, and turn them away from myself? When I reject any personal gain (obtainable by any who know how to write, including famed Protestants!) and give the glory to the Lord?

The same critic charges me with denying the validity of prayer meetings. Yet, I defined my opposition at the very start of the Article...I do NOT oppose prayer meetings per se. I oppose false prayer meetings. As all I have ever come across (with notable exceptions) are the false kind, it is time to question and to reject what is erroneous in our churches.

The critic goes on to say that if everyone used my criteria, and applied them to all church ‘services’, then we would be left with virtually no services at all. Correct. I would love to see everything come to a grinding halt, so that all that was false could be thrown out! So the critic is right on that one.

Once, I remember listing the Biblical qualifications and qualities of a true, called, pastor of God. My listener laughed openly and said that if we applied such criteria to all churches, then we would be left with no-one in the pulpits. To which I said “Good!”  There is an odd supposition that it is better to have a false pastor and preacher, than to have none at all. This is nonsense and is against God’s word. A minister of the Lord must be called and gifted, just like the evangelist. This percolates all through the Church, so that every aspect of local church life is governed by God’s grace and sovereign will.

‘Services’ as we now have them are just exercises in men’s traditions. They are not found in scripture. Yes, I would like to see them all disappear, so that we could start again scripturally. That goes for prayer meetings, too. I do not think my critic knows the full extent of my opposition to all things unBiblical in our churches!

The critic attributes the problem with prayer meetings to a lack of spirituality, which, he says, leads to loss of freshness and vitality in prayer. This is not my view – which is that the problem is with the meeting itself, because it has no scriptural precedent. Prayer can be marred by a number of things, including persistent sin and a non-reliance on the Lord, or the bad teaching of a pastor.

My critic charges me with having a ‘clear bias against pastors’. This particular charge is rather odd against one who is himself a pastor! As a pastor I teach what scripture says about my office – that I am a servant to all, that only God has the power and the glory, that my ‘authority’ is only delegated, that I am but one of the congregation, that I am only to be followed (as Paul says) insofar as I teach scripture and that alone. Also, the pastor has a proper, though limited, authority. In which way, then, do I have a bias against pastors? It is a very strange charge indeed. Yes, I am against false pastors...and there are countless of these around.

And yes – there are pastors who snoop around a person’s home to see what they can assume from his belongings! It has happened to me as well as to others. (It surely need not be said that my observation is limited to instances I know of personally - which is what I actually said - and that I gave them as illustrations only?) To suggest that I include all pastors in the observations is very wrong. As I have said elsewhere, there are exceptions.

My ‘bias’, then, is a proper one, against all who claim the office of pastor, but who have never been called to it. I insist – there are many of these in our churches.

I have been told that my ‘bias’ is made more strange (and contradictory) because I say that the representative prayer of a pastor appears to be scriptural. My friends, the examples I gave of ‘bias’ toward pastors were to do with pastors who seemed holy to the local church, but who beat up their wives in private! About pastors who snoop on people, then pretend to be friendly and open to their faces! Representative prayer by a pastor, for the congregation, appears to be acceptable in scripture...though this is only my opinion. I could be wrong on that one, though I do not think so.

This same critic accuses me of showing further bias against pastors on page 15 of the Article. I invite readers to go back to that page, to see if there is even one wrong bias against pastors. What I have done is to point out some of the many errors that have grown up with the pastorate, that must be corrected. Many who call themselves pastors are charlatans. Others are called but are in error, because of rampant ‘reformationism’. It seems that only a small number are true to their calling.

Note that even those who are true can commit error. For example, by being dictatorial. Many good men are like this without realising it. Are any of these statements ‘anti-pastor’? Hardly!

I am also charged with being opposed to the traditional view of preaching. In this he is 100% correct. But I am 100% in favour of scriptural preaching!  My statement - that pastors should not expect to just speak and sit down without being asked questions – is taken way out of context. Notice how Jesus was asked questions by his own disciples and by the people. If this was true of the Lord, how much more so should it be true of pastors who only have a delegated authority and who, as human beings, are still liable to error? That goes for me, too.

No, I am not worried about people asking inappropriate questions, whether this is in a church meeting or outside in the world. We are told to be ready to give a good answer to any who ask! Most Christians wish to ask questions or to express doubts. But these are discouraged or even punished. If these matters are aired properly, in order, and with reverence, then most of the problems would evaporate. Yes, the congregation has the right to question what a pastor says...because the pastor is only one of the local church and as accountable as anyone else. No, I do not advocate democracy! When a pastor speaks with the authority of scripture, he must be listened to. But not otherwise. None of this means I suggest people can say whatever they wish, without any kind of check.

The critic says that the Article tends to undermine the Christian church as we know it. Yes, again he is (partially) correct! If I could I would undermine the whole edifice AS WE NOW KNOW IT. Not the Church universal, which is spiritual, but those local churches that live on the dead bones of tradition, and error, and even lies. I want to see scripture as the bedrock of all local churches, and as the basis for everything they do and say. If this is subversive, then I am very happy to be so, because it can only bring us closer to the Lord who caused His church to come into being. I fear that this critic has seriously misread and misinterpreted the Article, because, so it seems, he prefers tradition rather than scripture. If I am wrong, I would want to know why he ranges what I have said against such tradition, as though tradition is greater than scripture?

This same critic finds it ‘incredible’ that I said a local church is only as alive and pure as its oldest living member. He says that this is not scriptural!! My friends, let me give a simple illustration:

1805 Local church founded by an all-saved congregation

1885 The same church now has a liberal pastor who has imbibed the methods of German modernists

1930 The church now has only 2 saved members and 80 who are not

1999 The same church has no saved members. They belong to an ecumenical group and teach heresy.

Now, friends...is that local church pure? No it is not! It is spiritually dead! So long as it had even two saved members who were true to the Lord, we could say it had some purity. But the more unsaved members it had, the more impure it became. In the end it was totally impure and fit only for the dung heap, because none of its members were saved. None of this is found in scripture? I challenge my critic to look again. Is a church consisting only of unsaved people pure in any sense? No it is not. Is it even Christian? No it is not. Is it a part of the Christian Church? No it is not. So, what is my critic actually saying? He is saying only one thing – that it does not matter who is in a local church, or whether they are saved or not. I am told that my position is ‘demonstrably false’...but I am not given any proof for the claim. I challenge my critic to give me proof from scripture that I am wrong! Frankly, I know he cannot do so. I know my assertion is right, because scripture is very clear as to what makes a local church.

I am told that the classification study (simplified from long pages of material for ease of reading) on pages 10 and 11 are ‘meaningless’ because it is incomplete. Yet, on page 11, I say in a proviso that not all usages of words for ‘prayer’ have been included, but that any not included do not detract from the analysis anyway.

Come now – this statement is open and above board! So, in which way is the analysis ‘meaningless’? It is a summary of the examination of 510 texts...surely even a critic can accept that the work was serious? It took a very long time to examine those texts (in the Hebrew and the Greek. I read Greek but not Hebrew, though I understand Hebraic structure and format, etc). It is insulting to sweep this aside as ‘meaningless’!! The prayers in Acts 12 do not alter my conclusions, and that is why I did not include that text in the Article.

14. Nothing in its Place

I have been condemned for saying that we should put ‘nothing’ in place of prayer meetings (except, maybe, a Bible study) – re page six of the Article. The reason I suggested a Bible study is that it would do the person far more good than false prayer. My critic is being very selective in what he is saying, giving the impression that I am only out to destroy the Church (which is impossible, of course).

No, but I am out to destroy the falsity in the churches. I actually asked why we should put anything in its place, if it ought not to exist anyway. In terms of honest enquiry, this is a perfectly valid question to ask. The main thrust of my critic’s anger is that he assumes, without scriptural foundation, that today’s so-called ‘prayer meetings’ are themselves valid. So, he views everything I say from behind defensive barriers.

 I also said that the glory of God is of far greater importance than filling our lives with countless sterile meetings (page 16). If anything replaces prayer meetings at all, then let it be Bible study. That is, honest and proper Bible study (if called to do so)...if my critic wishes to know what this means, let him read the BTM Outline on interpretation! A vast number of reformed men I know of have never interpreted scripture as it ought to be done. Yes, this is a sweeping claim. I make it after reading a large number of reformed writings and listening to thousands of sermons. I also know the ‘reformed mind-set’; that is, scripture plus writings of other men plus tradition. My critic adheres to tradition.

The critic asks, almost sarcastically, if there is any more scriptural backing for Bible studies than for prayer meetings? Yes, there is! (Note: I must constantly repeat – because my critics mysteriously skip over it – that my objections are to today’s false prayer meetings. I am not against impromptu prayer meetings as such). Scripture speaks of people gathering for prayer, but as is defined in the Article. Commands to meet for general and regular prayer are not found in the New Testament.

There is every reason to study scripture. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and others refer us back to scripture (e.g. in that day, it meant the Old Testament. For us, today, it includes the New, also). “...and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (John 2:22). Scripture, then, is vital for salvation (“He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said...” John 7:38) and for continuance in our faith. It is God’s word. To ask if we ought to study God’s word rather than utter false prayer is an absurdity in itself! God’s word is where we find His commandments and injunctions. Modern prayer meetings are where we find people who are not sure they should be there, or where people utter words that ought to be private, or words that have no value because they are not from God. The critic who cannot see that needs to get on his knees in repentance!

How else could we know that Jesus was to be raised again (or that He indeed arose), other than through scripture? (“For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” John 20:9). Philip preached Jesus from scripture (Acts 8:35). “For what saith the scripture?” (Romans 4:3). How can we possibly speak a word unless we know scripture, which is God’s holy and true word? And how can we know that word unless we are saved, and we are taught by the Holy Spirit directly and by His appointed teachers? To know that word we must first read it and be taught it. Yes, give me even a few minutes with the Bible any time, rather than time sitting in a sterile prayer meeting!!

I ask my critic if he has ever, honestly, been part of a group prayer meeting which was so full of power and godly authority, that it overcame those who were there? From his criticisms, I do not think so. Well, I have been a part of such meetings. They were so astounding, they have been remembered. I cannot remember the sterile meetings at all...except that they were boring and without God’s blessing.

One does not ‘attend’ a true prayer meeting – one is, rather, caught up in it as it happens. That is, we do not deliberately go to a time-tabled event (which we therefore ‘attend’)..we are just there when it happens! See how the disciples did not know what to expect in Acts – and then, out of nowhere, came the mighty Spirit of God, and the place shook! God was with them, and there was no mistaking it!

Look in the New Testament to find repeated, “For the scripture saith...”. This term, and similar ones, are abundant. Yet, references to modern-type ‘prayer meetings’ are zero! How can we possibly “...fulfil the royal law according to the scripture...” (James 2:8) unless we study that same scripture? As to whether such study should be long or short, I suggested a ‘short’ study as mere rhetoric, to indicate that even a short time in study was better than hours spent in the sterility of false prayer.

Then comes criticism often hurled by folk who wish to get personal! (When critics get personal, they are admitting that they have lost their argument!). That is, to quote: “There is a lot of self in this Article.” And the critic goes on to say how many times he found reference to ‘I’ in it.

This is hardly surprising since the article was based on my own experiences!! How else do I refer to myself except to use the word ‘I’?? (Sorry, I said ‘I’ again. Oops, I even said it again after ‘sorry’). This resort to such absurdity is not worth the heavy weather the critic makes of it. Look at Paul’s writings. He refers to himself on many occasions, for particular reasons. Is he of ‘self’? When I (sorry, I said it again) use ‘I’ it is because I am referring to myself. This does not mean what is written is ‘of self’’!! Few reformed men are honest enough to refer to themselves. Instead, they pretend to talk only of the experiences of others. How often do we hear sermons that include references to the exploits of long-dead martyrs or others, as illustrations of faith, etc? And how many listeners are affected by it? Very few. Why? Because it does not touch on their own lives at that time in history.

What has the true minister of God to fear from ‘telling it as it is’ from their own lives? Part of the task of a called pastor and teacher is to relate scripture to the lives of those we are speaking to. Often, this involves the telling-forth of what we ourselves have experienced. Nowhere will my critic find any writing of mine that extols my own worth. Nowhere. I never do it, because as a child of God I am very aware that any worth I might have is in Christ, not in me. Any worth in anything I say, is in what scripture tells, not in what I invent. The use of ‘I’ is very necessary if we are to speak to men as we ought. For many years I (oops) have heard reformed men preach in distant terms, and they have touched no-one. To let scripture speak, we must first read it and be taught.

13 Witches’ Covens?

Again taking my words out of context, the critic refers to my saying corporate prayer is like being in a witches’ coven. My actual statement refers to prayer meetings that ought not to have been convened. Why? Because if God has not called them into being, they are of men, sin. Witches covens ‘pray’ but their prayers are sinful. Hence the simple conclusion! Sin is sin, whether it is dressed as a local church or as a witches’ coven. I used this stark comparison because I wanted to draw attention to the seriousness of thinking we are doing God’s will when we are not.

The critic says I ‘decry’ representative prayer on page 9, yet I advocate the same kind of prayer on page 14. Sorry, friend – but I said no such thing, and I invite readers to look again at that section. If I decry anything about representative prayer, it is the kind that is spoken by Romish priests who believe they can pray on behalf of others, because they think they have ultimate authority on this earth.

Furthermore, I do not ‘advocate’ representative prayer on page 14. Rather, I suggest that maybe representative prayer (and examples are given) is allowable by God – but that it is NOT ‘corporate prayer’. I also say on the same page that these are matters for discussion as I admit that I may not be right on every issue raised. In which way, then, am I being full of self, or being dishonest, or inept?

Another criticism is that I said one man cannot ‘cover’ the sinfulness of another with his own prayers. In which way am I wrong? As a Believer, and even as a pastor or teacher, I cannot ‘cover’ the sins of another! The man I am praying for MUST repent of his own sins and seek God in his own right. I cannot do it for him! I am not a Romish priest who claims to stand in for Christ!! It is a matter for deep concern if a reformed man thinks his prayers can cover another man no matter how impious or unrighteous that man may be. Yet, my critic alleges to be reformed.

I am told that there is ‘adequate scriptural support for corporate prayer’. But where? The examples given to me are when people met together and then prayed. This is NOT planned ‘corporate prayer’ at all, but prayer uttered out of hearts filled by God to speak to Him what He has already given to them to say, when He wanted them to say it. The critic honestly thinks he is right to call such times ‘corporate prayer’ but again he is missing the whole point. To be ‘corporate’, legally, is to act as one. It means that everyone says the same things because they are bound to do so by a legal agreement. This is not what we see in scripture. There, men and women gathered together because they had individually been prompted to do so by the Holy Spirit.

The difference, then, is between legalism and freedom in the Lord. Corporate prayer is when men and women gather for a scheduled time of ‘prayer’, when, Arminianistically, they think that just by doing so, God will bless them. Group prayer in the Spirit is when a man or woman is called as an individual, to join with others who are called in the same way. Only then will their prayers be acceptable to God in groups. And this is what we find in every instance of group prayer in the New Testament. There is, then, NO support whatever for ‘corporate prayer’.

The critic thinks, too, that to pray ‘with one accord’ is corporate prayer. The trouble is, many sincere reformed folk genuinely think they must always do things together!! That is how so many congregations feel obliged to trek door-to-door. That is also why many others find excuses not to go! Because they have not been called to the work by the Spirit, they are half-hearted, or they wish they were not there, or they are glum about it.

Let me repeat an important scriptural fact – God calls each of us to be saved as individuals. We are called to be faithful as individuals. We are called to account as individuals. We must pray as individuals. We will die as individuals and be raised again as individuals. We will be judged as individuals. I defy my critic to find anything in scripture against these facts.

Together, these individuals in a locality are known as the ‘local church’ and they might indeed find that several or all of them receive a calling to do this or that. But anything else is Arminian error...and this error is found to occur in almost every reformed church in the world. Now, if this is how we all stand before God (as individuals – or as a group if, as individuals, we commit the same good or sins in the local church), how can we justify ‘corporate prayer’ in prayer meetings (as defined in the Article)?

With a note of glee, my critic thinks he has caught me out...because I say that to be ‘of one accord’ need not necessarily mean being in one place...but that I have ‘overlooked’ verse 13 (Acts 12-14) where the disciples were obviously in one place. No I did not ‘overlook’ anything! The critic is totally unaware of what I mean by ‘necessarily’, which in the paper is used in its true research sense. I invite the critic to discover for himself what is meant by the term before he trips himself up again. In the context of that text, I am pointing out that the phrase ‘one accord’ need not always mean being in one place. In this text it says they were all in one place. So, I did not say it meant they were not in one place in that text. Please, sir, learn proper argumentation.

16. Same Words, Same Time, Same Concept

Predictably, the critic goes on to say that to pray the same words in the same way on the same subject, is not found in scripture. I suggest that my reformed friend (?) should look again at the Greek wording itself, and also at the root words, and the adjunct words, plus the various contexts. These prove beyond any doubt that what I have said is true. It is true not because I said it, but because I was showing readers what scripture says. Thus I cannot possibly be wrong on that one. Look also at other cohorts, such as God’s will, election, how the Spirit operates in a life, and so on. I fear that the fellow does not understand the faith he claims to have. I am not surprised by it, because he is reformed, and most reformed people all bear the same kinds of error.

In many ways, it is the ‘club spirit’ rather than the Spirit of God. It is this spirit of man that causes me to fight tooth and nail against reformationism. Reformationism is a twisting of the Reformation to suit Man. It is offensive to me as a believer and offends the Lord, Who requires only what is of Himself. Throughout his criticism, this fellow mixes what is true with what is erroneous, of men. Again, typically reformationist. This comment is factual, not judgemental.

The critic says that “Corporate prayer means that those present join wholeheartedly in the prayers offered.” Hm! I would remind the man that people can wholeheartedly be very wrong, as well as right! I also wonder just where he has been...he seems not to realise how many folk do not want to be in a prayer meeting (see earlier treatise), but they attend anyway rather than suffer the consequences foisted on them by well-meaning but legalistic brethren. How many are ‘wholehearted’ about a prayer meeting? Very few. It would take only a small number of relevant questions to prove that point. However, if a whole group were all wholehearted in the Lord, then the prayers would indeed be genuine...but still not ‘corporate’ (see above reasons why). The critic is stuck in a reformed mind-set and is unable to see the wood for the trees.

Because Jesus was ‘in the midst of them’ (that is, folk who ask in His name) the critic says “surely He must then approve of collective gatherings for prayer”. (The erroneous ‘if...then’ approach). Annoying though it will be to my critic, I must again make proper definitions...yes, He is with them if they pray aright...and that goes for group prayer also. But how can He be in the midst when groups have planned to pray on certain days and certain times and most folk do not wish to be there, or they do not pray aright? That is how Roman Catholics pray.

I am afraid that the critic’s statements are far too loose to be of use. A Christian teacher MUST be very careful with his words and in what he teaches, for on the backs of loose meanings ride heresies and evils. So, Jesus is NOT present at meetings that are plainly not of Him. It is far more likely that the Holy Spirit prompts some to come away from the prayer meeting, but they refuse because they know no better, for they have been badly taught.

18. Pastors Are Not Dictators?

I wonder what my critic really understands about church life? Throughout the world, reformed ministers have tended to be, and still are, dictators. Many rule as managers and demi-gods, not knowing what their true parameters are in scripture. This is observable fact, and has been reported to me from all over the UK as well as from various countries overseas. No doubt these several thousand correspondents are all lying, and are all embittered, and are all mistaken (!!).

Pastors DO dictate what to say and when to say it. They assume full control over every meeting, though they might not be present. This, even though scripture gives them no such mandate. They are servants, not rulers; they are shepherds, not police. (Of course, there are pastoral exceptions).

‘Guiding’ people as to the needs and wants of others, is said to be good. I challenge that, again because it is far too loose a definition to be of use. It is feasible, and it occurs regularly, that a pastor can mislead others who do not have the same information. This happens all the time – everyone does something because the pastor says so (or suggests it) and not because the Spirit has prompted them to do it. In this way congregations give donations to unholy bodies, such as denominational groups, the Evangelical Alliance, ecumenical groups, and so on.

Even if we are asked to give to, say, a missionary, how do we know we are giving for the right reason and to the right person? Is that person doing God’s will? If not, why are we giving him support? Is he living a life full of sin? Do we give to him at the expense of supporting those closer to home? See what I am getting at? ‘Blanket guidance’ is very dangerous and misleading. We should not be ‘guided’ to the extent of not really knowing what we are doing.

In the same argument, the critic says that when the disciples prayed for Peter, it could be called ‘menu’ praying! Eh? No, they were praying out of fear and praise, because God had called them together for that singular purpose, not because a mere man invented an agenda.

19. Antagonistic to Campaigns, too?

The critic asks if I am just as opposed to imported campaigns (i.e. teams brought in to ‘evangelise’ an area on behalf of the local church). Yes, I am! (My critic has no idea what I stand for or why I oppose these things). Why? For reason already given. Local churches that have to resort to campaigns of this kind are admitting to their spiritual paucity. God’s evangelists move to where they are called to go by God at the time. They do not have corporate names and limited companies. They do not have business accounts and get up to stunts. They do not devise ‘catchy’ ways of doing things. They do not plan evangelism years in advance. They go out as and when called, only to those they are called to speak to. Anything else is Arminian. Enough said.

Arminianism is shown in the words used by my critic: “If God answered prayer and moved in the mission the believers would no longer be cold and unresponsive.” No? Campaigns do not move anyone. God does. If they are spiritually cold, an outside campaign led by mere men will not alter their state. I have been part of these campaigns. I have counselled in them. I have witnessed what goes on. I have sat amongst the audience. Please do not tell me people suddenly are impassioned without prior work on their hearts by God (because they are not)!

Also the little word ‘if’ at the start of the sentence pinpoints the problem. It tells me that the organisers have prepared their plans in the hope that God will bless them. That is blatant Arminianism. God’s way is to fall upon the hearts of a church to cause them to repent and turn to Him. They are then gifted and told what to do, who to talk to and when. Then they do it as He dictates. Only then will the Lord provide the ‘success’ needed. It is all of Grace and none of Man. See the difference?

I have seen and heard far too many instances of Arminianism in reformed churches, both implied and blatant. Frankly, I am sick of it all. Hence my bluntness today. Arminianism is sin!

20. The Spirit Not Hindered

The critic says one good thing here...that our sins do not impede the work of the Spirit. Again, though, he is missing the point. God will often do a work in spite of what men do wrong. But this is not licence for those men to do things wrong anyway!  To do wrong in the hope that God will do good is not just wrong. It is evil. It is a Jesuit ploy and Satan’s joy. If we do wrong when we know what is right, then we err and sin. A menu for prayer given by a misled pastor to a cold congregation, is not good or needed. It is sin and must be stopped. A menu removes the sovereign will of the Lord. Therefore the Spirit is not in the midst, except maybe to turn an individual from the sin of the meeting itself.

21. Not a Revival

I am told that Peter and John went to the temple to pray because they were in the middle of a revival (Acts 3:1). What revival?

There is only revival of what is dying. No, they had just witnessed the beginning of the New Testament! God had moved amongst the Jews and saved thousands. It was a new beginning, not a revival. The place was buzzing with excitement as true religion took hold and individuals were saved. That was why they went to the temple. It is worrying that a reformed man does not really know what ‘revival’ is.

22. Creatures of Habit

It is then argued that as ‘creatures of habit’ we need regular times to meet, or the church will be the loser. What a gloriously Arminian statement to make. Read scripture again – do you find God bending to our habits? No. Rather, God demands what He requires of us. Our habits are irrelevant to Him, unless they stop us from responding (sin). We have no right to our ‘habits’ if God demands otherwise.

23. Compromise and Apostasy

A glaring statement is now made – that where there is no weekly prayer meeting, there is compromise and apostasy. How interesting! Our own church began because whole families were driven out of reformed churches that taught and practised apostasy!! Those churches held regular prayer meetings. They even had early morning meetings just to pray for revival. Yet, they were apostate and full of compromise!! How does my critic account for that?

No, what leads to compromise and apostasy are hearts full of sin, pride and self; minds full of bad teaching and churches without proper discipline; an unrealistic and wrong human edge to church life tainted by Arminianism and other errors. Sin!

When those in our church got away from what I now refer to as the ‘system’, we looked hard and long at every aspect of our lives, repenting of our errors before we even dared to hold a single meeting. We began with examining what scripture says about the most basic things in church life – the role of a pastor, what a meeting really is, the place of prayer and singing, and so on. We found that almost all of the things we had left behind were sinful errors. So we instantly stopped them.

Though we were convinced we were doing right, we were traumatised, because we were still chained to our past. It took several years of intensive Bible study to discover what God really said in His word and what we had to do to get rid of our inherited errors. Thus, we threw out the regular prayer meeting, preferring instead truth and doctrine, love and God’s will. And we were blessed.

Then, when it came to the time of the vile Toronto Blessing, only one church in our whole area actively and publicly stood out against the wave of evil...Ours! Not those who had weekly prayer meetings, and those steeped in reformed tradition. Ours! Who did the bewildered seek out? Yes, they tried the reformed churches, but they were sadly made more confused and anxious. So, they sought us out. In this way we helped over ten thousand Christians in this country alone, and hundreds overseas.

Whole churches in Australia, the USA, the Netherlands, New Zealand and elsewhere, contacted us urgently because we had the doctrinal material they needed to fight the massive errors on their doorstep and in their own churches. Sadly, whole reformed churches were swept away in the deluge, because they had their weekly prayer meetings, but no doctrinal truth. They relied on their reformed position and not on God alone. They did not know their doctrine – so they fell and were unable to advise those affected by the false ‘Blessing’. Today they are just as ignorant as before, and failing.

In other words, out of all those reformed churches, we stood out like a beacon in our own city. I can say this without any doubt, because we fought the issue publicly and alone, night and day, for three years! This is no proud boast, just a fact. Yet, we did not have a regular prayer meeting. We were the only church known for our non-compromise and lack of apostasy. We were known, instead, for our doctrinal stance and Biblical teaching. I challenge any church in our city to contradict these statements. I am not judging those churches. I am using the example to counter what my critic has said.

The critic thinks that great revivals come because people are earnest in prayer. Again, this is Arminian thinking. ‘Revivals’ come because God first causes men and women to repent, and then causes them to pray what He has given them to pray. True prayer, then, is when we tell God what He has first told us. Above all else, prayer is an act of obedience. Though prayer is what God has told us to say to Him, we must obey that prompting. Even so, the prayers for revival do not produce revival*. God does.  That people collect to pray for that revival is only an act of obedience. Only then does faith move mountains. Only then do we see the power of prayer....it is the power of God! (*If ‘revival’ exists at all).