Apostate Charismatic Apologists

Michael L. Brown asserts: “The fact is – and this is the bottom line on the issue – neither Paul nor Jesus warned us to beware of different types of spiritual manifestation. Rather they warned us to beware of false messiahs and false messages along with false miracles that seemed to validate the false messiah and/or message.”¹⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 67 This claim raises an immediate conceptual difficulty. If false teachers are accompanied by “false miracles,” by what standard are those miracles to be distinguished from genuine manifestations? Brown’s argument attempts to draw a sharp distinction between “spiritual manifestations” and “false miracles,” yet offers no coherent criterion by which such a distinction may be sustained. This form of apologetic reasoning is representative of a broader inconsistency frequently observed within charismatic defenses of contemporary revival phenomena.

Peter Glover correctly observes: “What they do not realize is that supernatural manifestations prove nothing – and they can come from two sources, not one. Therefore they require close examination (spiritual discernment) by the only microscope given us by God Himself – His own word.”²⁾Mark Haville, Chris Hand, Philip Foster, Peter Glover, edited by Peter Glover, The Signs and Wonders Movement – Exposed, Day One Publication, 1997, p. 9 Scripture itself establishes this principle explicitly. Moses warned that God would permit false prophets to perform signs and wonders, even prophesying accurately at times, in order to test His people: “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder… Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet… for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 13:1–3). Supernatural activity, therefore, is not self-authenticating; rather, it demands careful doctrinal evaluation.

A striking illustration of this danger may be seen in the phenomenon commonly labeled “holy laughter.” Joseph Chambers stated:

He was affectionately known by his followers as the “divine drunkard.” Men and women traveled thousands of miles to drink from the “spiritual wine” he dispensed. When he touched his followers they would experience great “exhilaration and joy.” His disciples would often manifest “uncontrollable laughter” after receiving a physical touch from him. Was he Rodney Howard-Brown, John Arnott, John Wimber, Swami Baba Muktanander or Guru Bhagvhan Shrei Rajneish? In one way or the other he was all of them.

This manifestation (mass “holy” laughter), previously known almost exclusively to the occult world, is sweeping the church.³⁾Joseph R. Chambers, D.D., “Holy” Laughter: Part Two, Paw Creek Ministries, Inc., Pamphlet 367, undated, p.1

John MacArthur likewise documented the physical manifestations promoted within charismatic theology:

Wimber claims that various physical phenomena take place when the Holy Spirit’s power comes on a person. They include shaking and trembling, falling down (being “slain in the Spirit”), a euphoric state resembling drunkenness, jumping up and down, contraction of the hands making them clawlike, facial contortions, stiffening of the body, trembling, fluttering of the eyelids, heavy breathing, sensations of heat, perspiring, and a feeling of weight on the chest. Of course, the Bible nowhere associates those sensations with the working of the Spirit in a person’s life. They sound more like occult phenomena or self-induced experience than the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:22-23).⁴⁾ John MacAthur, Jr., Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, p. 173

Despite this lack of biblical grounding, such manifestations are frequently promoted as evidence of “revival.” Brown defends these phenomena by stating, “Revival is not about shaking…. But, when God does visit His Church in power, when His Spirit is poured out in abundance, when human lives are dramatically impacted, unusual things may happen. Trembling is not uncommon. Falling is hardly exceptional. Physical manifestations are often the order of the day.”⁵⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 143 This defense is problematic. The most significant outpouring of the Holy Spirit recorded in Scripture—Pentecost in Acts 2—contains no description of individuals shaking, falling, or exhibiting loss of bodily control.

Brown appeals to numerous proof texts in support of his position, including passages that describe earthquakes or cosmic disturbances (e.g., 2 Samuel 22:7–9; Psalm 77:18–20; Job 9:6; Acts 16:25–26). However, these texts refer to physical phenomena in nature, not involuntary bodily manifestations among worshippers. Even passages such as Exodus 19:16–19 and Hebrews 12:21 describe trembling explicitly as fear in response to divine judgment, not ecstatic experience. Moses declared, “I exceedingly fear and quake” (Hebrews 12:21), a reaction entirely appropriate given the lethal holiness of God (Genesis 32:30; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22).

Brown nevertheless presses the argument further, asking rhetorically,

Do you somehow imagine that the whole place shook but they didn’t shake?… Do you think that when the earthquake jolted the jailhouse in Acts 16, so that the prison doors “flew open” and “everybody’s chains came loose,” that Paul and Silas sat still and unmoved?⁶⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 146

Such reasoning conflates environmental events with spiritual experience and reflects a serious lapse in exegetical discipline. Earthquakes may cause people to shake physically, but this bears no resemblance to ritualized manifestations presented as marks of divine visitation. To accuse critics of “trying to find logical loopholes and exegetical escapes”⁷⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 150 is not a defense of Scripture, but an evasion of it.

The danger of this theology becomes especially evident in Brown’s description of water baptisms at the Brownsville Revival: “This [shaking], for example, is quite common in the weekly baptismal services at the Brownsville Revival… and they shake or become weak in the light of His presence, as frequently happened in the Word. As they are helped out of the water (or, sometimes, carried out), the congregation clap and shout for joy.”⁸⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 153 Scripture records no instance of individuals shaking uncontrollably during baptism. The closest biblical parallel involves demonic activity, not divine blessing. In Mark 9:22, a demonized boy was repeatedly cast into fire and water “to destroy him,” while Luke records that “the devil threw him down, and tare him” (Luke 9:42). Lexical authorities consistently describe such behavior as violent convulsions associated with demonic possession.

Jay P. Green translates the word as “violently convulsed,”⁹⁾Jay P. Green, Sr. The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, 1 Volume edition, Hendrickson Publishers, 1976, 2008, p. 798 and Kenneth Wuest translated it similarly, commenting “The demon threw the boy into a complete convulsion.”¹⁰⁾Kenneth Wuest, Mark: In the Greek New Testament, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950, p. 182 Spiros Zodhiates’ lexicon describes this behavior within the definition of a demon possessed “soothsayer,” stating: “from the mad extravagant behavior of such persons among the heathen. Such soothsayers raged, foamed, and yelled, making strange and terrible noises, sometimes gnashing with their teeth, shaking and trembling with many strange motions…. They were caught up in such ecstasy that they were beside themselves…. In many instances was a real possession by the devil, namely, in the case of the prophetic damsel (Acts 16:16, 18). The manteis (pl.) were possessed of a mantic fury which displayed itself by the eyes rolling, the mouth foaming, the hair flying, and so forth…. The Word of God knows nothing of this manic fury except to condemn it.”¹¹⁾Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (KJV), AMG Publishers, 1991, p. 1735-1736 This assessment aligns with the testimony of Kevin Reeves, a former participant in the Charismatic movement, who testified that the source of these manifestations could not be God:

Having been an ardent supporter of the holy laughter movement perhaps gives me a one-up on those who have only viewed it from the outside. I can state with finality that based on my personal observations of the movement’s inner functions, its source could not be God.  …I have been part and parcel of emotional manipulation, heightened expectation, atmospheric maneuvering, and precious little solid biblical teaching…. Whatever spirit it is that makes folks drunk and lose all inhibitions, fall a top one another in a tangled mass of arms, legs, and raised skirts, laugh without restraint in the middle of church service or at communion… is not of God.

If these things happened in a bar, we as Christians would be rightly appalled. But when they occur, and continue to occur with practiced regularity in the vary sanctuary of our churches, then we are expected to look on with indifference and believe that somehow… that God is at work….

The comparisons are striking. The only difference is in where a person gets loaded.¹²⁾Kevin Reeves, The Other Side of the River, Lighthouse Trails Publishing, 2007, p. 137-138

In light of Scripture’s explicit warnings, supernatural manifestations—far from being self-validating—must be tested rigorously by the Word of God. As Deuteronomy 13 makes clear, signs and wonders alone are insufficient; doctrinal fidelity and faithfulness to the Lord remain the decisive standard.

Michael Brown challenges critics of experience-based revival with the question: “What makes you right? Give me biblical and spiritual proof – not speculation and opinion and inference and innuendo – that this current Christ-centered revival is not of God. I will give you proof – no, proofs, by the multiplied thousands – that the work is of God.”¹³⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 3-4 Brown defines these “proofs” primarily in terms of numerical conversions, describing “sinners flocking to the altar to repent…”¹⁴⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 27 However, the nature of the repentance being described warrants careful scrutiny.

Brown illustrates a typical conversion scenario within his revival framework as follows: “[A]n unbeliever comes into our assembly, is overcome by God’s power… falls to the ground, shakes and cries out, then two hours later arises radically transformed, thoroughly repentant…”¹⁵⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 62 Notably absent from this account is any reference to the proclamation of the gospel. Falling to the ground, shaking, and emotional catharsis are not equivalent to repentance, nor do they constitute evidence of saving faith. As Daniel P. Franklin observed, “They were deceived into believing their religious experiences were evidence of true salvation, but, in fact, they were never saved.”¹⁶⁾Daniel P. Franklin, Christians In Hell: Is Your Faith Merely False Hope?, Tate Publishing & Enterprises, 2010, p. 30

Brown frequently assumes that his critics have failed to engage directly with the revival or its proponents, claiming they “never even heard this supposedly deceived minister in person or by tape or printed page”¹⁷⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 7 his assumption is demonstrably false. Dave Hunt documented direct engagement with the Brownsville Revival and its leadership, recounting that after viewing multiple services and witnessing “hundreds of persons going forward,” he did not hear a clear presentation of the gospel.

 A lack of such careful enunciation of the gospel is one of the characteristics of today’s so-called revival. This author [Dave Hunt] met with Michael L. Brown, the Brownsville theologian who heads the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry. We told Brown that we had watched six different tapes of services at Brownsville, had seen hundreds of persons going forward, yet had not heard Steve Hill, the evangelist, clearly present the gospel. People seemed to come from all over the world to “get it,” as the testimonies put it….

Instead of taking our sincere observation in the spirit in which they were given, Brown insisted that the gospel was preached and that the tapes we had must be the exception. We asked for tapes with a clear presentation of the gospel, and he promised to send them right away. Several months have elapsed. He has been reminded, but the tapes have not yet arrived.¹⁸⁾Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, 1998, p. 524

Despite this, Brown insists that experiential conversion prior to gospel comprehension is normative, stating that “it is the norm in evangelism around the world to this day – that sinners see the light of God’s grace and are saved from their sins before they comprehend the gospel message in totality.”¹⁹⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 176 his claim stands in direct tension with apostolic teaching. Scripture explicitly grounds saving faith in the hearing of the gospel: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Likewise, Paul reminded the Galatians that they received the Spirit “by the hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2), not by mystical experience.

Paul’s own articulation of salvation leaves no ambiguity: “I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). Salvation follows the reception of the preached gospel, not a subjective encounter divorced from its content. Paul immediately defines that gospel in its fullness—Christ’s death for sins, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). This raises a critical question: what gospel is being preached within the Brownsville revival?

Brown summarizes the revival message as follows:

The revival message that is being sounded today throughout the land says, “Repent! Get right with God! Turn from your sins and submit to His will. Jesus wants to save you and deliver you so that you can be free and clean. But if you want Him as Savior, you must serve Him as Lord.” That’s the message being preached.²⁰⁾Michael L. . Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 70

Conspicuously absent is any reference to Christ’s atoning death, burial, or resurrection. Salvation by grace through faith is replaced with conditional submission and moral reform. The apostolic doctrine of salvation “not of works” (Ephesians 2:8–9) is effectively displaced by a performance-based framework.

Brown further claims that “miracles are not the central issue; submitting to Jesus and doing the Father’s will are the central issue[,]”²¹⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 70 yet repeatedly appeals to miraculous experiences as the primary means by which individuals are converted. He recounts reports of “miraculous conversions taking place in Muslim and Hindu land… [where] people see a vision of a crucified Jesus suspended in the air over their village and then get saved by the hundreds[.] …according to missionary reports, that very thing happened a few years ago in a village in the Hindu city of Kathmandu in Nepal.”²²⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 36 No gospel proclamation accompanies these accounts, nor is the resurrection emphasized. Scripture never portrays Christ as remaining on the cross; rather, He is exalted, seated “on the right hand of God,” as Stephen testified (Acts 7:55–56). Such visionary claims bear closer resemblance to pagan or medieval religious imagery than to apostolic Christianity.

Brown acknowledges that Paul’s conversion was exceptional, describing it as “an independent and isolated conversion experience.”²³⁾Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 198 Even so, Paul’s encounter on the road to Damascus does not support experiential salvation apart from the gospel. Paul later received instruction from Ananias, and his familiarity with the events surrounding Christ’s death and resurrection is beyond dispute (Acts 22:3). Moreover, Paul was present at Stephen’s martyrdom and undoubtedly heard the gospel articulated in Stephen’s sermon (Acts 7). His conversion, though dramatic, was not devoid of doctrinal content.

Lewis Sperry Chafer offered a sobering warning regarding such movements, noting that false teachers often appear sincere and zealous while denying “the only ground of redemption.”

False teachers are usually sincere and full of humanitarian zeal; but they are unregenerate. This judgment necessarily follows when it is understood that they deny the only ground of redemption…. All teachers are to be judged by their attitude toward the doctrine of the blood redemption of Christ, rather than by their winsome personalities, their education, or their sincerity.

Since the blood redemption of the cross is the central truth and value of the true faith, it being the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23-24), any counterfeit system of doctrine which would omit this essential, must force some secondary truth into the place of prominence…. Many are easily led to fix their attention upon the secondary things, and to neglect wholly the one primary thing. Especially is this true since the secondary things are tangible and seen, while the one essential thing is spiritual and unseen; and Satan has blinded their eyes toward that which is of eternal value. A system of doctrine may be formed, then, which includes every truth of the Scriptures save one: exalting the Person of Christ, not His work, and thereby emphasizing some secondary truth as its central value.²⁴⁾Lewis Sperry Chafer, D.D., Litt. D., Th.D., Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, 1974, p. 108-109

In light of these considerations, experiential claims, numerical growth, and emotional intensity cannot serve as proof of divine approval. The gospel, as defined by Scripture, remains the sole and sufficient standard by which any revival must be judged.

William DeArteaga, another prominent defender of extreme charismatic manifestations, asserts: “The doctrine of cessationism had tragic consequences that are only now coming to light, the most serious of which was the decline and fall of Protestantism in Northern Europe.”²⁵⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 86 This claim is demonstrably false and internally inconsistent, particularly since DeArteaga himself acknowledges that the Protestant Reformation was firmly established upon cessationist theology. Far from producing decline, the Reformation represented one of the greatest revivals in church history, bringing the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) back to the center of Christian proclamation. The recovery of justification by faith alone stands in direct contradiction to the claim that cessationism precipitated ecclesiastical collapse.

Such contradictions are pervasive throughout DeArteaga’s work. The historical decline of European churches is far more plausibly attributed to hyper-Calvinism, which effectively stifled evangelism through a distorted understanding of irresistible grace. Yet DeArteaga repeatedly conflates cessationism with Calvinism, even misrepresenting individuals in the process. He attempts to discredit Dave Hunt’s The Seduction of Christianity by labeling Hunt a Calvinist, writing: “The popular contemporary American Calvinist theologian Dave Hunt… had not the slightest clue that the cessationism central to Calvinism and to his own theology had anything to do with Protestant Europe’s spiritual decline.²⁶⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 89 This characterization is erroneous on multiple levels. Dave Hunt explicitly rejected Calvinism, as demonstrated in What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God.²⁷⁾see Dave Hunt, What Love Is This? Calvinism‘s Misrepresentation of God, The Berean Call, third edition, 2006 Moreover, cessationism was not the cause of Europe’s ecclesiastical decline, nor is it inherently Calvinistic.

DeArteaga’s misrepresentation extends beyond contemporary figures to historical theologians. He claims, “Jonathan Edwards would have relished this [Faith-Cure] movement.”²⁸⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 115 This assertion is historically indefensible. Edwards, though a Calvinist, was also a cessationist and one of the most discerning critics of false revival phenomena. In Religious Affections, Edwards offered a penetrating critique of ecstatic religious experiences divorced from doctrinal truth, warning that such phenomena had characterized pagan mysticism, Jewish sects, ancient heresies, and false revivals throughout church history.

Experiences and discoveries such as these, commonly raise the affections of such as are deluded by them to a great height, and make a mighty uproar in both soul and body. And a very great part of the false religion that has been in the world, from one age to another, consists in such discoveries as these and in the affections that flow from them. In such things consisted the experiences of the ancient Pythagoreans among the heathen, and many others among them, who had strange ecstasies and raptures, and pretended to a divine afflatus and immediate revelations from heaven. In such things as these seem to have consisted the experiences of the Essenes, an ancient sect among the Jews at and after the time of the apostles. In such things as these consisted the experiences of many of the ancient Gnostics, the Montanists, and many other sects of ancient heretics in the primitive ages of the Christian church…. In these things also seems to lie the religion of the many kinds of enthusiasts of the present day. It is chiefly by such sort of religion as this that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light: and it is that which he has ever most successfully made use of to confound hopeful and happy revivals of religion, from the beginning of the Christian church to this day.²⁹⁾Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST, 1997, first published 1746, p. 212-213

  Ironically, while DeArteaga argues that “the cessationism central to Calvinism” caused the decline of European churches, he simultaneously concedes that “In the American colonies the revival flowered in a purely Calvinist environment.”³⁰⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 30 This admission alone dismantles his thesis. Furthermore, his treatment of Charles Chauncey reveals additional historical revisionism. DeArteaga portrays Chauncey as a Calvinist opponent of Edwards who dismissed the Great Awakening as mere enthusiasm.

 Seasonable Thoughts was a compendium of every abuse and mistake unruly meeting and exaggerated event Chauncey could find….

Using the assumption of Calvinist theology… Chauncey proved to his contemporary ministers what they wanted to hear: the Awakening was all enthusiasm and no Spirit.³¹⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 52

Yet he elsewhere acknowledges that Chauncey “he [Chauncey] tended towards the new Arminianism.”³²⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 45 These mutually exclusive claims expose a lack of coherence in DeArteaga’s argumentation.

The pattern of misrepresentation continues as DeArteaga aligns his critique of cessationism with metaphysical and heterodox traditions. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, likewise attacked cessationism by equating it with Calvinism and foreordination, arguing:

Christians claim to be his followers, but do they follow him in the way that he commanded? Hear his imperative command: …‘Heal the sick!’

Why has this Christian demand so little inspiration to stir mankind to Christian effort? Because men are assured that this command was intended for a particular period and for a select number of followers. This is even more pernicious than the old doctrine of foreordination, – the election of a few to be saved, while the rest are damned; and so it will be considered, when the lethargy of mortals, produced by man-made doctrines, is broken by the demands of divine Science.³³⁾Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture, Published by the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1934, p. 37-38

Eddy’s theology, however, represents a clear departure from biblical Christianity, making her critique of cessationism particularly revealing in terms of the company such arguments keep.

The cumulative weight of these distortions raises serious questions about the credibility of Quenching the Spirit. DeArteaga claims to have begun researching the book in 1982, publishing it a decade later. Yet he admits that he converted “about 1980” out of “metaphysical… Gnostic heresies,”³⁴⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 13 meaning his research began almost immediately after departing those movements, while he was simultaneously publishing his first “Christian” works. Given this timeline, it is reasonable to question whether his theological framework had been sufficiently disentangled from its metaphysical roots.

This concern is intensified by DeArteaga’s own favorable statements regarding Gnostic and metaphysical movements. He approvingly states that “a series of Gnostic and heretical individuals finally broke the theology of cessationism and the stranglehold of realism-materialism on the church.”³⁵⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 154 He further argues that nineteenth-century metaphysical movements such as Mind-Cure, Faith-Cure, Christian Science, and New Thought“paved the way for healing ministries in the twentieth century and the emergence of the charismatic renewal.”³⁶⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 154 Such claims align precisely with the Gnostic prioritization of spiritual experience over historical truth. As noted by Garlow and Jones, “the Gnostic Gospel writers were interested in spirituality above history, because Gnostics believed that spiritual experience was the source of religious truth.”³⁷⁾James L. Garlow, Peter Jones, Cracking DaVinci’s Code, Victor an Imprint of Cook Communications Ministries, 2004, p. 165

This trajectory is reinforced by DeArteaga’s reliance on sources such as Morton Kelsey, who asserted “Shamanism shows us that even before Jesus, though, God worked among people.”³⁸⁾Morton Kelsey, Dreams: A Way to Listen To God, Paulist Press, 1978, p. 29 Kelsey even proposed that Jesus employed the same spiritual mechanisms as pagan healers, a claim fundamentally incompatible with orthodox Christology. “When we look at the ministry of Jesus, we shall see… that his life and acts, his teaching and practice, are rather akin to shamanism based on an intimate relationship with a loving father god. In fact, an important study might be made comparing the ministry of Jesus with that of shamanism.”³⁹⁾Morton Kelsey, Healing and Christianity, Harper & Row, 1976, p. 51

Although DeArteaga insists he abandoned his metaphysical beliefs, concerns remain. In a footnote, he acknowledges: “My forthcoming book, From New Thought to the Charismatic Renewal (working title). I should note that my knowledge of the Metaphysical movement comes partly out of personal experience. Like Kenyon, I too spent a season of my spiritual life within metaphysical circles. In my case it was the 1970s. The Lord led me out of that entrapment step by step as I began to realize that fundamental discernment flaws lay at the root of the New Age cult.”⁴⁰⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 279 However, Hank Hanegraaff has observed, “Though DeArteaga has claimed that he has since abandoned his metaphysical ideas, it is uncertain whether this includes his views regarding reincarnation.”⁴¹⁾Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity In Crisis, 21^st Century, Thomas Nelson, 2009, p. 417

Taken together, these admissions, contradictions, and theological sympathies strongly suggest that DeArteaga’s critique of cessationism is not merely flawed, but shaped by an enduring commitment to experiential spirituality over biblical authority. The repeated misrepresentation of historical figures, doctrinal positions, and church history undermines the credibility of his conclusions and exposes the underlying theological trajectory driving his arguments.

DeArteaga claims to have escaped the New Age cult in which he was involved during the 1970s (“from 1974 to about 1980”),⁴²⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 13 yet Dave Hunt documented that as late as 1983 DeArteaga was still actively teaching New Age theology—having merely shifted the audience from occult circles to the churches.

The thesis in Quenching [the Spirit] was previously presented by DeArteaga in Past Life Visions (1983): “The Holy Spirit will flow into occult groups if it [sic] is blocked out by Orthodox Christians” (page 17). He lauds Agnes Sanford’s incredibly heretical The Healing Light (page 132); defends her belief in a pre-earth human existence (pages 145-146); seems to embrace evolution of man from lower species (page 126); declares that “ghosts” are “earthbound souls” (page 187) who may legitimately communication with the living (page 182); and claims that the dead should be ministered to by the church (page 183). He argues that reincarnation is biblical and was even “validated by Jesus” (pages 197-209) and that such a gospel is helpful for India because it allows “the Hindu to maintain … the concept of karma-reincarnation” (page 215). He also recommends regression into past lives as a standard method of spiritual healing (pages 151-163) Leading charismatic take comfort in having the support of such a heretic!⁴³⁾Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, 1998, p. 507

For DeArteaga to attempt to refute Dave Hunt’s exposure of occult influences infiltrating the church is analogous to being caught in the act and responding with denial. More troubling still is DeArteaga’s theological posture toward heresy itself. He states, “Heretics can be used by God whenever the elect (the church) are too stubborn to hear the voice of the Lord directly or pay attention to its prophets.”⁴⁴⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 150 his assertion raises an unavoidable question: if DeArteaga defends numerous heretics throughout his work, does he regard them as divinely sanctioned instruments—indeed, prophets of God? He goes so far as to rehabilitate historical heretics, claiming, “In fact, both Tertullian and Origen remained well within the bounds of biblical revelation.”⁴⁵⁾William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, Creation House, 1992, p. 152

Such claims collapse under historical scrutiny. Tertullian, while orthodox in his early polemics against heresy, later embraced the Montanist movement. Around A.D. 197, he himself warned, “They will, besides, add a good deal respecting the high authority of each doctor of heresy—how that these mightily strengthened belief in their own doctrine; how that they raised the dead, restored the sick, foretold the future, that so they might deservedly be regarded as apostles. As if this caution was not also in the written record: that many should come who were to work even the greatest miracles, in defence of the deceit of their corrupt preaching.”⁴⁶⁾Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, chap. XLIV; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 3, p. 264; as cited by David W. Bercot, editor, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998, p. 453 Yet by A.D. 203, Tertullian aligned himself with Montanus, the false prophet who initiated the first major charismatic cult. Ed Reese records,

…but in 207, he formed his own sect, the Tertullianists, which have survived until the fifth century. He practiced healing, prophecy, and tongues. He separated “apostles” (spirit fully) from “believers” (spirit partially)…. He was excommunicated by Bishop Zephyrinus of Rome.⁴⁷⁾ Ed Reese, Reese Chronological Encyclopedia of Christian Biographies, AMG Publishers, 2007, p. 15

Origen likewise cannot be defended as orthodox. “unorthodox interpretation caused his expulsion from Alexandria in 231 and from Palestine in 235.”⁴⁸⁾Ed Reese, Reese Chronological Encyclopedia of Christian Biographies, AMG Publishers, 2007, p. 20

One contemporary reviewer of Quenching the Spirit accurately diagnosed the problem at its foundation.

The premise for the book is found on the inside flap of the dust jacket: “The greatest threat to a move of the Spirit does not come from the atheists or humanists. It comes from within the church.” As the book unfolds we are astonished to discover that the Spirit’s arch-foes are none other than the Reformers, the Puritans, the Princetonians, and other likeminded evangelicals. It is difficult to imagine that someone who wishes to engage in Christian scholarship could actually take such a position, but it does not take long to learn why he does so.⁴⁹⁾Gary Johnson, “Quenching the Spirit: Examining Centuries of Opposition to the Moving of the Holy Spirit,” Reformation and Revival, A Quarterly Journal for Church Leadership, Vol. 4, Num. 1, Winter 1995, http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/04-1/4-1-johnson.pdf, accessed 7/19.11

The persistent absence of a clear biblical gospel and the defense of demonstrable historical heresies explain why charismatic apologetics have repeatedly failed to persuade critical scholarship. The primary appeal offered is experiential validation, yet experience alone is indistinguishable from mysticism and provides no reliable means of discerning whether its source is divine or demonic. Appeals to subjective spiritual phenomena cannot adjudicate truth claims, for mysticism—by its very nature—operates independently of doctrinal and historical controls. As has been thoroughly documented elsewhere, mysticism is not merely insufficient as a theological method, but fundamentally deceptive in its spiritual origins. For more on this, see my book Crept In Unawares: Mysticism.