WAYNE GRUDEM’S GNOSTIC PNEUMATOLOGY IDENTIFIES HIM AS A FALSE TEACHER

    Wayne Grudem spoke at the European Leadership Forum in 2010 where he addressed the Christian youth of Europe on the Holy Spirit, concentrating on Ephesians 5:18.  For someone who has written numerous books and his own “Systematic Theology”, it was extremely disappointing to see and hear this poor analysis of the roles and work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. His presentation, of course, is from a continuationist point of view, meaning that he believes that the (apostolic) gifts of the Holy Spirit are still for today, similar to the charismatic/pentecostal belief systems. Although he is adored as the “go to guy” of his gnostic reformed followers, he has roots in the hyper-charismatic Vineyard Church and actually was the in-house theologian and apologist for its founder John Wimber, a promoter of the John G. Lake “healing rooms” and all sorts of heresies.
    Now, in this address, he teaches the need for “constant re-fillings of the Holy Spirit”, the constant need to “pray to the Holy Spirit” (without reference to Jesus Christ), that some people speak in “tongues” like he does in his “private prayer language”, and to expect modern day prophecies. This is gnosticism!
    The manner of presentation was very problematic. All through this “lecture”, he was in a rather hilarious, almost flippant, irreverent spirit for some unknown reason. He referred many times, not to Scripture, but to his own personal feelings about the presence of the Spirit, and speculations about the Spirit’s personality. His use of “I think” statements was pervasive, dominating almost every point, even stating he thinks of the Spirit “at the level of feelings or spiritual perceptions”.
    He neglected at least two important points. He never said that the Holy Spirit could refuse to listen to a believer who has awareness of unconfessed sin. He never once mentioned the role of the Holy Spirit to “convict of righteousness and sin” in leading people to salvation and/or the correction of believers. His primary focus was how a believer should work at the various ways he “thinks” are the ways of getting re-filled with the Holy Spirit, other than living more like Christ, the absence of which was glaring and inexcusable for a man of this stature and reknown.
    Grudem took questions, but never once was he asked about his involvement in the Vineyard church and that church’s gross excesses in “worship”, his association with John Wimber, and/or his “personal prayer language”.
    Rather, Grudem presented a very mechanistic approach to getting more of the Holy Spirit.
    Although Grudem is otherwise orthodox, his constant and repeated defaulting to an allowance for apostolic gifts of the Holy Spirit in the modern church (including mixed authoritative/faulty prophecies) opens all those who take him seriously up to nothing less than the possibility of “adding to Scripture” in an heretical way. For this reason, he should not be your “go to guy”, but avoided as a false teacher, i.e., one who sees nothing wrong with the canon of Scripture being fluid, flexible, amendable, and subject to myriad interpretations.
    Grudem, for these reasons, has created tremendous confusion and a boost to the ecumenical spirit in the Christian world, whether he is aware of this or not. In truth, the Christian, in defense, must by necessity, default to “sola Scriptura” and reject his confused meanderings based on mystical, personal feelings.
    Below is the video of the “lecture”:

Wayne Grudem on why he believes his “Systematic Theology” is superior to the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit when the believer studies the Bible alone. Grudem, if you let him, will be your gnostic spirit guide:

References:
Grudem’s stint at the EFCA’s (Evangelical Free Church of America) Trinity International University (a/k/a Trinity Evangelical Divinity School):
Beard’s http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/efca.htm: specifically this paragraph:

“Is God speaking through prophets today? Yes, say TIU faculty members Wayne
Grudem and Don Carson, but not with the same “authority” as in the Old and New
Testaments!:

Wayne Grudem: Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology
— Argues that NT apostles were the functional equivalents of OT prophets, and
were in authority over NT prophets. Therefore, Grudem considers NT non-apostolic
prophecy less authoritative than both OT prophecy and NT apostolic prophecy, in
that it consists primarily of “impressions” which God gives the individual.
Since the individual may misunderstand or misinterpret these impressions, this
NT prophecy is open to error and is not required to meet the 100% accuracy
demand of the OT (Dt. 3:1-5; 18:20-22). Thus, the view that underlies much of
the thinking about prophecy in the Vineyard
Movement (in fact, Grudem has claimed Vineyard preaches the true gospel of
Christ), and now at TIU, is that “today’s ‘prophecies’ are usually imperfect and
not trustworthy” (The Gift of Prophecy, pp. 100ff); by
this means, Grudem can and does argue that “prophecy” occurs today without the
necessity of proving any miraculous element.”

Excerpts from Grace Fellowship Church’s review of Grudem at:
http://www.gfcto.com/articles/theological-issues/grudems-view-of-nt-prophecy, specifically:

“A CONFESSEDLY NOVEL VIEW:

In the preface to his first book Grudem writes:

‘I found that a detailed
study of the biblical text led me to a definition of New Testament prophecy
which was somewhat different from the teachings of many within the charismatic
movement, but also different from the views of those, especially within Reformed
and Dispensationalist circles, who have expressed objections to or skepticism
about claims to prophecy found in charismatic groups today. But even though I
do not agree fully with either group, I hope that in my somewhat new definition
of the nature of Christian prophecy both pro-charismatics and anti-charismatics
may be able to find a “middle ground” with a considerable potential for
reconciling their current differences.[1]‘
“For someone to suggest a new definition of a biblical truth after hundreds of
years of church history have elapsed is rather bold to say the least. Is it
warranted? Let’s take a look.”
“GRUDEM STATES HIS POSITION:
In his first major summary statement, Grudem concludes:”
‘…Paul thought of
prophecy at Corinth as something different than the prophecy we see, for
instance, in Revelation or in many parts of the OT. There, a divine authority
of actual words is claimed by or on behalf of the prophets. But the prophecy we
find in 1 Corinthians is more like the phenomena we saw in extra-Biblical Jewish
literature: it is based on some type of supernatural “revelation,” but that
revelation only gives it a kind of divine authority of general content. The
prophet could err, could misinterpret, and could be questioned or challenged at
any point. He had a minor kind of “divine” authority, but it certainly was not
absolute.[2]‘”
“Again, he says:”
‘…I am asking those in the cessationist camp to give serious thought to the
possibility that prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to
Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human – and sometimes partially
mistaken – report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.[3]‘”
“Another key element in Grudem’s position is the assertion that in the NT, the
counterpart of the OT prophets are the apostles, and not the NT prophets. He
states:”
‘…those who are viewed
as divinely authoritative messengers in the NT are most often called not
“prophets” but “apostles.” This is significant for our investigation because if
the NT apostles are frequently
seen as the counterparts to the OT prophets, then NT prophets might often be something
quite different.[4]‘

“If this position is accepted, then changes must be made in the thinking of both
cessationist and charismatic non-cessationist believers. The charismatics
would need to stop using a “Thus says the Lord” introduction to their
prophesying, since, according to Grudem, this kind of “authority of words”
prophecy is limited to the OT prophets and NT apostles. A more humble, “I feel
the Lord has shown me…”, would be more appropriate to the status of NT
prophets.”
“On the other hand, the cessationists would now be free to
accept the ongoing, less authoritative nature of NT prophecy without feeling
that the finality and supremacy of the NT scriptures are being threatened.”

“SOME OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.
 “Be very wary of anyone who seeks to persuade the church of a “new”
definition of some aspect of biblical teaching, especially one that claims to
have been lost by the church for some 1800 years. To put it mildly, it borders
on theological arrogance. Yet, it is the novel that often receives recognition
in academic circles and theological publications.”
2.
 “Don’t be cowed by a person’s academic credentials. He
may be a professor at a highly esteemed seminary and have the support of a
numbered of degreed colleagues and know his Greek and Hebrew, but if what he
says does not fit the plain teaching of scripture, we must not be afraid to
flatly reject it.”