"All you have to do is lift up your Bible and say show me where I'm wrong"—Darwin Fish, 18 September 1994.

arwin Fish, Al Soto, and their followers often complain that Darwin's critics will not refute his errors biblically. (Actually, the claim usually sounds more like braggadocio than a
complaint.) I'm posting this collection of messages to expose that lie. Following are samples of communiques I have written and posted over the years to Mr. Soto and others associated with Darwin Fish's cult.

Readers will note that my arguments include several references to church history and logic as well as Scripture. It is typical for Fishites to ignore the biblical arguments completely and seize on the fact that I have referred to the church's creedal history, as if that were wrong. That is because they have rejected the universal testiomony of the people of God through the ages. If they took time to study the creeds and the history of their development (as I have repeatedly urged them to do) they would discover that there is a massive amount of biblical support for the doctrines defended by the major historic ecumenical and Trinitarian creeds through the fifth century (the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed).

Those creeds are universally accepted by all branches of historic Christianity, precisely because they distill biblical truth so accurately and so biblically. The fact that so many earthly organizations claiming to represent "the true church" (the Papacy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic churches, etc.) have abandoned the simplicity of biblical Christianity is no argument against the biblical truths affirmed in the early creeds.

Still, the references to historic creeds neither trump nor nullify the biblical arguments. I urge anyone who may be confused by the teaching of Mr. Fish to note and consider very carefully the biblical case set forth in the messages below. And if you have not already concluded that every Christian for the past two thousand years has been in gross error, you will also profit greatly in your biblical understanding by simply studying the basic Trinitarian creeds and learning the biblical basis for the orthodox Trintarian formulae.

One of Darwin Fish's more serious errors is his notion that sound doctrine can be drawn from Scripture by mere proof-texting apart from the rule of analogia Scriptura—the principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. We ought to allow the clear passages of the Bible to shed light on the difficult ones, instead of twisting difficult texts into strange and novel doctrines (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). Good logic is necessarily involved in this process, and a valid logical deduction based on biblical propositions is as true as an explicit statement of Scripture (cf. Matthew 22:29-32).

But Darwin Fish apparently believes logic has no legitimate role in the process of formulating our understanding of Bible doctrine. That is why he treats every dialogue about doctrine as a war of proof-texts. By rejecting sound logic, he has embraced a theology that is self-consciously irrational. So in his view, an argument that includes any reference to history or logic—or virtually any kind of claim that is not merely a proof text—is not really a biblical argument.

Nonetheless, the following excerpts should suffice to prove to objective readers that Darwin is lying when he claims I have refused to offer biblical refutations of his errors.

Correspondence with Brian Young:

This first series of letters is excerpted from correspondence that took place in the first half of 1998 with Brian Young, who subsequently entered the cult. Brian originally wrote to thank me for posting my letters to Darwin, because, he confessed, "There is spiritual pride, bitterness and factiousness raging inside of me." And he said my letters to Darwin had helped "raise the mirror in front of [his] face" so that he could see himself for what he really was.

Sadly, however, Brian later gave in to the very things he once confessed as sin, joined Darwin's cult, moved his wife and children to Southern California, and began accompanying Darwin when the sect picketed other churches. During the weeks when he was being drawn under Darwin's influence, I wrote the following messages to Brian. I am posting excerpts only from my messages, not Brian's. But the gist of our full exchange, and the biblical basis of my arguments, may be discerned from these extracts. (Snippets of Brian's responses are quoted in these excerpts from me. His words appear in red):

From: Phil Johnson
To: Brian Young
Subject: Re: Really need some substantiated answers.
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:25:42

Dear Brian,

I just returned Monday afternoon from two weeks in Australia and New Zealand. While I was away I received more than 2000 e-mails, so I am hopelessly behind in replying to them.

You wrote,

> what false things do you believe Mr. Fish is teaching?
> Please give me documentation and Scriptural proof.

Fish's false teachings which concern me most are 1. his denial of Trinitarianism, which puts him in the category of a cult; and 2. his assertion that all points of truth are fundamental to Christianity, and of equal import. In Fish's system, gnats are the same as camels. I have outlined my view on why Fish's position cannot be biblically substantiated in my letters to him.

. . . As to "documentation and Scriptural proof," if you could be specific about what troubles you, I'll try to give you an answer. But in no way do I feel obligated to answer all the railings of Darwin Fish point by point.

Phil Johnson
 
From: Phillip Johnson
To: Brian young
Subject: Re: Really need some substantiated answers.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 23:04:38 -800

Dear Brian,

You wrote,

> You asked if I "could be specific about what troubles you

> [regarding Darwin Fish]," and said that "[you'd] try to give

> [me] an answer." I have several questions about his
> doctrinal stand and your refutation of it. Please understand

> that I am a seeker of the truth and I don't want to run ahead

> with my facts misplaced and muddled. I want to know WHERE

> people stand as well as WHY they stand where they stand

> doctrinally and practically. And if on some point someone

> disagrees, I want to know the reason for that as well.

OK, but you're not going to get to the truth of these issues by trying to pit me against Darwin Fish via e-mail. These are matters men of God have had a uniform consensus on for centuries. If you decide to discard the historic creedal formulations of Christianity and take your cues from Darwin Fish's inept creed instead, you'll be making a terrible mistake. You need to study the history of how these views were hammered out in the early church, and you need to immerse yourself in Scripture and expose yourself to sound teachers of
the Word, not a self-proclaimed authority like Darwin Fish.

> 1.) My first question would be, "where is the "denial of
> Trinitarianism" to be found in Mr. Fish's teachings?" He seems

> to believe in the existence of the Father, the Son and the Holy

> Spirit as the Bible reveals them.

No, he does not. He teaches that the Holy Spirit has multiple personalities, which is tantamount to having nine "persons" in the Godhead. That is not Trinitarianism, even though Darwin tells you he believes in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Like every false teacher, he is hiding the real truth of his view behind cunning words.

Darwin's blundering statement of faith says,

> There is one Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), but this one Holy

> Spirit is plural in who He is (as God is plural in who He is).

> Zechariah 4:1-10, Revelation 1:4-5, 4:5, and 5:6 describe this

> one Holy Spirit to be seven ("the seven Spirits of God")."

Why anyone would reject the historic creedal formulae of Nicea and Chalcedon for a statement like that baffles me.

1. There is substantial, unassailable evidence in the Scriptures for the three Persons of the Trinity (see any systematic theology textbook for a thorough discussion with biblical support). And the personality of the Holy Spirit is one of the key issues historic Trinitarianism has insisted on (again, refer to any standard theology text that deals with the Trinity).

2. Darwin is teaching that the Holy Spirit has MULTIPLE
personalities, based on a misinterpretation of three verses in Revelation.

3. There is ZERO evidence in Scripture that the Holy Spirit has multiple personalities. The three proof-texts Darwin cites say nothing about multiple personhood in the Holy Spirit. You may refer to any basic commentary to find a better interpretation of these verses.

4. Yet Darwin suggests that the Holy Spirit "is plural . . .
as God is plural"--and God's "plurality" involves three
distiguishable persons.

5. Therefore what Darwin is teaching here is speculative, going miles beyond what Scripture actually states--and that is the very thing he professes to abhor. Thus he demonstrates his own hypocrisy.

6. I'll go further: What Darwin is teaching there contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible (see below).

> On which point do you believe he is to be thrown into "the

> category of a cult," based on his view of the Godhead?

I believe he is no better than the cults because of his
corruption of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's personhood, which fatally corrupts the whole doctrine of the Trinity, and posits a Godhead with at least nine Persons. (BTW, Benny Hinn also once suggested there are nine Persons in the Trinity, though he has since recanted. Hinn did the math a little differently, as I recall, but he also ended up with a nine-Person "Trinity".)

You asked for biblical support:
 
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free;
and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.
12:13).

"For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto
the Father" (Eph. 2:18).

There is one body, and **one Spirit,** even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling; **One Lord,** one
faith, one baptism, **One God and Father of all,** who is
above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph. 4:4-6).
 
Note the clear Trinitarian formula in that passage. Similarly,
 
"There are diversities of gifts, but **the same Spirit.**
And there are differences of administrations, but **the
same Lord.** And there are diversities of operations, but
it is **the same God** which worketh all in all" (1 Cor.
12:4-6).
 
> 2.) Concerning his "assertion that all points of truth are fundamental to Christianity, and of equal import," (from the information I've gathered) here is the crux of his teaching on it:

[snip]

> Nowhere does Scripture teach that there are essential or fundamental doctrines that stand as a test or standard of orthodoxy (or a test or standard to determine whether someone is in the faith).

This is manifestly false.

1. It is evident from verses Fish himself cites that there are at least some points of doctrine on which error is spiritually fatal (Gal. 1; Rom. 4:4-5; 2 John 7-11). On that I think we agree.

2. We disagree, however, on the question of whether all
error is of equal import. Fish suggests that it is, and that
all error of every degree is damnable. This is doctrinal
perfectionism, and it keeps him from showing any degree of brotherly charity to anyone who deliberately disagrees with Darwin Fish.

3. And yet the Apostle Paul himself commanded the Romans to receive charitably people who held differing views on the question of whether to eat meat offered to idols. Note that in 1 Cor., the apostle taught that there is nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols. But he instructed the Romans not to despise a brother who disagreed, and Paul expressly stated, "God hath received him" (Rom. 14:3).

4. The whole message of Romans 14 is a command to live
charitably with brethren whom we disagree with over secondary or questionable matters. (Notice that the issues Paul deals with--the eating of foods and the observing of days--ARE matters dealt with in Scripture. See Gal. 4:10-11; Col. 2:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:8.) But if Darwin Fish is right, there is no room whatsoever for disagreement on these or any other matters treated in Scripture, and therefore Fish himself cannot obey the
clear command of Romans 14. ("Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind . . . Every one of us shall give account of himself to God"--Rom. 14:5, 12). Beware of a man whose teaching makes it impossible for him to be obedient to Scripture. Darwin is clearly in error on this point.

> On what Scriptural point do you disagree with what is written above concerning the "essentials" or fundamentals" teaching of Mr. Fish?.

I hope this explains it. Also, as I have said, Fish's teaching is a de facto denial of the implications of Christ's teaching that some issues of doctrine and practice are like gnats and some are like camels (Matt. 23:24); and some are "weightier" than others (Matt. 23:23).

> Phil, Scripture tells me to "test all things." And, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God." Please know in advance that I am applying this to Mr. Fish, John MacArthur and to you. I want to know truth, because THE truth will set me free.

1. I have not asked you to become my disciple, nor has John MacArthur.

2. Neither John MacArthur nor I claim infallibility, nor do we see infallibility as a requirement for salvation. We do not speak with any apostolic authority.

3. I have heard Darwin himself disclaim infallibility with his lips, but by his behavior he actually asserts a de facto infallibility, because of his refusal to keep fellowship with anyone who willfully disagrees with him on matters of biblical interpretation.

4. Darwin's notions have also caused him to reject the wisdom of all the godly men of the past. He really believes that all of Christianity--both historic and modern--is utterly apostate, and he alone has the truth.

5. We would urge you to exercise biblical discernment, rather than looking for any earthly teacher in whom you can place implicit trust.

6. Darwin is certainly not the kind of man who is worthy of such trust. He claims on the one hand that he believes in absolute faithfulness to every point of Scripture, and nothing is secondary. He suggests that such commitment is so essential to Christianity, that he will not fellowship with anyone who in Darwin's estimation is in "error" on any point, no matter how insignificant the "error." Yet Darwin himself willfully broke
a public vow and shunned the rebuke of elders who confronted him about it, rebelling to the point where he had to be excommunicated from his church. That is wanton disobedience to a clear command of Scripture ("If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth"--Numbers 30:2).

I pray that the Lord will give you discernment.

Phillip Johnson