Scripture Twisting -- Conclusion

The portrait of today's Word/Faith preaching is not encouraging.  In general, we have little choice but to recommend that much, if not most, of Word/Faith preaching return to the drawing board to develop a hermeneutics that honours the Word of God.  The situation is extremely serious.

Word/Faith preachers at time emphasize the necessity "to stay with the Word," "to stay with all of the Word," and "to stay with the Word only."  That advice is excellent but the practice usually lags far behind the theory.

To preach the prosperity gospel is not to "stay with the Word."  It has correctly been called "a modern heresy. . . to say that those who have genuine faith will unfailingly experience health, wealth, success and freedom from trouble."  It is simply unbiblical to advocate that God is the author of health and wealth, Satan the source of sickness and poverty, and that the believer has the right to demand health and wealth.  It is biblically unconscionable to insist that upon paying the tithes (Malachi 3:10), or any kind of "seed" money (II Corinthians 9:6-10), the Christian may decree physical vigor, financial success, a comfortable home, a new car, or even the salvation of a loved one as part of his reign over anything satanic and evil.  The "name it and claim it" position cannot be reconciled with biblical truths such as found in Genesis 15:13; 50:20; Job 1 and 2; Psalms 119:67, 71, 75; Amos 3:6; John 15:18-20; 16:2; Romans 8:18-23; Hebrews 11:35-38; 12:4-11; Revelation 2:8-11, and so on.

Further, to make success and the "name it, claim it" message, the main focus of one's ministry is not to "stay with all of the Word."  At worst it is heresy and at best majoring in minors.  The whole counsel of God vanishes from view (Acts 20:27), and so does the truly "full Gospel" of Christ (Romans 15:29).  Modern Word/Faith preaching is advised to return to the solid themes that in the past brought on the genuine and mighty revivals, such as total depravity, original sin, sovereign grace, the substitutionary atonement, regeneration, repentance, saving faith, justification, holiness, the judgment, and the two-fold eternal state.

Finally, the all-to-frequent references to private communications from God or the Spirit do not square with the emphasis "to stay with the Word only."  Since the canon is closed, there is every reason to hold that such communications have ceased.  New and authoritative revelation is a thing of the past.  Reliance upon extra-biblical revelation, therefore, brings the sufficiency of Scripture into serious question.

The only standard of faith and practice is, indeed, the Word, all of the Word, and the Word only.  But a formal commitment to this is insufficient.  It takes a properly constructed and detailed systematic and biblical theology to flesh this out and to ensure substantive adherence to it.  Regrettably such theology is not in evidence.

Under the present circumstances no respite can be expected from the interpretive process either.

The possibility thinker makes self-esteem the material principle of the interpretation of Scripture and therefore the ultimate determinant of its meaning and of the theology built upon it.  The net effect is "another gospel."  The contention that Jesus came into the world to save from the shame of a low self-image and to instill self-esteem hardly warrants any other conclusion.

The positive confessionist has a similar problem.  For him health and wealth is the material principle of the interpretation of Scripture.  The upshot is that he believes that every Scripture passage and every Scripture doctrine affirms that the believer may anticipate, indeed, decree, success.  This is "another gospel" as well.

On balance, it is appropriate to recommend that much, if not all, of Word/Faith preaching take a second look at its hermeneutics so as to ensure that the voice of God, the full voice of God and only the voice of God comes through to the audience.  Otherwise, the listener should be advised frequently to make his first look his last.

- Henry  Krabbendam

For more information on Victory Churches and the Faith Movement, go to the Reference Library.  Click on any book title to get a brief overview of the book.  All books on the list are available through www.amazon.com. 

Justification

The doctrine of justification is no less twisted.  Confusing regeneration and justification, one positive confessionist defines "righteousness" simultaneously as having the "nature of God" and as possessing "the right standing with God."

It is argued as well that once the believer possesses "the nature of God" and "the right standing with God," all sin consciousness ought to be driven out and every sin tag removed.  The Apostle Paul serves as an example.  He claims that he has never defrauded anyone (II Corinthians 7:2).  In view of his persecution of the Christians in the early part of his career, that seems an astonishing claim that may raise more than a few eyebrows.  But it really should not.  The "old" Paul, we are told, who did the persecuting, "died" on the way to Damascus and is gone, effectively replaced by the "new" Paul.  This Paul is perfectly justified in refusing to own any sin-consciousness or sin tag.  It can, indeed, be said of the new Paul, according to the positive confessionists, that he never defrauded anyone.

The picture is grim.  Justification is confused with regeneration.  The necessity of repentance is ignored.  Now also progressive sanctification vanishes from sight.  There is apparently no need to remind the believer that he is locked in a battle with sin that too often still clings to him.  In fact, such a reminder is said to be counterproductive.  It would emphasize the negative unduly.

All this fits in with the avowed aim of the positive confessionist.  Only what serves the twin ends of health and wealth goes.  Never mind what right standing with God is, how it comes about, and what it implies, as long as the speaker gets across the message that the Gospel produces a son of the King, who reigns with the King and has all the privileges and rights of the King!  Such a person may expect, if not demand, health and wealth.  For anyone who is sin-conscious, the doors of prosperity will close.  But for a righteousness-minded person, they will open wide.  After all, unlike the former, who will feel fettered and flustered, the latter will be in a perfect position freely and boldly to exercise his royal right to "name and claim it."  The message of the Bible which is God-centered and holiness-centered, is thus eclipsed by a man-centered and happiness-centered ideology.

In this regard the theology of the positive confessionist is akin to that of possibility thinking.  The latter would regard the verdict rendered just above as a badge of honour.  Its major proponent holds that classical theology, which had its inception in the Reformation in 1517, is in error precisely because it is God-centered.  Its definition of sin as a rebellion against God, for instance, is seen as being typical of the whole of classical theology and as a reactionary definition, because it is insulting and bound to produce an inferiority complex in people.  A New Reformation, the proponent insists, is desperately needed.  Theology ought to be man-centered and take the value of the individual as its starting point.  Then sin can be properly defined as a lack of self-esteem, and the cross can be presented as the means to prop up that self-esteem.  After all, the infinite price paid on the cross, indicates the infinite worth of man.

What is proposed without blushing is a Gospel that is different from the one preached by the Reformers.  It is a Gospel that is man-centered.  It is to be feared that it also constitutes a "different Gospel" in Paul's eyes, different, that is, from the Gospel he preached (Galations 1:8), the Gospel of the justification of the ungodly through faith in the blood sacrifice of Christ that pacifies the wrath of God against the sinner (Romans 3:25).

All in all, the picture that emerges with regard to the doctrinal position of much of modern Word/Faith preaching is not encouraging.  It simply does not square with a properly constructed systematic theology or with the covenantal themes of a properly constructed biblical theology.  The hermeneutical procedures of much of Word/Faith preachers are no less discouraging.  Space does not allow us to give more than three examples, but one hopes that they will prove to be telling and persuasive.  The examples pertain to such terms as everything, anything, and whatever found in many passages of Scripture, to the phrase greater works mentioned in John 14:12, and to the text of Isaiah 53:4, quoted in Matthew 8:17.

Everything, Anything, Whatever

Does everything always mean "everything" ("whatever," "anything")?  The positive confessionist answers this question emphatically in the affirmative.  When the expressed scope of a biblical promise such as in John 14:13-14, is "everything," anything that can be named, claimed, and even demanded, whether it is good weather, a new car, financial success, the recovery of lost property or the salvation of a loved one, the prosperity "gospel" is born.

Such use of Scripture is hermeneutically irresponsible.  Everything does not always mean "everything."  A simple illustration will make that evident.  Upon paying his bill in a restaurant, the customer will invariably be asked by the cashier, "Is everything all right?"  Clearly, "everything" here is not "everything in general --," but "everything in context," the restaurant context of the food, the service, the seating, and possibly even the restrooms.  In a word, the context supplies terms such as everything with natural limits, usually not explicitly stated, but by the same token routinely recognized.

This hermeneutical principle may now be applied to John 14:13-14.  The passage holds out the promise that Christ will supply "whatever ("anything") that is asked in His name.  In the context His name stands for the crucified Saviour as the only avenue to the Father (14:6) and for the ascended Lord as the enthroned King (14:12b).  Herewith the parameters (and boundaries) of the promise emerge.  It seems no more than natural to understand from this passage that Christ will act only upon requests that are made by believers who embrace Him as Saviour and acknowledge Him as King, and only upon petitions that are made through His continuing mediation and serve the purposes of His Kingdom.  Otherwise, someone might come to the preposterous conclusion that Christ would be bound to honour requests that are made by adherents of the Enemy and aim to promote the realm of darkness.

It ought to be noted that the purposes of the King, according to I John 5:14, are spelled out in the Word of the King.  Therefore, for a request to be honoured by the King, it must be based upon His Word, whether it is a promise, an injunction, a prohibition, or a universal principle.  Of such requests that are sanctioned by the Word, John says categorically that they will be granted (I John 5:15).  By the same token, when a request is not authorized by the King's Word, it is illegitimate, and neither may, nor should be, made.

This point has powerful implications for the "name and claim it" doctrine.  The Bible never assures anyone of health, wealth, recovery of lost property, a promotion, salvation of loved ones and so on.  So they should not be "demanded" or expected.  Legitimate requests always stick scrupulously to the boundaries of the Word.

In short, "everything" does not always mean "everything" indiscriminately.  By the same token, "everything" for the King and based upon His Word invariably means "everything".  Such an interpretation precludes an approach that is man-centered and happiness-centered and promotes an approach that is God-centered and Holiness-centered.

Greater Works

It is difficult to envision anyone able to produce miracles that are more numerous or impressive than those of Jesus.  Surely, the miracles that accompanied His presence on earth are unsurpassed in quantity and quality.  Still, the claim is made that according to John 14:12 in the realm of the spectacular (in the production of health and wealth), the accomplishments of the disciples of Jesus (should) outstrip those of the Master.  The context, however, suggests a better explanation.

It connects the "greater works" with Christ's ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit.  That brings Acts 1 and 2 into view.  The King is on the march.  After He left the Twelve to occupy His throne and baptized them with the Spirit from that throne, they were instrumental in one day in the salvation of a throng that exceeded the total number of converts their Master assembled in three years.  Then they proceeded with a massive discipling program that dwarfed anything that had ever gone on before.  These are the only kinds of works, attested to in Scriptures and history, that can be characterized as truly "greater" than those of Jesus.  This not only makes any accomplishment in the area of the spectacular pale by comparison.  It also provides a focus to ministry that no emphasis upon health and wealth could ever transcend.  In fact, the differences in focus between a ministry of greater works that Jesus holds out according to Scripture and the type of activity that fascinates the positive confessionist is as vast as the difference between heaven and earth.

Isaiah 53:4

Isaiah 53:4 is the locusclassicus and cornerstone for the view that it is the Christian's prerogative to claim healing in any type of sickness.  In fact, the only roadblock for healing "name and claim it" proponents see is lack of faith on the part of the potential recipient.  Basic to this view is the interpretation that has both the removal of sin and the deliverance from sickness bound up with Christ's substitutionary atonement.

Now in the light of Matthew 8:17 it seems, indeed, irrefutable that the cross of Christ constitutes a conquest over both sin and sickness and, of course, constitutes a conquest over Satan as well (Colossians 2:15).  But to recognize the parallels properly is to recognize them across the board.  The conquest over Satan does not bring the spiritual warfare and the suffering that spiritual warfare entails to an end (I Peter 5:8-9).  Similarly, the conquest over sin does not spell sinless perfection.  The heartache that this produces is only too genuine (I John 3:20).  So the conquest over sickness does not imply perfect health (Philippians 2:26-27).  The "thorns and thistles" with which this world is cursed after the Fall do not leave any area of life untouched and will not be removed until the consummation.

Of course, this is not a plea for defeatism.  The battle against Satan, sin, and sickness is wholesome and necessary.  But if there is a break in the parallelism, it emerges at this juncture.  Whereas there is no excuse not to be victorious over Satan (James 4:7) or sin (James 3:9-12) in the ongoing battle, the same can not be said about sickness.  The persistence or recurrence of sickness does not point to a deficiency in the one who intercedes against it, or a lack of faith in the one who is afflicted with it.

First, the Apostle Paul acknowledges routinely the presence of sickness in a way that is sharply different from his attitude towards Satan and sin.  Paul does not lay a guilt trip on Timothy when he hears about his condition, but recommends a little wine for his stomach and his frequent ailments (I Timothy 5:23).  If he had been confronted with a situation in which Satan and sin had made inroads he would have reacted much more strongly (I Corinthians 5:1-8).

Furthermore, the prayer of a righteous man, according to James 5:14-16, accomplishes much -- but apparently not everything!  James would never have said anything remotely like that if the battle against Satan (James 4:7) or sin (James 4:4) had been the context.  Why the difference?  To begin with, the claim that perfect health is obtainable through faith runs counter to the Scripture's witness of man's mortality.  Then it completely overlooks a well-attested purpose of sickness.  Just as in the case of judgments (I Corinthians 11:30), chastisements (Hebrews 12:5-11), and trials (James 1:2-3), there are times when sickness is designed to elicit repentance, to produce endurance, and to result in holiness.

There is a connection between cross and cure.  But it is wide of the biblical mark to claim that indiscriminate healing is simply waiting to be appropriated by the faith of the Christian.  Isaiah 53:4, the so-called cornerstone of the "name it and claim it" teaching in the area of sickness, cannot support the weight that is placed upon it.



For more information on Victory Churches and the Faith Movement, go to the Reference Library.  Click on any book title to get a brief overview of the book.  All books on the list are available through www.amazon.com. 

Assessment of Positive Confessionism

The first part will deal with doctrinal positions that have resulted from a failure to employ proper hermeneutical procedures.  The second part will be concerned with the interpretive process itself and will spotlight unacceptable hermeneutical procedures.  The doctrinal positions will often prove to be confused, confusing, errant, and at times even heretical; the interpretive procedures arbitrary, ill-advised, deficient, and at times even damaging.  A cross section of examples should suffice to document the disarray prevailing in much of present day Word/Faith preaching.  The doctrines of man and of justification will serve as samples to indicate deficiencies caused by improper hermeneutical procedures.

MAN

In a recent publication, the trichotomous nature of man (i.e., the view that man consists of three parts:  body, soul, and spirit) was defended on the basis of Hebrews 4:12 and I Thessalonians 5:23.  But neither passage, properly interpreted, supports the weight of this position, which, as R.C. Sproul has pointed out, is essentially Gnostic and has been rejected by orthodox Christianity.  Hebrews 4:12 does not inform us that the Word of God is so sharp that it divides the soul from the spirit, as if they are two separate entities, but rather that it pierces so deeply that it splits even the soul, the non bodily part of man, or the spirit, that same part but now designated as non-material down to its very root.  The focus of the verse is the piercing capability of the Word of God and not the nature of man.

Similarly, in I Thessalonians 5:23 -- which is somewhat of a "sign-off" -- the nature of man is not the issue either, but rather the sanctifying process.  Paul emphasizes that it is all-encompassing.  It easily could have read, "may God...sanctify you through and through.  May your whole spirit, soul, body, mind, heart, emotions, and so forth, be kept blameless."  That language would hardly have justified the conclusion that man consists of seven constituent elements.  No, the two passages under consideration do not even come close to teaching that man is trichotomous.

It is important to recognize this point especially in the light of the constructs the positive confessionists build on their misinterpretation of these verses.  They treat the body, soul, and spirit, as well as the corresponding physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions of man, as unrelated entities.  They further hold that God has no immediate contact with either the mind or the body.  He communicates with man only through the spirit.  This concept is dangerously akin to the Gnostic view of the spirit as the "divine" aspect of man.  Incidentally, the communication the positive confessionists speak of is not just a matter of illumination of Scripture, but rather of substantive revelation.  In their view, Scripture merely addresses the mind with a view to moral renewal, whereas spiritual realities are seen as being conveyed immediately by God to the spirit.  Such a misunderstanding on the part of the positive confessionists puts both the necessity and the sufficiency of Scripture in serious jeopardy.

Quite in line with their view that the body, soul, and spirit are unrelated elements and their misunderstanding the nature of God's communication to man, the positive confessionists do not acknowledge the body as the temple of the Spirit.  The designation appearing in I Corinthians 6:19 is only conceded to be true in a derived sense in as much as the Spirit indwells the human spirit, which in turn is connected with the body.  Further, the positive confessionists hold that when the Spirit-filled spirit controls the body, the result is a committed Christian, whereas when the body dominates the spirit, a "carnal" Christian emerges. This misinterpretation has Gnostic overtones as well and is as much a misreading of Scripture today as it was in the second century.

The trichotomous view also has serious consequences for the doctrine of Christ.  In the incarnation, God, who is a Spirit, is portrayed as adopting the body of a man.  This interpretation represents a type of appollinarianism (another ancient heresy) that was condemned centuries ago.  In that same incarnation, furthermore, Christ is said to come into the possession of an actual sinful nature.  As a result, He was severed from God and became a man who was spiritually dead and physically mortal.  That condition required before anything else, the transformation of His nature that took place in the resurrection, which constituted His rebirth and paved the way for the rebirth of others (apparently no-one was ever born again in the Old Testament).  This interpretation, of course, is totally unacceptable to orthodox Christians anywhere.

Clearly, the insistence upon the trichotomous nature of man in the preaching of the positive confessionists produces a staggering amount of damage.  It paves the way to continuing revelation that qualitatively transcends Scripture, and it saddles the church with a heretical view of the Person and work of Christ.



For more information on Victory Churches and the Faith Movement, go to the Reference Library.  Click on any book title to get a brief overview of the book.  All books on the list are available through www.amazon.com.