To answer this we must first explain the "seed-faith" principle. It is a combination of elements of Positive Thinking psychology, "positive confession" based on divine "laws," and a "gospel" stressing "prosperity" or health and wealth. Oral Roberts believes that his "seed-faith" principle is something that Jesus Himself revealed to him. Roberts calls it a "blessing-pact covenant." He claims this is "God's way of doing things through His Son Jesus Christ. . . and then through His followers, for the meeting of all our needs. . ."
Roberts teaches that the first principle of "seed-faith" is that God is our Source of total supply. His second principle is giving money. Giving money is "the seed of faith itself" and this "seed" can then be directed by the giver to perform miracles. His third principle is to expect a miracle. Why? Roberts says it is because this is "God's way of doing things . . . [and it is] based on eternal laws . . . laws so exact and perfect they always work for you."
Here is one of Roberts' illustrations of how giving money is the seed that produces miracles. In January of 1985 Oral Roberts sent out a letter informing his supporters that they could send for his "33 Predictions for You in 1985." These predictions were allegedly based on Roberts' exercising his "gift of prophesy" for them. The many recipients of this letter were instructed to expect "creative miracles" and money. The reader was urged to send a "seed-faith gift" which would help him get a "hundredfold return" but there was a catch. Roberts said, "If you neglect to pay attention to what He [God] is especially saying to you, then Satan will take advantage and hit you with bad things and you will wish that 1985 had never come." What could you have concluded from these statements if you didn't want to send any seed-faith money?
Even Roberts' former daughter-in-law, Patti Roberts, now questions her involvement in Roberts' ministry. Besides guilt over the excessive wealth the Roberts enjoyed, she noted "the seed-faith" theology that Roberts had developed "bothered me a great deal because I saw that, when taken to extremes, it reduced God to a sugardaddy. If you wanted His blessings and His love, you paid Him off. Over and over again we heard Oral say, 'Give out of your need.' I began to question the motivation that kind of giving implied. Were we giving to God out of our love and gratitude to Him or were we bartering with Him? . . . I believed we were appealing to their sense of greed or desperation. . . . I had a very difficult time distinguishing between the [Roman Catholic] selling of indulgences and the concept of seed-faith. . . . " Patti Roberts felt Oral Roberts was a manipulative fund-raiser and she also had a problem with his priorities -- the principles of seed-faith were given on every T.V. show, yet the gospel itself was rarely given.
Our problems with Roberts' seed-faith principles are: First, the conversations Roberts had with Jesus are suspect. If Jesus actually intended these principles for all believers, then why didn't He put them in the Bible instead of waiting until Oral Roberts arrived on the scene in the 20th century? Has the Christian church from the time of Christ and the apostles to the present been left without these divine principles? If so, how did the church manage?
Remember, Jesus supposedly told Roberts the following four things. First, "I have come to remind men of this eternal law of sowing and reaping, or of giving and receiving?" Second, Roberts claimed "Jesus" told him that his principle of seed-faith was the deeper meaning of Matthew 17:20 ("If you have faith as a mustard seed. . ."). Third, Jesus included Galatians 6:7 ("Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap") as part of these principles. Fourth, he explained that "St. Paul stated the New Testament or New Covenant is based on seed-faith."
But lets stop for a moment. Could Jesus have said these things? Is this what Paul meant? Paul did not even mention seed-faith, let alone say the New Testament is based on it. And according to the writer of Hebrews, the New Covenant is based on the Person and Work of Christ (Hebrews 9:15), not the principles of seed-faith giving, which will produce miracles for any giver.
Also, the Jesus that spoke to Roberts was mistaken about his "deeper meanings" in Scripture. This is serious, because often known cultists use "deeper meanings" to prove their unbiblical teachings or heresy in the same way. The meaning of New Testament words can always be determined by checking a dictionary and by reading them in context. Before one applies Scripture, one must first determine its true meaning. And the one true meaning of Matthew 17:20 and Galatians 6:7 is not Oral Robert's "seed-faith" interpretation, as any good commentary will show. The same can be said of the false interpretation of Galatians 6:9 stated by Roberts' "Jesus" ("let us not become weary in doing good" NIV). This is simply not a reference to seed-faith.
If we accept Roberts' claim of Jesus' additions or corrections to Scripture here, where do we draw the line? One may accept this teaching as a teaching of Oral Roberts. However, if one accepts the Bible as an authority, one cannot accept Roberts' statements as the teachings of Jesus Christ. Who, then, is really speaking to Oral Roberts? It is such a crucial question to determine who is speaking to Roberts that we present another illustration.
Jesus supposedly told Roberts that when the Bible records His statement, "It is more blessed to give than to receive," (found in Acts 20:35), that His actual words do not convey His true meaning. Jesus revealed to Roberts that, "I meant it is more productive to give than to receive." Here we must ask, would the Jesus Christ of the Scriptures who is the same yesterday, today and forever and who "never changes" (Hebrews 1:12;13:8; Malachi 3:6), be someone who would shift the meaning away from what Scripture actually records? Would the Jesus Christ of Scripture change His mind? If so, how many other verses require Jesus to give new interpretations to make them accurate? What does this do to the verbal inspiration of the Bible? The fact is that the Greek word for "blessed" (makarion) means "blessed," "fortunate," or "happy" -- it does not mean "productive." Does Roberts expect us to believe that Jesus Himself has completely changed the emphasis of His original meaning from the joy of giving to the utility of giving? The biblical Jesus said, "Freely you received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). To lead men to expect an automatic financial return of a hundredfold simply because they gave their money is to corrupt the very purpose and nature of giving. To our way of thinking, this leads to old-fashioned selfishness; moreover, one wonders how many people have "given to get" and ended up in financial difficulty or ruin. If God does not work this way, and these seed-faith principles are really not biblical, then those who trust in them will find constant disappointment and question God's truth and loyalty.
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.
Showing posts with label Oral Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oral Roberts. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
A Preliminary Assessment of Word/Faith Televangelism
A preliminary assessment can now be made. There are two types that are most prominent today. The first type is that of positive or possibility thinkers such as Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller. The second type is that of positive confessionists, such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton and others.
The positive/possibility thinker believes in the power of the mind, the power of visualizing, the power of imagination, the power of faith. What one thinks, visualizes, imagines, or believes strongly enough will be realized. One's inner potential is so enormous and one's inner energy so powerful that one can literally think, visualize, imagine, or believe into being what one desires. To the possibility thinker, the greatest threat to the possibilities that can be brought into being are a bad self-image and an absence of self-love. Those negative elements are produced by negative thinking, it is said, including the type of thinking that entertains mans lostness before God, not to mention his total depravity. In fact, the emphasis upon human sinfulness is itself the cardinal sin, for such emphasis would quickly turn a beckoning success story into a string of failures. Instead, all the God talk, Christ talk, Spirit talk, and Bible talk, in general should be designed to bolster or produce self-esteem so that one can begin to tap one's vast inner resources and realize one's incredible potential.
The positive confessionists have much in common with this approach. But there is a difference. Whereas the positive/possibility thinker is more "natural" in his orientation, the positive confessionist is more "supernatural." The former emphasizes success as the natural outflow of the enormous human spirit. In a sense, it is one-upmanship -- what the secularist can accomplish, the Christian can achieve more effectively...with Jesus. The latter holds out the prospect of prosperity and success as the supernatural realization of the even more enormous possibilities that are presented to him in the framework of salvation.
In short, according to the positive/possibility thinker, man succeeds by mobilizing what he already is and regards success as no surprise. Overcoming a bad self-image, of course, is part of the total package. According to the positive confessionist, man prospers be claiming what God promises and calls this a miracle. Part of the package is that he rests from Satan what is already his. .
However these types may differ, they are at one in that they place man in the center rather than God. And in spite of their different shades, they are only too eager to cooperate with one another. For instance, the leading proponent of possibility thinking, Robert Schuller, frequently participates in the conferences of the positive confessionists and has even contributed the forward to one of Paul Yongi Cho's books. The objective of both groups is to secure success and happiness for man rather than to present the biblical message of sin and grace. Forget "glorifying God and enjoying Him forever!" The goal of the Christian life is to "name it and claim it."
It appears that biblical theology as defined previously and a systematic theology carefully built upon that theology and, on the other hand, the two types of televangelism described thus far are worlds in collision, for a properly constructed systematic theology places our attention upon the sin-holiness polarity with all that that entails. Biblical theology does not allow a single issue -- and a man-centered issue at that -- isolated from the thrust of Scripture to dominate the preaching enterprise.
It should further be underscored that both types of televangelism are quite pretentious and aware of the different direction they take. The first type of televangelism holds that the perspective of self-esteem puts its own imprint upon, and therefore requires a radical change in, the way one does (systematic) theology and in one's philosophical outlook upon life. The second type of televangelism is of the opinion that it has finally unearthed the "full Gospel," well beyond any gospel that (biblical theology) has been able to formulate.
The Apostle Paul informs the Romans that he desires to come in the "fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:29, KJV). In the light of the context of the epistle, in which he describes the "full gospel," it is questionable whether the theology of self-esteem squares with that "gospel," or whether the theology of prosperity squares with that gospel in its "fullness." In a nutshell, the full gospel according to Paul is that sinners are accepted in the presence of God as members of the kingdom only through the righteousness of Christ and subsequently as saints enjoy that presence and serve in that kingdom only by surrendering everything to Christ. Prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom is a loss of self rather than an esteem of self, although characteristic of service in that kingdom is self-sacrifice rather than health and wealth.
A televangelist, just like any other preacher, must preach the Word. He must do so properly, informed by a properly construed biblical theology, one that springs from a covenantal perspective. He must do so fully, informed by a carefully constructed systematic theology, which is to say that he does not confine himself to some popular themes, let alone fund-raising schemes.
His preaching must be evangelistic and edificational. In his evangelistic preaching he must invite the sinner to come to Christ with his rebellious heart for it to be killed (Romans 6:6), with his guilty record for it to be cleansed (Romans 3:25), and with his unholy life for it to be transformed (John 15:5). In short, he must invite the sinner to come to Christ for regeneration, justification, and sanctification, the sum and substance of the New Covenant, promised by the Father, personified by the Son, and personalized by the Spirit.
In his edificational preaching, he must bring the Word of God, including promise and law, to bear upon the believer. He must seek to bring him into an ever-closer conformity to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) and be intent upon mobilizing the church as the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-14) in the areas of evangelism and edification, so as to make an impact upon all of society (Acts 17:6).
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.
The positive/possibility thinker believes in the power of the mind, the power of visualizing, the power of imagination, the power of faith. What one thinks, visualizes, imagines, or believes strongly enough will be realized. One's inner potential is so enormous and one's inner energy so powerful that one can literally think, visualize, imagine, or believe into being what one desires. To the possibility thinker, the greatest threat to the possibilities that can be brought into being are a bad self-image and an absence of self-love. Those negative elements are produced by negative thinking, it is said, including the type of thinking that entertains mans lostness before God, not to mention his total depravity. In fact, the emphasis upon human sinfulness is itself the cardinal sin, for such emphasis would quickly turn a beckoning success story into a string of failures. Instead, all the God talk, Christ talk, Spirit talk, and Bible talk, in general should be designed to bolster or produce self-esteem so that one can begin to tap one's vast inner resources and realize one's incredible potential.
The positive confessionists have much in common with this approach. But there is a difference. Whereas the positive/possibility thinker is more "natural" in his orientation, the positive confessionist is more "supernatural." The former emphasizes success as the natural outflow of the enormous human spirit. In a sense, it is one-upmanship -- what the secularist can accomplish, the Christian can achieve more effectively...with Jesus. The latter holds out the prospect of prosperity and success as the supernatural realization of the even more enormous possibilities that are presented to him in the framework of salvation.
In short, according to the positive/possibility thinker, man succeeds by mobilizing what he already is and regards success as no surprise. Overcoming a bad self-image, of course, is part of the total package. According to the positive confessionist, man prospers be claiming what God promises and calls this a miracle. Part of the package is that he rests from Satan what is already his. .
However these types may differ, they are at one in that they place man in the center rather than God. And in spite of their different shades, they are only too eager to cooperate with one another. For instance, the leading proponent of possibility thinking, Robert Schuller, frequently participates in the conferences of the positive confessionists and has even contributed the forward to one of Paul Yongi Cho's books. The objective of both groups is to secure success and happiness for man rather than to present the biblical message of sin and grace. Forget "glorifying God and enjoying Him forever!" The goal of the Christian life is to "name it and claim it."
It appears that biblical theology as defined previously and a systematic theology carefully built upon that theology and, on the other hand, the two types of televangelism described thus far are worlds in collision, for a properly constructed systematic theology places our attention upon the sin-holiness polarity with all that that entails. Biblical theology does not allow a single issue -- and a man-centered issue at that -- isolated from the thrust of Scripture to dominate the preaching enterprise.
It should further be underscored that both types of televangelism are quite pretentious and aware of the different direction they take. The first type of televangelism holds that the perspective of self-esteem puts its own imprint upon, and therefore requires a radical change in, the way one does (systematic) theology and in one's philosophical outlook upon life. The second type of televangelism is of the opinion that it has finally unearthed the "full Gospel," well beyond any gospel that (biblical theology) has been able to formulate.
The Apostle Paul informs the Romans that he desires to come in the "fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:29, KJV). In the light of the context of the epistle, in which he describes the "full gospel," it is questionable whether the theology of self-esteem squares with that "gospel," or whether the theology of prosperity squares with that gospel in its "fullness." In a nutshell, the full gospel according to Paul is that sinners are accepted in the presence of God as members of the kingdom only through the righteousness of Christ and subsequently as saints enjoy that presence and serve in that kingdom only by surrendering everything to Christ. Prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom is a loss of self rather than an esteem of self, although characteristic of service in that kingdom is self-sacrifice rather than health and wealth.
A televangelist, just like any other preacher, must preach the Word. He must do so properly, informed by a properly construed biblical theology, one that springs from a covenantal perspective. He must do so fully, informed by a carefully constructed systematic theology, which is to say that he does not confine himself to some popular themes, let alone fund-raising schemes.
His preaching must be evangelistic and edificational. In his evangelistic preaching he must invite the sinner to come to Christ with his rebellious heart for it to be killed (Romans 6:6), with his guilty record for it to be cleansed (Romans 3:25), and with his unholy life for it to be transformed (John 15:5). In short, he must invite the sinner to come to Christ for regeneration, justification, and sanctification, the sum and substance of the New Covenant, promised by the Father, personified by the Son, and personalized by the Spirit.
In his edificational preaching, he must bring the Word of God, including promise and law, to bear upon the believer. He must seek to bring him into an ever-closer conformity to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) and be intent upon mobilizing the church as the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-14) in the areas of evangelism and edification, so as to make an impact upon all of society (Acts 17:6).
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.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Oral & Richard Roberts' False Teachings
Oral Roberts has had a profound effect on many of the Faith teachers, including Jerry Savelle and Charles Capps. He also actively supports other leaders in the Faith Movement such as Kenneth Hagin. His son, Richard Roberts, supports the Faith Movement even more so, perhaps a result of his sitting under the tutelage of Kenneth Copeland.
Oral Roberts accepts the title of "...the senior apostle to the body of Christ in our day" and claims that he can "minister God's miracle power" to anyone. His famous "seed-faith" principle is a combination of elements of humanistic psychology, "positive confession" based on divine "laws," and a "gospel" stressing prosperity. Roberts teaches that Jesus Himself revealed His "seed-faith" principle to him. He claims this is "God's way of doing things through His Son Jesus Christ ... and then through His followers, for the meeting of all our needs ..." He teaches that the first principle of "seed-faith" is that God is our Source of total supply. His second principle is giving, e.g., money. Giving is "the seed of faith itself" and this "seed" can then be directed by the giver to perform miracles. His third principle is to expect a miracle. Why? Because this is "God's way of doing things...[and it is] based on eternal laws...laws so exact and perfect they always work for you."
Here is an illustration. In January of 1985 Oral Roberts sent out a letter informing his supporters that they could send for his "33 Predictions for You in 1985." These predictions were allegedly based on Roberts' exercising his "gift of prophesy" for them. The recipients of his letter were instructed to expect "creative miracles" and money. The reader was urged to send a "seed-faith gift" which would help him get a "hundredfold return." But there was a catch. Roberts said, "If you neglect to pay attention to what He [God] is especially saying to you, then Satan will take advantage and hit you with bad things and you will wish that 1985 had never come." Now, what could you have concluded from these statements if you didn't want to send any seed-faith money?
Even Roberts' former daughter-in-law, Patti Roberts, questions her involvement in Roberts' ministry. Besides guilt over the excessive wealth the Roberts enjoyed, she noted, "The seed-faith" theology "bothered me a great deal because I saw that, when taken to extremes, it reduced God to a sugar daddy. If you wanted His blessings and His love, you paid Him off. Over and over again we heard Oral say, 'Give out of your need.' I began to question the motivation that kind of giving implied. Were we giving to God out of our love and gratitude to Him or were we bartering with Him? ...I believed we were appealing to their sense of greed or desperation...[thus] I have a very difficult time distinguishing between the selling of indulgences and the concept of seed-faith..." Patti Roberts felt her father-in-law had become a manipulative fund-raiser. She also had a problem with his priorities -- the principles of seed-faith were given in every TV show, yet the gospel itself was rarely offered.
Our problem with the Roberts' seed-faith principles is that the conversations that Oral Roberts had with Jesus are suspect. If Jesus actually intended these vital principles for all believers, then why didn't He put them in the New Testament instead of waiting 2000 years?
Jesus supposedly told Roberts the following four things. First, "I have come to remind men of this eternal law of sowing and reaping, or of giving and receiving." Second, Roberts claimed "Jesus" told him that his principle of seed-faith was the deeper meaning of Matthew 17:20 ("If you have faith as a mustard seed..."). Third, Jesus included Galations 6:7 ("Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap") as part of these principles. Fourth, He explained that "Saint Paul stated the New Testament or New Covenant is based on seed faith."
But think about this. Could Jesus have said such things? And is this really what Paul meant? Paul didn't even mention seed-faith, let alone say that the New Testament is based on it. According to the writer of Hebrews, the New Covenant is based on the Person and work of Christ (Hebrews 9:15), not on a principle of seed-faith giving to produce miracles for those who give.
Also, the Jesus that spoke to Roberts was even mistaken about the "deeper meanings" in Scripture. The true meaning of Matthew 17:20 and Galations 6:7 is not Oral Roberts' "seed-faith" interpretation, as any good commentary will show. The same can be said about the false interpretation of Galations 6:9 stated by Roberts' "Jesus." "Let us not lose heart in doing good" is simply not a reference to seed-faith.
"Jesus" made other errors. He supposedly told Roberts that when the Bible records His statement, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (found in Acts 20:35), that His actual words do not convey His true meaning. Jesus revealed to Roberts that, "I meant it is more PRODUCTIVE to give than to receive." But does Oral Roberts expect us to believe that Jesus Himself has completely changed the emphasis of His original meaning from the joy of giving to the utility of giving? The biblical Jesus said, "Freely you received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8, emphasis added). Would the Jesus Christ of the Scripture, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and who "never changes" (Hebrews 1:12; 13:8; Malachi 3:6), ever alter the meaning of His own words? If so, how many other verses would require Jesus to give us new interpretations to make them accurate? What does this do to the inspiration of the Bible? Finally, would Jesus ever teach a lie to Oral Roberts? The fact is that the Greek word blessed (macarion) means "blessed," "fortunate," or "happy" -- it does not mean "productive."
To lead men to expect an automatic financial return of a hundredfold simply because they gave their money is to corrupt the very purpose and nature of giving; it leads to selfishness, not godliness. Yet, Roberts not only believes in the hundredfold return but that a person cannot give their finances to God cheerfully in tithing unless they also know they will get a greater return back. Unfortunately, however, God is impotent to release "His miracle supply" until you permit Him to do so by following Roberts' guidance.
Even though Jesus taught that we were not to worry about our life, the problems of tomorrow, or the needs we now have (Matthew 6:25), Roberts teaches, "The most urgent problem facing you is HOW TO GET YOUR NEED MET WHILE YOU LIVE ON THIS EARTH..." because "needs exist to be met."
He proceeds to promise people that they can literally have a supernatural miracle every day of their lives. For example, "Is there a Bible formula for success and prosperity?...[To] get yourself in position to EXPECT A MIRACLE?...Yes..." This is why Oral and Richard Roberts write:
...You can expect a miracle...each and every day you live on this earth!...I witness to you today that God has already written your name on miracles...and there's one marked "today" and "tomorrow" and "every day" for the rest of your life...I heard God speak..."You tell your friends and Partners to expect a new miracle every day."
But, of course, if all this were true, why did Roberts' medical center go bankrupt? And why did he repeatedly have to make appeals to his ministry partners for funding even to the extent of threatening God's judgment and death upon him if he didn't raise the money? Why do his appeal letters continue to have to ask for money? Consider his September 1992 letter advertising his new book on getting God to say "Yes" after He has already said "No."
Indeed, this book, How Your Faith Works When God Says No, claims the following: "The truths in this new book come by fresh revelation straight from the throne room of God.."
Because Roberts believed, "I'm anointed to help you MORE THAN EVER" he enclosed special "spiritual" stamps (individually labelled with believers' needs) in his support letter to assist his partners in sending him more money "very soon." Otherwise, without this money he just can't do anything he is supposed to be doing for God.
(From The Facts on the Faith Movement by John Ankerberg & John Weldon)
Oral Roberts accepts the title of "...the senior apostle to the body of Christ in our day" and claims that he can "minister God's miracle power" to anyone. His famous "seed-faith" principle is a combination of elements of humanistic psychology, "positive confession" based on divine "laws," and a "gospel" stressing prosperity. Roberts teaches that Jesus Himself revealed His "seed-faith" principle to him. He claims this is "God's way of doing things through His Son Jesus Christ ... and then through His followers, for the meeting of all our needs ..." He teaches that the first principle of "seed-faith" is that God is our Source of total supply. His second principle is giving, e.g., money. Giving is "the seed of faith itself" and this "seed" can then be directed by the giver to perform miracles. His third principle is to expect a miracle. Why? Because this is "God's way of doing things...[and it is] based on eternal laws...laws so exact and perfect they always work for you."
Here is an illustration. In January of 1985 Oral Roberts sent out a letter informing his supporters that they could send for his "33 Predictions for You in 1985." These predictions were allegedly based on Roberts' exercising his "gift of prophesy" for them. The recipients of his letter were instructed to expect "creative miracles" and money. The reader was urged to send a "seed-faith gift" which would help him get a "hundredfold return." But there was a catch. Roberts said, "If you neglect to pay attention to what He [God] is especially saying to you, then Satan will take advantage and hit you with bad things and you will wish that 1985 had never come." Now, what could you have concluded from these statements if you didn't want to send any seed-faith money?
Even Roberts' former daughter-in-law, Patti Roberts, questions her involvement in Roberts' ministry. Besides guilt over the excessive wealth the Roberts enjoyed, she noted, "The seed-faith" theology "bothered me a great deal because I saw that, when taken to extremes, it reduced God to a sugar daddy. If you wanted His blessings and His love, you paid Him off. Over and over again we heard Oral say, 'Give out of your need.' I began to question the motivation that kind of giving implied. Were we giving to God out of our love and gratitude to Him or were we bartering with Him? ...I believed we were appealing to their sense of greed or desperation...[thus] I have a very difficult time distinguishing between the selling of indulgences and the concept of seed-faith..." Patti Roberts felt her father-in-law had become a manipulative fund-raiser. She also had a problem with his priorities -- the principles of seed-faith were given in every TV show, yet the gospel itself was rarely offered.
Our problem with the Roberts' seed-faith principles is that the conversations that Oral Roberts had with Jesus are suspect. If Jesus actually intended these vital principles for all believers, then why didn't He put them in the New Testament instead of waiting 2000 years?
Jesus supposedly told Roberts the following four things. First, "I have come to remind men of this eternal law of sowing and reaping, or of giving and receiving." Second, Roberts claimed "Jesus" told him that his principle of seed-faith was the deeper meaning of Matthew 17:20 ("If you have faith as a mustard seed..."). Third, Jesus included Galations 6:7 ("Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap") as part of these principles. Fourth, He explained that "Saint Paul stated the New Testament or New Covenant is based on seed faith."
But think about this. Could Jesus have said such things? And is this really what Paul meant? Paul didn't even mention seed-faith, let alone say that the New Testament is based on it. According to the writer of Hebrews, the New Covenant is based on the Person and work of Christ (Hebrews 9:15), not on a principle of seed-faith giving to produce miracles for those who give.
Also, the Jesus that spoke to Roberts was even mistaken about the "deeper meanings" in Scripture. The true meaning of Matthew 17:20 and Galations 6:7 is not Oral Roberts' "seed-faith" interpretation, as any good commentary will show. The same can be said about the false interpretation of Galations 6:9 stated by Roberts' "Jesus." "Let us not lose heart in doing good" is simply not a reference to seed-faith.
"Jesus" made other errors. He supposedly told Roberts that when the Bible records His statement, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (found in Acts 20:35), that His actual words do not convey His true meaning. Jesus revealed to Roberts that, "I meant it is more PRODUCTIVE to give than to receive." But does Oral Roberts expect us to believe that Jesus Himself has completely changed the emphasis of His original meaning from the joy of giving to the utility of giving? The biblical Jesus said, "Freely you received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8, emphasis added). Would the Jesus Christ of the Scripture, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and who "never changes" (Hebrews 1:12; 13:8; Malachi 3:6), ever alter the meaning of His own words? If so, how many other verses would require Jesus to give us new interpretations to make them accurate? What does this do to the inspiration of the Bible? Finally, would Jesus ever teach a lie to Oral Roberts? The fact is that the Greek word blessed (macarion) means "blessed," "fortunate," or "happy" -- it does not mean "productive."
To lead men to expect an automatic financial return of a hundredfold simply because they gave their money is to corrupt the very purpose and nature of giving; it leads to selfishness, not godliness. Yet, Roberts not only believes in the hundredfold return but that a person cannot give their finances to God cheerfully in tithing unless they also know they will get a greater return back. Unfortunately, however, God is impotent to release "His miracle supply" until you permit Him to do so by following Roberts' guidance.
Even though Jesus taught that we were not to worry about our life, the problems of tomorrow, or the needs we now have (Matthew 6:25), Roberts teaches, "The most urgent problem facing you is HOW TO GET YOUR NEED MET WHILE YOU LIVE ON THIS EARTH..." because "needs exist to be met."
He proceeds to promise people that they can literally have a supernatural miracle every day of their lives. For example, "Is there a Bible formula for success and prosperity?...[To] get yourself in position to EXPECT A MIRACLE?...Yes..." This is why Oral and Richard Roberts write:
...You can expect a miracle...each and every day you live on this earth!...I witness to you today that God has already written your name on miracles...and there's one marked "today" and "tomorrow" and "every day" for the rest of your life...I heard God speak..."You tell your friends and Partners to expect a new miracle every day."
But, of course, if all this were true, why did Roberts' medical center go bankrupt? And why did he repeatedly have to make appeals to his ministry partners for funding even to the extent of threatening God's judgment and death upon him if he didn't raise the money? Why do his appeal letters continue to have to ask for money? Consider his September 1992 letter advertising his new book on getting God to say "Yes" after He has already said "No."
Indeed, this book, How Your Faith Works When God Says No, claims the following: "The truths in this new book come by fresh revelation straight from the throne room of God.."
Because Roberts believed, "I'm anointed to help you MORE THAN EVER" he enclosed special "spiritual" stamps (individually labelled with believers' needs) in his support letter to assist his partners in sending him more money "very soon." Otherwise, without this money he just can't do anything he is supposed to be doing for God.
(From The Facts on the Faith Movement by John Ankerberg & John Weldon)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)