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. 

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. 

Biblical Theology

The second step is a properly constructed biblical theology.  Whereas systematic theology aims at the orderly comprehension and methodical presentation of the whole range of the biblical data on a particular subject.  Biblical theology looks at these same data from the historical perspective.  It can be summed up under three main points.

The first point is that God revealed Himself in time and space.  His self-disclosure in word and deed is truly historical.  The Flood, the call of Abraham, the legislation on Mt. Sinai, the promise to David, Jonah in the fish, the birth of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, the outpouring of the Spirit, and so forth, are space-time events that really took place.  At the same time, history is also revelational.  It discloses who God is, in His trinitarian being and work, who man is as creature and sinner, how God lovingly extends His covenant to man, and how man is taken up into it.  The biblical narrative specifically focuses upon God's covenant dealings with man and the response that is expected from him.  Any preacher who fails to categorize these covenant dealings and the necessary response to them is bound to misread God's revelation and misinform his audience.

The second point is that God's self-revelation is an unfolding process that is both organic and progressive.  Its earlier stages are foundational for the later one and give rise to them.  Its later stages are natural "sequels" atop the earlier ones and adds substantially to them.  History is the progressive unfolding of God's covenantal    dealings with man.  Those dealings culminate in the New Covenant that merges against the backdrop of the radical and total bankruptcy of man.  That New Covenant has a trinitarian foundation and is triadic in its scope.  It is trinitarian in that it is promised by the Father (Jeremiah 31:31), personified in the Son (Isaiah 42:6), and personalized by the Spirit (Isaiah 59:21).  It is triadic in that it aims at a new heart (in regeneration:   Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:5; Romans 6:6), a new record (in justification:  Ezekiel 36:25; II Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 1:13-14), and a new life (in sanctification: Ezekiel 36:27; John 15:5; Romans 15:15).  Of these three New Covenant benefits, the new life in sanctification is its crowning piece.  Not a man-centered happiness, but a God-centered holiness is the grand theme and aim of the New Covenant.  But once again, unless this is recognized, God's self-disclosure to man is bound to be misread, and the preaching based upon such misreading is bound to mislead.

The third point is that God's self-revelation was committed to writing, which resulted in the Scriptures of Old and New Testaments. As they rehearse the past, interact with the present, and open up vistas upon the future, the Scriptures are not simply reflections upon God's self-revelation, presenting the thoughts or opinions of lone individuals such as Moses and Paul or of communities such as Israel and the early church, nor are they simply the record of God's revelation in word and deed put into writing by the human authors.  Know the Scriptures are in and of themselves the self-disclosure of God.  That is, they are God's authoritative and complete canon, the final and sufficient Word for all mankind.  They are such because they present both the universal principles and patterns of God's covenant dealings and the universal principles and patterns of man's response.  As such they are meant for all people at all times and in all situations.  These universal principles and patterns come either ready-made, such as the Ten Commandments, or they are embedded in the text.  It is the preacher's task to lift them or harvest them from the text.  Unless he succeeds in doing so, the horizons of the exposition and application of the text will not merge and the message will have no basis in truth.  The Scriptures as the record of God's revelation will not be fundamental for the preaching of God's revelation to man.  "Would, hay [and] stubble" (1 Corinthians 3:12, KJV) will be the inevitable result.

A biblical theology that takes these three points into account is well-poised to make a lasting contribution.  It will set forth the process and progress of God's self-disclosure and His Kingdom program as presented in Scripture.  First, it will seek to determine the theme, structure, and objective of Scripture as a whole, in its component parts, in the relationship of the whole and the parts, and in the relationship of the parts to each other.  Then it will seek to trace any particular theme, concept, or motif in its origin and development throughout the Scripture as presenting covenantal history, taking both the text and the context into account.  Finally, it will couch its findings in terms of universal principles and patterns.

This puts biblical theology in perspective.  In general, the recognition of the covenantal nature of Scripture guarantees that biblical interpretation will be undertaken in a God-centered rather than a man-centered fashion and with a holiness-centered rather than a happiness-centered focus.  In particular, the recognition of the historical unfolding process ensures that the meaning of any biblical text will be established in the light of previous Scripture and that every biblical text will be assigned continued validity except when it is abrogated or superseded by later Scripture.  Ultimately, this procedure will produce a Kingdom message in which the truth of God in a full-orbed fashion is brought to bear upon every and all audiences.



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 Faith Movement Televangelist and the Word of God

Just as a doctor dares not practice surgery until he has studied the several branches of medicine, so a minister, including a media minister, should not presume that he broadcasts the biblical faith until he has a grasp of systematic and biblical theology.  It exhibits a glaring deficiency in both to claim, as does Charles Kapps, that Job "was sure not under the anointing" when he said, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away."  Kapps calls this statement a "lie."  Similar quotations can be multiplied.

Systematic Theology

The call for a systematic theology may seem elitist, as if every Faith Movement televagelist should have a Ph.D.  But this is not the case.  Such a call does not need to sound threatening.  Systematic theology aims at nothing more than an orderly presentation of the teachings of Scripture.  It seeks to "round up" all biblical data on a particular subject and form a conclusion as to what the Bible teaches on that subject.  Eventually a systematic order of beliefs is in place, not a grid that we press upon the Bible, but an order that we construct from the Bible.  Scripture repeatedly argues for the need to develop a sound doctrinal position (Titus 1:9).  

Frankly, it cannot be threatening.  No student of Scripture engages himself in the interpretive process without a "systematic theology" already in place, whether consciously or unconsciously, partially or fully, whether it is profound or shallow, straight or twisted, right or wrong.  This applies to Jesus (Matthew 7:28), the Pharisees (Matthew 16:2), the Apostles (Acts 5:28), and to everyone else.  From one's own doctrinal perspective, anything that is espoused must appear "good" (Proverbs 4:2, N.K.J.V.), "true" (1 Timothy 4:6), "sound" (Titus 1:9; or "wholesome"), the "opposite" of all this (see 1 Timothy 1:10), or simply "new" (Mark 1:27).

That is not to say that systematic theology should dominate the interpretive process.  It may never dictate the meaning of the biblical text or in any way be its final determinant.  The text should always speak for itself.  What it does not say it cannot mean.  Neither is this to propagate the intellectualizing of the biblical message.    The ultimate aim is not the intellectual grasp of the truth, but the submission in heart and the conformity in life to God in response to that truth.

But it is to ask for the recognition of the fact that everyone enters into the hermeneutical process with some kind of systematic theology, good or bad, the influence of which must not be underestimated.  In view of this it would be irresponsible not to develop the best systematic theology possible.  Too much depends upon it.  Although it may not impose or determine meaning, systematic theology can insure that no interpretation of a particular text clashes with any part of God's revealed truth.  It provides the parameters for possible and acceptable meaning.  Systematic theology is a watchdog then specifically equipped to challenge our interpretation of any passage when our interpretation conflicts with the overall biblical view of God, man, Christ, the Spirit, salvation, the church and the consummation.  One can fail or neglect to build a systematic theology only at one's own peril.  

In short, the parts can never be interpreted apart from the whole.  The individual pieces, in other words, have to fit the total system.  Of course, it is also true that the whole cannot be grasped apart from the parts.  In fact, the individual pieces must be allowed to perfect or change the system whenever and wherever that is necessary.  Ideally speaking, a "spiral" should be in evidence in which one's doctrinal position "checks" one's interpretation of a text and one's interpretation of a text "balances" one's doctrinal position.  But the run of the mill Faith Movement electronic message has such a glaring need for a properly developed systematic theology that in this context the emphasis upon one side of the spiral!  The deficiency in the systematic understanding of many modern day Faith Movement televangelists will be substantiated in further detail in upcoming blogs.


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. 

Scripture Twisting

There is a solemn obligation for the minister of the Gospel to preach the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (2 Timothy 4:2), to preach all of the Scriptures (Acts 20:27), and to preach only the Scriptures (Galations 1:8).  This should be a non-negotiable starting point for any type of ministry.  After all, these Scriptures and these Scriptures only compose the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).  Every word is needed to produce and sustain life (Deuteronomy 8:3), and no other (word) is on a par with it or can claim to be without error in whatever it asserts.  Neither, therefore, can any other such "word" have unquestionable authority in what it addresses.  That is the prerogative of the Word of Scripture only (John 10:35).

The minister of the Gospel is under the equally solemn obligation to handle the Scriptures accurately (2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 3:16), and to proclaim its message clearly (Hebrews 4:12).  In order to achieve this, the Christian church has insisted on developing a system or "science" of interpreting the Bible.  This science is called "hermeneutics."  It sets forth principles virtually agreed upon by orthodox Christians everywhere that form the necessary guidelines for all Biblical interpretations whether in personal devotions or in public speaking.

It is unrealistic to expect all Christians to be in agreement on the precise interpretation of every passage of Scripture.  But they should agree on the fundamental approach to biblical interpretation...there is a difference between occasional misinterpretations and unacceptable methods of biblical interpretation.  All have fallen victim to the former, but no one should be guilty of blatantly disregarding a responsible methodology.

This applies to every minister of the Gospel...whether he labours in relative obscurity or in the limelight.  After all, no minister runs a free-lance operation.  The person who proclaims the Scriptures is under strict orders from God and is fully accountable to Him.  He is God's ambassador and, therefore, his Master's voice.  Faith Movement televangelists are no exception.  The often-reported immediate "conversations" with God seem to give the impression not only that they possess a source of truth beyond the Bible, but also that they are exempt from following acceptable methods of biblical interpretation.  This should evoke a protest.  Not only is the Bible sufficient but also the proper principles of interpretation are universal and, therefore, binding upon all.

The electronic and [Faith Movement] preacher stands in need of a special reminder in this regard, since possibly more than anyone else he has the potential of being a force for tremendous good or a source of incalculable harm.  The man and his message may earn the respect of his audience and have a life-changing impact upon it.  But by who he is and what he says, he may also leave cynicism and public ridicule in his wake, dealing a severe setback to the cause of Christ.

Also the televangelist [Faith Movement] preacher must face up to the necessity of a biblical hermeneutics that heralds the Scriptures as its only starting point and champions a responsible method of interpretation.  In a word, he must honour Scripture as the only inerrant and binding Word of God, and present its meaning accurately and clearly.  Only so can he set forth God's truth properly and bring out its significance appropriately...


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.