Sunday, June 16, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Misapplied Texts and Terms
John 10:34-35, With Psalm 82:6
Those who embrace the "little gods" doctrine almost universally cite these verses, wrested from their contexts. In Mark 12:28, Christ was asked the question, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" To which Jesus replied, "Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." And yet, Jesus claimed deity, union with the Godhead, on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, the faith teachers appeal to Christ's remark in John 12:48-50: "Is is not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?. . . and the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35).
In the beginning of this story in John 10, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one" (v. 30). Furious, the Jews picked up stones. Jesus asked them, "For which of these [good works] do you stone me?" To which the Jews responded, "We are not stoning you for any of these . . . but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (v. 32-33). His citation of the eighty-second Psalm perplexed them. "Is is not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods'?. . . and the Scripture cannot be broken" -- why on earth did He quote that one? they wondered. Was Christ, in fact, teaching that man was a god? And if so, how can this be reconciled with the extreme monotheism (one-God-ism) of Judaism, which He both believed and taught as a rabbi.
There can be no doubt from the history and theology of the Old Testament that the judges of Israel and rulers of the people were representatives, or mouthpieces, for God. Such individuals were accorded great respect and assumed in the eyes of the people the outward appearance of "mighty ones" (in Hebrew, Elohim, "gods").
This should not come as a surprise to us when we remember Exodus 7:1, where God, speaking to Moses, says, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" (KJV). Now, there can be no doubt that Moses was no more than a mortal man -- in no sense divine, by nature or in essence. Nevertheless, since Pharaoh was a pagan and God was addressing him in that context, He was, in effect, saying, "When I finish with Pharaoh, through the power that will be revealed in you, Moses, My representative, he (Pharaoh) will think you are a god." The plagues of Egypt were evidence to Pharaoh and to the occultic priests who surrounded him that this was indeed the "finger of God" (Exodus 8:19).
Moses did not lay claim to being a deity. Instead, he manifested the power of deity as a gift from the only Deity -- God the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Similarly, the judges of Israel fulfilled the same role and so appeared to be gods. But in reality, they were sinful men who abused their office, and as a result God mocked them, saying, "I have said, Ye are gods. . . . Ye shall die like men" (Psalm 82:6-7). Here were men who were supposed to emulate God's own character but who had become corrupt rulers. They were supposed to be defenders of "the poor and fatherless . . . the afflicted and needy" (v3, KJV), but instead they were proud men, who -- though they looked like gods in the eyes of the people -- would nevertheless demonstrate their frail mortality in the judgment of death.
In Genesis 3:5, we can clearly see the teaching that man is a "god" or can become "like God" in relation to the divine essence originates not with God, but with Satan, who brought about the fall of man by deceiving Eve and then Adam into believing they would be like "gods."
Bible scholars have pointed out that Christ's statement, then, in John 10, is in the form of irony. God, they say, was stating something that would be recognized by anyone as an absurdity. Paul did the same with the Corinthians, mockingly referring to them as "kings," when both he and they knew they had not become kings at all. Instead, they were abusing their spiritual gifts. Similarly, in John 10, Jesus mocked the people as if to say, "You all think you're gods yourselves. What's one more god among you?" Irony is used to provoke us, not to inform us. It is not a basis for building a theology.
It is also pertinent to an understanding of John 10 that we remember that Satan is called "the ruler of this world" by no less an authority than the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:30, NASB). And Paul reinforces this by calling him "the god of this age" (II Corinthians 4:4). We can make a "god" out of anything -- money, power, status, position, sex, patriotism, family, or, as in Lucifer's case, an angel. We can be our own "god." But to call something deity or to worship it or treat it as divine is quite another thing than its being by nature and in essence deity.
The Bible insists that there is but one Creator: "Besides Me there is no god" (Isaiah 45:5, NASB). We need only compare Deuteromony 32:21, where God charged the Israelites with provoking Him to anger by the worship of "what is not God" (NASB), with Galations 4:8, where Paul reminds the church that they served pagan deities before their conversion to Christ and "were slaves to those which by nature are no gods" (v. 8, NASB; italics added).
There is, therefore, only one God by nature, one God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, one God who possess characteristics and attributes that may be imitated but never duplicated in finite creations. When it is said, then, that man is or can be a "god," we must remember that Christ is stating (John 10, with Psalm 82) that only He, the incarnate Word, has the right to the title of deity among men, since He alone is designated "the only begotten God" (John 1:18, Greek text). What we worship then may become "a god" to us, but it is not deity, as it is written, "'You are my witnesses,' declares the Lord, 'and my servant who I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me.'" (Isaiah 43:10).
If this were not enough, such passages as Isaiah 44:6, 45:22, and Deuteronomy 6:4 would close the issue forever.
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.
Those who embrace the "little gods" doctrine almost universally cite these verses, wrested from their contexts. In Mark 12:28, Christ was asked the question, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" To which Jesus replied, "Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." And yet, Jesus claimed deity, union with the Godhead, on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, the faith teachers appeal to Christ's remark in John 12:48-50: "Is is not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?. . . and the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35).
In the beginning of this story in John 10, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one" (v. 30). Furious, the Jews picked up stones. Jesus asked them, "For which of these [good works] do you stone me?" To which the Jews responded, "We are not stoning you for any of these . . . but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (v. 32-33). His citation of the eighty-second Psalm perplexed them. "Is is not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods'?. . . and the Scripture cannot be broken" -- why on earth did He quote that one? they wondered. Was Christ, in fact, teaching that man was a god? And if so, how can this be reconciled with the extreme monotheism (one-God-ism) of Judaism, which He both believed and taught as a rabbi.
There can be no doubt from the history and theology of the Old Testament that the judges of Israel and rulers of the people were representatives, or mouthpieces, for God. Such individuals were accorded great respect and assumed in the eyes of the people the outward appearance of "mighty ones" (in Hebrew, Elohim, "gods").
This should not come as a surprise to us when we remember Exodus 7:1, where God, speaking to Moses, says, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" (KJV). Now, there can be no doubt that Moses was no more than a mortal man -- in no sense divine, by nature or in essence. Nevertheless, since Pharaoh was a pagan and God was addressing him in that context, He was, in effect, saying, "When I finish with Pharaoh, through the power that will be revealed in you, Moses, My representative, he (Pharaoh) will think you are a god." The plagues of Egypt were evidence to Pharaoh and to the occultic priests who surrounded him that this was indeed the "finger of God" (Exodus 8:19).
Moses did not lay claim to being a deity. Instead, he manifested the power of deity as a gift from the only Deity -- God the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Similarly, the judges of Israel fulfilled the same role and so appeared to be gods. But in reality, they were sinful men who abused their office, and as a result God mocked them, saying, "I have said, Ye are gods. . . . Ye shall die like men" (Psalm 82:6-7). Here were men who were supposed to emulate God's own character but who had become corrupt rulers. They were supposed to be defenders of "the poor and fatherless . . . the afflicted and needy" (v3, KJV), but instead they were proud men, who -- though they looked like gods in the eyes of the people -- would nevertheless demonstrate their frail mortality in the judgment of death.
In Genesis 3:5, we can clearly see the teaching that man is a "god" or can become "like God" in relation to the divine essence originates not with God, but with Satan, who brought about the fall of man by deceiving Eve and then Adam into believing they would be like "gods."
Bible scholars have pointed out that Christ's statement, then, in John 10, is in the form of irony. God, they say, was stating something that would be recognized by anyone as an absurdity. Paul did the same with the Corinthians, mockingly referring to them as "kings," when both he and they knew they had not become kings at all. Instead, they were abusing their spiritual gifts. Similarly, in John 10, Jesus mocked the people as if to say, "You all think you're gods yourselves. What's one more god among you?" Irony is used to provoke us, not to inform us. It is not a basis for building a theology.
It is also pertinent to an understanding of John 10 that we remember that Satan is called "the ruler of this world" by no less an authority than the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:30, NASB). And Paul reinforces this by calling him "the god of this age" (II Corinthians 4:4). We can make a "god" out of anything -- money, power, status, position, sex, patriotism, family, or, as in Lucifer's case, an angel. We can be our own "god." But to call something deity or to worship it or treat it as divine is quite another thing than its being by nature and in essence deity.
The Bible insists that there is but one Creator: "Besides Me there is no god" (Isaiah 45:5, NASB). We need only compare Deuteromony 32:21, where God charged the Israelites with provoking Him to anger by the worship of "what is not God" (NASB), with Galations 4:8, where Paul reminds the church that they served pagan deities before their conversion to Christ and "were slaves to those which by nature are no gods" (v. 8, NASB; italics added).
There is, therefore, only one God by nature, one God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, one God who possess characteristics and attributes that may be imitated but never duplicated in finite creations. When it is said, then, that man is or can be a "god," we must remember that Christ is stating (John 10, with Psalm 82) that only He, the incarnate Word, has the right to the title of deity among men, since He alone is designated "the only begotten God" (John 1:18, Greek text). What we worship then may become "a god" to us, but it is not deity, as it is written, "'You are my witnesses,' declares the Lord, 'and my servant who I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me.'" (Isaiah 43:10).
If this were not enough, such passages as Isaiah 44:6, 45:22, and Deuteronomy 6:4 would close the issue forever.
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.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Ye Shall Be As Gods
Throughout almost two thousand years of her turbulent history, the Christian church has been set upon by many adversaries. The Apostle Paul, in his great charge to the Ephesian elders in Acts chapter 20, anticipated the threat of heresy, and schism in his own lifetime:
... Savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them...
[This is exactly what happened in the formation of Barrie Victory Centre -- talk to the people at Mapleview Community Church and they will confirm that this is how Barrie Victory Centre had its beginnings. I wonder who the "savage wolves" are in this case?]
It should be observed that Paul mentions two specific categories for the attacks being made upon the Church. The first category includes overt enemies of the faith; atheists, agnostics, sceptics, secularists, and scoffers. It also includes non-Christian religions, the cults, and the occult. But the "savage wolves" are even more dangerous when they are part of the second category: "Even from your own number," says Paul, "men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." [The twenty or so couples who were drawn away from Mapleview Pentecostal Church in the beginning will remember exactly how this happened.] Today the words of Paul are fulfilled in plain sight as the church is divided by schismatic sheep who mix cultic and occultic doctrine with biblical truth, perverting the Gospel of Christ.
Some, for example, teach that Christians are actually gods. The Mormons teach that men may become gods by accepting their revelations and by submitting to their authority. However, this is something that takes place in the future and is designated as exaltation. Since the Mormons are genuine polytheists (i.e., believing in "many gods") as opposed to monotheists (accepting only one God), they maintain that faithful Mormons can eventually become gods in the same manner and of the same nature as Jesus Christ and His Father. Mormonism has never been recognized by the Christian church as a bonified Christian faith since its inception in 1830 through the work of Joseph Smith, Jr.
We should not fail to note that Mormons affirm that the divinity of man is to be accomplished after the death of the body, a bad enough departure from the Christian faith but, sadly, there are those who function within the Christian church who do not hesitate to make the claim now!
The "Little Gods" Doctrine
Earl Paulk, Charles Capps, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, and Kenneth E. Hagen are among the leading proponents of the "little gods" teaching.
Earl Paulk writes "Adam and Eve were placed in the world as the seed and expression of God. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, so God has little gods." But, he says, "we have trouble comprehending this truth." He adds, "Until we comprehend that we are little gods, and we begin to act like little gods, we cannot manifest the Kingdom of God."
Robert Tilton asserts, "You are . . . a god-kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world . . .. Of course, man forfeited his dominion to Satan who became the god of this world."
Kenneth Copeland insists that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth, and he was to rule by speaking words. His words would carry the power and annointing of God that was in him from the time he was first created."
Casey Treat, Pastor of Seattle's Christian Faith Centre, tells us in his taped series "Believing in Yourself" to come to the point where we feel comfortable claiming our godhood:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost had a conference and they said, 'let us make man an exact duplicate of us' . . .
When God looks in the mirror, He sees me! When I look in the mirror, I see God! Oh, hallelujah! . . .
Kenneth Copeland informs us, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" Others in the worlds of the cults teach variations on the above themes of human divinity. Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, for instance, teaches that there is a "god family" in which all Armstrongists will eventually share. They will become just as much deity as the Father and Son. (Armstrong denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, as do Jehovah Witnesses.)
Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, the Science of Mind or Religious Science, New Thought Metaphysics, and so on, believe that all humans have within themselves the "Christ-consciousness," or "Christ idea," which is allegedly the true divinity of all men. They maintain that Jesus Christ had possessed this divinity to a greater degree than others which is what sets Him apart, but none of those groups confess the eternal deity of Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh, and His unique relationship to the Father as the only "Begotten Son." (see John 1:18; 3:16).
In the mind science cults man is already divine -- in the Hindu - New Age sense of shared deity, or, as Mary Baker Eddy once wrote, "Man as God's idea is already saved with an everlasting salvation." "God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter," said the founder of Christian Science. The Unity School of Christianity confirms that thesis: "God is not a person . . . but very real, something we call life." "The Christ, or perfect man . . . is the true spiritual higher self of every individual."
As we have previously noted, these cultic views are expressed by organizations that are recognized as outside the pale of the Christian church. Nevertheless, the "little gods" doctrine taught by the leaders of the "Faith Movement" is firmly situated within groups generally -- but falsely -- regarded as evangelical. It is circulated in Christian bookstores all over the United States [and Canada] and is widely disseminated via Christian radio and television. The president of Trinity Broadcasting Network, Paul Crouch, has taught this doctrine openly and once spent almost two hours attempting to convince me and three other ministers that we were "little gods." Many evangelical organizations, consciously or not, are helping "savage wolves" spread such diabolical errors.
[If your church denies being part of the Faith Movement, but at the same time, recognizes the likes of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, or Kenneth E. Hagen as spiritual leaders in any way, shape, or form, rest assured that you are part of the Faith Movement because your leaders are identifying and connecting with the leaders of the Faith Movement. There's no denying it. If Kenneth and Gloria Copeland or any of the leaders of the Faith Movement names appear in your weekly church bulletin for either conferences or reading materials, you are definitely involved in the Faith Movement and consequently, you believe the "little gods" doctrine which is a cultic belief.]
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.
... Savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them...
[This is exactly what happened in the formation of Barrie Victory Centre -- talk to the people at Mapleview Community Church and they will confirm that this is how Barrie Victory Centre had its beginnings. I wonder who the "savage wolves" are in this case?]
It should be observed that Paul mentions two specific categories for the attacks being made upon the Church. The first category includes overt enemies of the faith; atheists, agnostics, sceptics, secularists, and scoffers. It also includes non-Christian religions, the cults, and the occult. But the "savage wolves" are even more dangerous when they are part of the second category: "Even from your own number," says Paul, "men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." [The twenty or so couples who were drawn away from Mapleview Pentecostal Church in the beginning will remember exactly how this happened.] Today the words of Paul are fulfilled in plain sight as the church is divided by schismatic sheep who mix cultic and occultic doctrine with biblical truth, perverting the Gospel of Christ.
Some, for example, teach that Christians are actually gods. The Mormons teach that men may become gods by accepting their revelations and by submitting to their authority. However, this is something that takes place in the future and is designated as exaltation. Since the Mormons are genuine polytheists (i.e., believing in "many gods") as opposed to monotheists (accepting only one God), they maintain that faithful Mormons can eventually become gods in the same manner and of the same nature as Jesus Christ and His Father. Mormonism has never been recognized by the Christian church as a bonified Christian faith since its inception in 1830 through the work of Joseph Smith, Jr.
We should not fail to note that Mormons affirm that the divinity of man is to be accomplished after the death of the body, a bad enough departure from the Christian faith but, sadly, there are those who function within the Christian church who do not hesitate to make the claim now!
The "Little Gods" Doctrine
Earl Paulk, Charles Capps, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, and Kenneth E. Hagen are among the leading proponents of the "little gods" teaching.
Earl Paulk writes "Adam and Eve were placed in the world as the seed and expression of God. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, so God has little gods." But, he says, "we have trouble comprehending this truth." He adds, "Until we comprehend that we are little gods, and we begin to act like little gods, we cannot manifest the Kingdom of God."
Robert Tilton asserts, "You are . . . a god-kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world . . .. Of course, man forfeited his dominion to Satan who became the god of this world."
Kenneth Copeland insists that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth, and he was to rule by speaking words. His words would carry the power and annointing of God that was in him from the time he was first created."
Casey Treat, Pastor of Seattle's Christian Faith Centre, tells us in his taped series "Believing in Yourself" to come to the point where we feel comfortable claiming our godhood:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost had a conference and they said, 'let us make man an exact duplicate of us' . . .
When God looks in the mirror, He sees me! When I look in the mirror, I see God! Oh, hallelujah! . . .
Kenneth Copeland informs us, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" Others in the worlds of the cults teach variations on the above themes of human divinity. Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, for instance, teaches that there is a "god family" in which all Armstrongists will eventually share. They will become just as much deity as the Father and Son. (Armstrong denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, as do Jehovah Witnesses.)
Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, the Science of Mind or Religious Science, New Thought Metaphysics, and so on, believe that all humans have within themselves the "Christ-consciousness," or "Christ idea," which is allegedly the true divinity of all men. They maintain that Jesus Christ had possessed this divinity to a greater degree than others which is what sets Him apart, but none of those groups confess the eternal deity of Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh, and His unique relationship to the Father as the only "Begotten Son." (see John 1:18; 3:16).
In the mind science cults man is already divine -- in the Hindu - New Age sense of shared deity, or, as Mary Baker Eddy once wrote, "Man as God's idea is already saved with an everlasting salvation." "God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter," said the founder of Christian Science. The Unity School of Christianity confirms that thesis: "God is not a person . . . but very real, something we call life." "The Christ, or perfect man . . . is the true spiritual higher self of every individual."
As we have previously noted, these cultic views are expressed by organizations that are recognized as outside the pale of the Christian church. Nevertheless, the "little gods" doctrine taught by the leaders of the "Faith Movement" is firmly situated within groups generally -- but falsely -- regarded as evangelical. It is circulated in Christian bookstores all over the United States [and Canada] and is widely disseminated via Christian radio and television. The president of Trinity Broadcasting Network, Paul Crouch, has taught this doctrine openly and once spent almost two hours attempting to convince me and three other ministers that we were "little gods." Many evangelical organizations, consciously or not, are helping "savage wolves" spread such diabolical errors.
[If your church denies being part of the Faith Movement, but at the same time, recognizes the likes of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, or Kenneth E. Hagen as spiritual leaders in any way, shape, or form, rest assured that you are part of the Faith Movement because your leaders are identifying and connecting with the leaders of the Faith Movement. There's no denying it. If Kenneth and Gloria Copeland or any of the leaders of the Faith Movement names appear in your weekly church bulletin for either conferences or reading materials, you are definitely involved in the Faith Movement and consequently, you believe the "little gods" doctrine which is a cultic belief.]
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.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)