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.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
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 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.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, March 4, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Christological Heresies
The fourth and fifth centuries proved to be critical for the development of the Christian church. Central to theological debate was the issue of the person of Christ: Who is this Person whom we worship as God?
The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) defined Christ for all time as "truly man, truly God." In other words, the Person of Christ was seen as involving one person with two natures, a divine and a human.
On the one hand, the church had to combat the monophysite heresy, and on the other hand, the Nestorian. The Monophysites believed that Jesus was one person with one nature. This single nature was neither divine nor human. It was a blend or mixture of the two. The confusion of the two natures into one involved a transfer of divine attributes to the human or human attributes to the divine.
The Nestorian heresy, on the other hand, wanted two natures with two distinct personalities. Here the unity of Christ was separated or divided.
The church rejected Monophysism and Nestorianism as heresies, just as it had rejected the Arian heresy in the fourth century. The Arian heresy denied the eternal deity of Christ. In 1965, Professor G.C. Berkhouwer lectured on "The History of Heresy" at the Free University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. In that lecture he pointed out the tendency in church history of reactionism to breed heresy; that is, when one heresy emerges, the zeal to combat that heresy often produces another heresy.
For example, when the church was faced with the heresies that denied the true humanity of Jesus, as the Docetic heresy did, the tendency was to so emphasize the humanity of Christ that the deity of Christ was threatened, as in the Arian heresy. When the deity of Christ was threatened, the reaction was to so emphasize the deity, that the humanity of Christ was threatened, as in the Monophysite heresy. Reaction tends to breed more reaction.
During the second half of the third century the church was faced with the Sabellian heresy. Sabellius had a gnostic view of Christ. He taught that Christ was of the same substance or essence as God but was less than God. The analogy was like that of the sun and its rays. The rays that emanate from the sun are of the same essence as the sun but may be distinguished from the sun. The further the sunbeam extends away from the sun, the more dissipated it becomes.
With the rise of the Arian crisis in the fourth century the situation changed dramatically. The Sabellian threat had faded and the church was faced with a different heresy. Arius taught that Jesus was not divine but instead was adopted by God and was merely of like essence with the Father.
To combat the Arian heresy, the Council of Nicea insisted that Jesus and the Father were one in essence, sharing the divine nature. That view was sustained later and become the classical, orthodox formulation of the Trinity. Orthodox Christianity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but with one essence.
This view of the Trinity has been the orthodox view of all Christian bodies since the fourth century. It is denied by Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and also by individuals from time to time.
Another crucial point of orthodoxy has to do with uniqueness of Christ's incarnation (conception and birth). Christ alone is the God-Man. His person and work effect marvelous benefit for us. They secure our redemption. They are the basis for our receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. Christ redeems our humanity but in no way deifies it. Christ shares His humanity with us, but not His deity. He does not impart deity to His people. The Spirit dwells in us and works in us, but that indwelling does not make us gods-incarnate.
The crass view that salvation imparts some measure of deity to us is a popular conception with many television teachers. Known historically as the heresy of Apotheosis ("becoming god"), many modern Gnostics appear to think they have found something everybody else has failed to notice. Evidently, they either do not know or do not care that these flashes of insight have been articulated by heretics from time to time for two thousand years.
Copeland writes: "Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth."
And again: "God has been reproduced on the inside of you."
This view of Apotheosis is echoed by both Kenneth Hagen and Paul Crouch. Hagen writes, "This eternal life He came to give us is the nature of God."
Again: "It is, in reality, God imparting His very nature, substance, and being to one human spirit, then means eternal life, or God's life. This new kind of life is God's nature."
Hence, Hagen views himself as a God-Man in the same sense as the only eternally begotten son of the Father. In a televised interview with Kenneth Copeland, Trinity Broadcasting Network's, Paul Crouch made the following comment:
Do you know what else has settled in tonight? This hue and cry and controversy that has been spawned by the devil to try to bring dissension within the body of Christ that we are gods. I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I am in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics be gone!
I am a critic that refuses to be gone. The heresy of Apotheosis threatens the very essence of Christianity. Crouch apparently sees orthodox criticisms against this ghastly heresy as being stirred up by Satan. What seems to be happening here is not a wilful, informed attack on orthodox Christianity. The heresies of T.V. preachers like Crouch seem to follow more from ignorance than from malice. Very little evidence of any significant knowledge of either church history or theology is displayed by Copeland, Hagen, Tilton, Crouch, and others. These men are not scholars. There is nothing wrong with that. Not all Christian ministers are called to be technical theologians. There are other Godly vocations to be pursued than scholarly ones. What is alarming, however, is the attitude with which these "teachers" assert their novelties, claiming divine authority for charting a new course. Some of them (Paul Crouch, for example) have been approached charitably and privately by theologians warning of these heresies, but to no avail.
Though neither scholars or theologians, these men have assumed the role of teachers. Their "classroom" attendance numbers in the millions. They have become the populous teachers of this generation, perceived by the secular media as the spokespersons of evangelical Christianity. Yet, though these T.V. preachers, are evangelistic, they are not evangelical. Evangelical Christianity affirms the Trinity and eschews all forms of Apotheosis. Those teachers who deny these classical, evangelical and catholic doctrines misrepresent themselves when they call themselves evangelicals.
There is such a thing as heresy. The tragedy is that it pervades the electronic church, the Faith Movement, and Victory Churches.
The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) defined Christ for all time as "truly man, truly God." In other words, the Person of Christ was seen as involving one person with two natures, a divine and a human.
On the one hand, the church had to combat the monophysite heresy, and on the other hand, the Nestorian. The Monophysites believed that Jesus was one person with one nature. This single nature was neither divine nor human. It was a blend or mixture of the two. The confusion of the two natures into one involved a transfer of divine attributes to the human or human attributes to the divine.
The Nestorian heresy, on the other hand, wanted two natures with two distinct personalities. Here the unity of Christ was separated or divided.
The church rejected Monophysism and Nestorianism as heresies, just as it had rejected the Arian heresy in the fourth century. The Arian heresy denied the eternal deity of Christ. In 1965, Professor G.C. Berkhouwer lectured on "The History of Heresy" at the Free University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. In that lecture he pointed out the tendency in church history of reactionism to breed heresy; that is, when one heresy emerges, the zeal to combat that heresy often produces another heresy.
For example, when the church was faced with the heresies that denied the true humanity of Jesus, as the Docetic heresy did, the tendency was to so emphasize the humanity of Christ that the deity of Christ was threatened, as in the Arian heresy. When the deity of Christ was threatened, the reaction was to so emphasize the deity, that the humanity of Christ was threatened, as in the Monophysite heresy. Reaction tends to breed more reaction.
During the second half of the third century the church was faced with the Sabellian heresy. Sabellius had a gnostic view of Christ. He taught that Christ was of the same substance or essence as God but was less than God. The analogy was like that of the sun and its rays. The rays that emanate from the sun are of the same essence as the sun but may be distinguished from the sun. The further the sunbeam extends away from the sun, the more dissipated it becomes.
With the rise of the Arian crisis in the fourth century the situation changed dramatically. The Sabellian threat had faded and the church was faced with a different heresy. Arius taught that Jesus was not divine but instead was adopted by God and was merely of like essence with the Father.
To combat the Arian heresy, the Council of Nicea insisted that Jesus and the Father were one in essence, sharing the divine nature. That view was sustained later and become the classical, orthodox formulation of the Trinity. Orthodox Christianity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but with one essence.
This view of the Trinity has been the orthodox view of all Christian bodies since the fourth century. It is denied by Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and also by individuals from time to time.
Another crucial point of orthodoxy has to do with uniqueness of Christ's incarnation (conception and birth). Christ alone is the God-Man. His person and work effect marvelous benefit for us. They secure our redemption. They are the basis for our receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. Christ redeems our humanity but in no way deifies it. Christ shares His humanity with us, but not His deity. He does not impart deity to His people. The Spirit dwells in us and works in us, but that indwelling does not make us gods-incarnate.
The crass view that salvation imparts some measure of deity to us is a popular conception with many television teachers. Known historically as the heresy of Apotheosis ("becoming god"), many modern Gnostics appear to think they have found something everybody else has failed to notice. Evidently, they either do not know or do not care that these flashes of insight have been articulated by heretics from time to time for two thousand years.
Copeland writes: "Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth."
And again: "God has been reproduced on the inside of you."
This view of Apotheosis is echoed by both Kenneth Hagen and Paul Crouch. Hagen writes, "This eternal life He came to give us is the nature of God."
Again: "It is, in reality, God imparting His very nature, substance, and being to one human spirit, then means eternal life, or God's life. This new kind of life is God's nature."
Hence, Hagen views himself as a God-Man in the same sense as the only eternally begotten son of the Father. In a televised interview with Kenneth Copeland, Trinity Broadcasting Network's, Paul Crouch made the following comment:
Do you know what else has settled in tonight? This hue and cry and controversy that has been spawned by the devil to try to bring dissension within the body of Christ that we are gods. I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I am in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics be gone!
I am a critic that refuses to be gone. The heresy of Apotheosis threatens the very essence of Christianity. Crouch apparently sees orthodox criticisms against this ghastly heresy as being stirred up by Satan. What seems to be happening here is not a wilful, informed attack on orthodox Christianity. The heresies of T.V. preachers like Crouch seem to follow more from ignorance than from malice. Very little evidence of any significant knowledge of either church history or theology is displayed by Copeland, Hagen, Tilton, Crouch, and others. These men are not scholars. There is nothing wrong with that. Not all Christian ministers are called to be technical theologians. There are other Godly vocations to be pursued than scholarly ones. What is alarming, however, is the attitude with which these "teachers" assert their novelties, claiming divine authority for charting a new course. Some of them (Paul Crouch, for example) have been approached charitably and privately by theologians warning of these heresies, but to no avail.
Though neither scholars or theologians, these men have assumed the role of teachers. Their "classroom" attendance numbers in the millions. They have become the populous teachers of this generation, perceived by the secular media as the spokespersons of evangelical Christianity. Yet, though these T.V. preachers, are evangelistic, they are not evangelical. Evangelical Christianity affirms the Trinity and eschews all forms of Apotheosis. Those teachers who deny these classical, evangelical and catholic doctrines misrepresent themselves when they call themselves evangelicals.
There is such a thing as heresy. The tragedy is that it pervades the electronic church, the Faith Movement, and Victory Churches.
-By: R. C. Sproule
For more information on Victory Churches and the Faith Movement, go to the Reference Library. Click on any book title to get a brief overview of the book. All books on the list are available through www.amazon.com.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Gnostic Heresy
One of the earliest and most potent threats to early Christianity came from the heretical group known as the Gnostics. Blending elements of Christianity, Greek philosophy, and Oriental mysticism, the Gnostics denied the orthodox view of God, man, the world, and Christ. The Apostle John included them in the camp of the Antichrist.
The Gnostics were so-called because of their view of Revelation. The word, gnosis, is the Greek word for "knowledge." In many cases the Gnostic heretics did not make a frontal assault against the apostles or against the apostolic teaching of Scripture. In fact, many of them insisted that they were genuine, Bible-believing Christians. It wasn't that they rejected the Bible; they just claimed an additional source of knowledge or insight that was superior to or at least beyond the knowledge of Scripture. The "gnostikoi" were "those in the know." Their knowledge was not derived from intellectual comprehension of Scripture or by empirical research, but was mystical, direct, and immediate. God "revealed" private, intuitive insights to them that carried nothing less than divine authority.
Here is a typical Gnostic statement:
We cannot communicate with God mentally, for He is a Spirit. But we can reach Him with our Spirit, and it is through our Spirit that we come to know God . . . This is one reason God put teachers (those who are really called to teach) in the church -- to renew our minds. Many times those who teach do so with only a natural knowledge that they have gained from the Bible and other sources. But I am referring here to one of the ministry gifts. Those who are called and annointed by the Spirit to teach.
God has given us His Word, and we can feed upon that Word. This will renew our minds but He also puts teachers in the church to renew our minds and to bring us the revelation of the knowledge of God's Word.
Notice that this quotation does not include a direct assault on the Bible. The Bible is recognized as God's Word. But in order to understand the Bible we need something beyond our natural mental ability. We need the Spirit-annointed teachers to "bring us the revelation of the knowledge of God's Word." This is a typically Gnostic statement, but the quote is not from Valentinus or any of the other early Gnostics. It is from the pen of a modern missionary of Gnosticism, Kenneth E. Hagan [founder of the Faith Movement]. It is from Hagan's Man on Three Dimensions. Hagan's theology echos the tripartite epistemology of early Gnosticism (man as having three separate entities: body, soul and spirit).
Robert Tilton [Faith Movement] also claims a direct pipeline to divine revelation:
God showed me a vision that almost took my breath away. I was sucked into the Spirit . . . , caught away . . . and I found myself standing in the very presence of Almighty God. It just echoed into my being. And He said these words to me . . . exactly these words . . . .
"Many of my ministers pray for my people, but I want you to pray the Prayer of Agreement with them." . . . I have never seen the presence of God so powerful. This same annointing flooded my Spirit-man . . . .It's inside of me now and I have supernatural faith to agree with you.
From that day forth, as I have been faithful to that heavenly vision, I've seen every kind of miracle imaginable happen when I pray the Prayer of Agreement with God's people.
It seems that in Robert Tilton the church is blessed with a twentieth-century apostle whose visions of revelation exceed that of the Apostle John and whose miracle powers surpass that of the Apostle Paul. If we are to believe Tilton's astonishing claims, there is no reason we should not include his writings in the next edition of the New Testament.
Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), has revelatory dreams and has warmly embraced the neo-Gnostic dogma. His network has become a prime distribution center for the growing movement. Kenneth Copeland also receives phrases from God in "his spirit."
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 Gnostics were so-called because of their view of Revelation. The word, gnosis, is the Greek word for "knowledge." In many cases the Gnostic heretics did not make a frontal assault against the apostles or against the apostolic teaching of Scripture. In fact, many of them insisted that they were genuine, Bible-believing Christians. It wasn't that they rejected the Bible; they just claimed an additional source of knowledge or insight that was superior to or at least beyond the knowledge of Scripture. The "gnostikoi" were "those in the know." Their knowledge was not derived from intellectual comprehension of Scripture or by empirical research, but was mystical, direct, and immediate. God "revealed" private, intuitive insights to them that carried nothing less than divine authority.
Here is a typical Gnostic statement:
We cannot communicate with God mentally, for He is a Spirit. But we can reach Him with our Spirit, and it is through our Spirit that we come to know God . . . This is one reason God put teachers (those who are really called to teach) in the church -- to renew our minds. Many times those who teach do so with only a natural knowledge that they have gained from the Bible and other sources. But I am referring here to one of the ministry gifts. Those who are called and annointed by the Spirit to teach.
God has given us His Word, and we can feed upon that Word. This will renew our minds but He also puts teachers in the church to renew our minds and to bring us the revelation of the knowledge of God's Word.
Notice that this quotation does not include a direct assault on the Bible. The Bible is recognized as God's Word. But in order to understand the Bible we need something beyond our natural mental ability. We need the Spirit-annointed teachers to "bring us the revelation of the knowledge of God's Word." This is a typically Gnostic statement, but the quote is not from Valentinus or any of the other early Gnostics. It is from the pen of a modern missionary of Gnosticism, Kenneth E. Hagan [founder of the Faith Movement]. It is from Hagan's Man on Three Dimensions. Hagan's theology echos the tripartite epistemology of early Gnosticism (man as having three separate entities: body, soul and spirit).
Robert Tilton [Faith Movement] also claims a direct pipeline to divine revelation:
God showed me a vision that almost took my breath away. I was sucked into the Spirit . . . , caught away . . . and I found myself standing in the very presence of Almighty God. It just echoed into my being. And He said these words to me . . . exactly these words . . . .
"Many of my ministers pray for my people, but I want you to pray the Prayer of Agreement with them." . . . I have never seen the presence of God so powerful. This same annointing flooded my Spirit-man . . . .It's inside of me now and I have supernatural faith to agree with you.
From that day forth, as I have been faithful to that heavenly vision, I've seen every kind of miracle imaginable happen when I pray the Prayer of Agreement with God's people.
It seems that in Robert Tilton the church is blessed with a twentieth-century apostle whose visions of revelation exceed that of the Apostle John and whose miracle powers surpass that of the Apostle Paul. If we are to believe Tilton's astonishing claims, there is no reason we should not include his writings in the next edition of the New Testament.
Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), has revelatory dreams and has warmly embraced the neo-Gnostic dogma. His network has become a prime distribution center for the growing movement. Kenneth Copeland also receives phrases from God in "his spirit."
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, January 16, 2013
The Perspicuity of Scripture
Perspicuity is a fancy word for "clarity." The Reformers insisted that, in most cases, the clearest interpretation of a text is the correct one. The Bible isn't a puzzle. It is not designed to lead the "initiate" into a maze of obscure or ambiguous passages. One does not need a Ph.D. in theology to understand that the Bible teaches we are sinners in need of the atoning work of Christ.
Though we believe in the basic clarity of Scripture, we do not mean by this that all parts of the Bible are equally clear. The Bible teaches some very complex and difficult things. Though its essential message is clear, there is enough complexity in the Bible to keep the sharpest minds busily engaged for a lifetime. The message of the Bible may be simple in its essence, but the Bible as a whole is anything but simplistic. To be able to handle the whole of Scripture, with all of this complexity, is a difficult task. It requires diligent study and, for the vast majority of serious students, years and years of disciplined training. Hence, James' warning, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1).
God requires us to love Him with all of our minds. To apply our minds diligently to His Word is hard work. There is no magical (or superstitious) substitute for that work. "Words of knowledge" do not suffice when we have the final "Word of Knowledge" (the Bible) to teach us. Thinking is not "carnal" or "unspiritual." But it is hard work. That is one reason people find it so easy to turn their minds over to a high powered preacher who convinces them that he is "plugged in" to the Divine intelligence. Pious appeals to direct supernatural insights are often, if not always, spiritual masks for our own indolence. It requires far less effort to listen to private subjective hunches than to pay the price of mastering Greek, Hebrew, historical backgrounds and the science of hermeneutics.
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.
Though we believe in the basic clarity of Scripture, we do not mean by this that all parts of the Bible are equally clear. The Bible teaches some very complex and difficult things. Though its essential message is clear, there is enough complexity in the Bible to keep the sharpest minds busily engaged for a lifetime. The message of the Bible may be simple in its essence, but the Bible as a whole is anything but simplistic. To be able to handle the whole of Scripture, with all of this complexity, is a difficult task. It requires diligent study and, for the vast majority of serious students, years and years of disciplined training. Hence, James' warning, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1).
God requires us to love Him with all of our minds. To apply our minds diligently to His Word is hard work. There is no magical (or superstitious) substitute for that work. "Words of knowledge" do not suffice when we have the final "Word of Knowledge" (the Bible) to teach us. Thinking is not "carnal" or "unspiritual." But it is hard work. That is one reason people find it so easy to turn their minds over to a high powered preacher who convinces them that he is "plugged in" to the Divine intelligence. Pious appeals to direct supernatural insights are often, if not always, spiritual masks for our own indolence. It requires far less effort to listen to private subjective hunches than to pay the price of mastering Greek, Hebrew, historical backgrounds and the science of hermeneutics.
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)