How Did Jesus Heal?

To make a comparison between the gift of healing being claimed today and what the Bible teaches, we simply have to go back and look at Jesus' ministry.  Our Lord set the pattern for the apostolic gifts, and He did a massive amount of healing.  In Jesus' day the world was full of disease.  Medical science was crude and limited.  There were more incurable diseases than we have now.  Plagues could wipe out entire cities.

Jesus healed disease to demonstrate his deity.  How did He do it?  Scripture reveals six noteworthy characteristics of Jesus' healing ministry:

First, Jesus healed with a word or a touch.  Matthew 8 relates that as Jesus was entering Capernaum, a centurion came to Jesus and asked Him to help his servant, who was lying paralyzed at his home and suffering great pain (v. 6-7).  Jesus told the centurion that He would come and heal the servant, but the centurion protested, pointing out that if Jesus would just say the word, his servant could be healed (v. 8).

The Lord was amazed at the centurion's faith, particularly because he was a Roman soldier, and not of the house of Israel.  Jesus said to the centurion, "'Go your way; let it be done to you as you have believed.' And the servant was healed that very hour" (v. 13).

When Jesus fed the 5,000 (John 6), He had spent most of the day healing people in the crowd who were sick.  Scripture does not tell us how many were healed -- it could have been thousands.  But whatever the number, Jesus healed them with a word.  There were no theatrics, no special environment.

Jesus also healed with a touch.  For example, in Mark 5:25-34 we find the account of a woman with chronic bleeding who was healed simply by touching Jesus' robe.

Second, Jesus healed instantly.  The centurion's servant was healed "that very hour" (Matt. 8:13).  The woman with the bleeding problem was healed "immediately" (Mark 5:29).  Jesus healed ten lepers instantaneously right on the road (Luke 17:14).  He touched another man with leprosy and "immediately the leprosy departed from him" (Luke 5:13).  The crippled man at the pool of Bethesda "immediately became well," took up his pallet and began to walk (John 5:9).  Even the man born blind, who had to go and wash his eyes, was healed instantly -- though for his own purposes, Jesus accomplished that miracle in two distinct stages (John 9:1-7).  The healing was no less instantaneous.

People often say "I've been healed, and now I'm getting better."  Jesus never did "progressive" healing.  If Jesus had not healed instantly, there were have been no miraculous element sufficient to demonstrate His deity.  His critics could easily have said the healing was just a natural process.

Third, Jesus healed totally.  In Luke 4 Jesus left the synagogue and came to Simon Peter's home.  Peter's mother-in-law was there, suffering from a high fever.  Possibly she was dying.  Jesus stood over her, "rebuked the fever," and immediately she was well (v. 39).  In fact, she then got up and began to wait on them.  There was no recuperation period.  Jesus did not advise her to sip a little honey and hot water and take it easy for a few weeks.  Nor did He goad her to "claim the healing by faith" despite unrelenting symptoms.  She was immediately well and knew it.  Her healing was instantaneous and it was total.  That was the only kind of healing Jesus ever did.

Fourth, Jesus healed everyone.  Unlike healers today, Jesus did not leave long lines of disappointed people who had to return home in their wheelchairs.  He did not have healing services or programs that ended at a certain time because of airline or television schedules.  Luke 4:40 tells us, "And while the sun was setting, all who had any sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on every one of them, He was healing them" (emphasis added).  Luke 9:11 records a similar example.

Fifth, Jesus healed organic disease.  Jesus did not go up and down Palestine healing lower back pain, heart palpitations, headaches, and other invisible ailments.  He healed the most obvious kinds of organic diseases -- crippled legs, withered hands, blind eyes, palsy -- all healings that were undeniably miraculous.

Sixth, Jesus raised the dead.  Luke 7:11-16 tells us that while Jesus was at a city called Nain, He came upon a funeral procession as a widow went out to bury her only son.  Jesus stopped the procession, touched the coffin and said, "Young man, I say to you, arise!" -- and the dead man sat up and began to speak!  He also raised a synagogue ruler's daughter in Mark 5:22-24, 35-43.

People who tout the gift of healing today do not spend much time in funeral parlours, funeral processions, or cemeteries.  The reason is obvious.

Some charismatics, as we have already noted, claim that people today do sometimes come back from the dead.  Those cases, however, are nothing like the biblical examples.  It is one thing to revive someone whose vital signs stopped on a surgeon's table.  It is entirely another matter to come out of the grave four days after being buried (see John 11) or to climb out of one's casket at the funeral (see Luke 7).  Those are resurrections that cannot be challenged.  Charismatics who make such claims today do so on hearsay and with scant evidence.  They are guilty of trivializing our Lord's miraculous works.  Why is it that the only miracles ever done on television are the kind that involve no visible evidence?

Note, by the way, that Jesus did virtually all His healing and raising the dead in public -- often before vast groups of people.  His gift of healing was an authenticating gift.  He used it to confirm his claims that He was the Son of God in a way that also displayed His divine compassion.  Dispelling demons and diseases was Christ's way of proving He was God in human flesh.  John's gospel clearly demonstrates that truth.  John said all the signs and miracles Jesus wrought validated His deity (John 20:30-31).

The Gift of Healing is Gone, but the Lord Continues to Heal

The gift of healing was one of the miraculous sign gifts given to help the apostolic community confirm the authority of the gospel message in the early years of the church.  Once the word of God was complete the signs ceased.  Miraculous signs were no longer needed.  The apostles used healing only as a powerful sign to convince people of the validity of the gospel message.

In Philippians 2:25-27 Paul mentioned his good friend Epaphroditus, who had been very sick.  Paul had previously displayed the gift of healing.  Why did he not simply heal Epaphroditus?  Perhaps the gift was no longer operational or perhaps Paul simply refused to pervert the gift by using it for his own ends.  Either way, healing Epaphroditus was beyond the purpose of the gift of healing.   The gift was not given to keep Christians healthy.  It was to be a sign to unbelievers to convince them that the gospel was divine truth.

We find a similar case in II Timothy 4:20, where Paul mentioned he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus.  Why should Paul leave one of his good Christian friends sick?  Why didn't he heal him?  Because that was not the purpose of the healing gift.  (see also I Tim. 5:23 and II Cor. 12:7.)

Healing was a miraculous sign gift to be used for special purposes.  It was not intended as a permanent way to keep the Christian community in perfect health.  Yet today most charismatics teach that God wants every Christian well.  If that is true, why does God allow Christians to get sick in the first place?

In a world where believers are subject to the consequences of sin why should we assume that suffering is excluded?  If every Christian were well and healthy, if perfect health were a guaranteed benefit of the atonement, millions of people would be stampeding to get saved -- but for the wrong reason.  God wants people to come to Him in repentance for sin, and for His glory, not because they see Him as a panacea for their physical and temporal ills.

-- John F. McArthur, Jr.

Again, charismatics are wrong!

What is the Difference Between the Baptism and the Filling?

Charismatics often confuse spirit baptism, which places the Christian in the body of Christ, and the fullness of the Spirit, which produces effective Christian living (see Eph. 5:18, 6:11).

Nothing in all of Acts, Chapter 2, says believers asked for the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:1-4 teaches two distinctive truths.  At Pentecost, Christian believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body.  Then the Holy Spirit filled those believers to give a miraculous testimony -- the ability to speak in other languages.  Believers since that time have all been baptized with the Holy Spirit by the Lord Jesus Christ at conversion.  How are we filled?  When we yield to the Spirit who is already there, we have access to the Spirit's power and fullness.  Paul told the Ephesians to be kept filled with the Spirit as a constant pattern for living (5:18).

Nowhere in Scripture is the Christian taught to tarry and wait for the baptism. Nowhere in Scripture are we taught to get with a group of people who can teach us to speak in tongues.  Christians are admonished to keep being filled with the Spirit, but that is not the same thing as waiting to be baptized by the Spirit.  There is one simple key to knowing the fullness and power of the Holy Spirit in your life:  obeying the Lord.  As you walk in obedience to the word of God, the Spirit of God fills you and energizes your life (see Gal. 5:25).

Not only have believers been placed into Someone (Christ), but they have had Someone placed into them (the Holy Spirit).  As Christians we have the Holy Spirit.  Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19).  God Himself indwells our bodies (II Cor. 6:16).  All the resources are there.  The promise of the Holy Spirit has already been fulfilled for us.  The Bible is absolutely clear on that point.  There is nothing more to wait for.  The Christian life consists of yielding to the control of the Spirit who is already in us.  We do that through obedience to the Word (Col. 3:16).

Significantly, charismatic writers are not all agreed on how believers are to receive the baptism of the Spirit.  Why all the confusion and contradiction?  Why is it that charismatic writers do not quote the Bible plainly and let it go at that?  The reason no charismatic writer can do that is the Bible never tells how to get the baptism of the Spirit; it only tells believers that they are already baptized with the Spirit.  

One of the greatest realities the Christian will ever have is contained in two brief and fulfilling statements.  One is by Paul,  The other is by Peter:

"In Him, you have been made complete" (Col. 2:10).  

"His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3).

There is no point in seeking what is already ours.

- John F. MacArthur

Pentecostals are wrong.  
Faith Movement are wrong.  
Victory Churches are wrong.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

Satan is responsible for what is going on in these churches -- not God.

Is Spirit Baptism a Fact or Feeling?

The charismatic notion of subsequence leads to other errors.  The belief that spirit baptism is a second work of grace has become a cardinal doctrine of the charismatic movement.  As we have seen, charismatic writers and teachers generally agree that "the baptism," evidenced by speaking in tongues, is the crucial next step after salvation.

Turning to the epistles yields quite a different view.  For example, as 1 Corinthians 12:13 makes clear, Spirit baptism is actually an integral part of every Christian's salvation experience.  Paul wrote, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."  That passage has nothing to do with water baptism.  Paul was not talking about the sacrament or ordinance of water baptism, important as that is in another context.  Paul was talking about the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God.  He used the word baptizo, which is the same Greek term used in Romans 6:3-4 and Galations 3:27 to refer to spiritual immersion.

Spirit baptism brings the believer into a vital union with Christ.  To be baptized with the Holy Spirit means that Christ immerses us in the Spirit, thereby giving us a common life principle.  This spiritual baptism is what connects us with all other believers in Christ and makes us part of Christ's own body. Baptism with the Spirit makes all believers one.  It is a fact, not a feeling.

Unfortunately, the tremendous truth of that verse has been greatly misunderstood.  Paul was blending two vital thoughts here.  One is that the church, the body of Christ, is formed through Spirit baptism and the other is that the life of the body is sustained as we all are made to drink of one Spirit.  The twin ideas of immersion by the Spirit and drinking of the Spirit picture the all-sufficient relationship with the Spirit of God that bonds each believer to Christ and the rest of the body.

1 Corinthians 12:13 opens with the phrase, "For by one's Spirit."   That is where much of the charismatic confusion begins.  The Greek text uses the tiny preposition en.  This term can be translated "at," "by," or "with" -- and some scholars might even translate it "in."  Greek prepositions are translated differently depending on the case endings of the words that follow the prepositions.  An accurate translation in 1 Corinthians 12:13, and the most consistent in the context of the New Testament, would use either by or with.  In other words, at conversion, we are baptized by or with the Holy Spirit.

This must not be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit is the One who does the baptizing.  Nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit spoken of as the baptizer.  In Matthew 3:11, for example, John the Baptist told the Pharisees and Sadducees he could baptize [them] with water but someone was coming later who would "baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire and His winnowing fork is in His hand and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:11-12).

A common charismatic interpretation of this verse takes "fire" as a reference to the cloven tongues of "fire" seen on the day of Pentecost but it is obvious from verse 12 that John was referring to the fires of judgment, the unquenchable fires of hell. Obviously the cloven tongues like fire at Pentecost cannot be equated with the unquenchable fire that burns up chaff.  This is clearly a fire of judgment and its agent is not the Holy Spirit but Christ (see John 5:22).  So what John was really saying here is that there are only two kinds of people in the world:  those who will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and those who will be baptized with the unquenchable fire of hell.  Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:16 contain similar expressions.  Likewise John 1:33 says of Christ, "This is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." In all those passages, Jesus does the baptizing.

In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter said of Christ, "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear" (Acts 2:33).  Again, we see Christ as the baptizer, who "pours forth" the Spirit in the miraculous event of Pentecost.

In Romans 8:9 Paul says, "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."  If we take away the concept that every believer is baptized and indwelt by the Holy Spirit we destroy the doctrine of the unity of the body.  Why?  Because we have some people who aren't "in."  Where are they?  What kind of limbo is it to be saved but not a part of the body of Christ?  Is is possible to be a Christian and not a part of Christ?  No.  Paul's whole point in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 is that all Christians are baptized with one Spirit into one body.  We are all in one body possessing one life source, indwelt by one Christ. 

The charismatic view of Holy Spirit baptism actually redefines the doctrine of salvation.  According to that view, salvation does not really give us everything we need for spiritual victory.  We are still lacking; we need something more.  Although they sometimes concede that every believer has the Holy Spirit to a limited degree, they believe the full power of the Spirit is withheld from those who have not yet experienced Spirit baptizm with the evidence of tongues. That is the perspective of Larry Christenson, a noted Lutheran charismatic.  Yet his point of view seems to overlook the clear meaning of 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13.  Christenson has stated:

Beyond conversion, beyond the assurance of salvation, beyond having the Holy Spirit, there is a baptism with the Holy Spirit.  It might not make sense to our human understanding anymore than it made sense for Jesus to be baptized by John . . . .  We are not called to understand it, or justify it, or explain it but simply to enter into it in humble obedience and with expectant faith.

Is Christenson embracing something that does not make sense rather than admitting the truth of 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13, which clearly does make sense?  Jesus' baptism by John certainly did make sense.  In being baptized, Jesus identified Himself with the repenting Israelites who were looking for their Messiah.  Christenson went on to say:

Sometimes the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs spontaneously, sometimes through prayer and the laying on of hands.  Sometimes it occurs after water baptism, sometimes before.  Sometimes it occurs virtually simultaneously with conversion, sometimes after an interval of time . . . .  But one thing is constant in the Scripture, and it is most important:  It is never merely assumed that a person has been baptized with the Holy Spirit.  When he has been baptized with the Holy Spirit the person knows it.  It is a definite experience.

In making those claims Christenson was trying to base truth on experience.  As we shall see the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a spiritual fact not a physical experience related to some emotional feeling.  

Subsequence, Tongues, Seeking, Bah-Humbug!

The Charismatic Doctrine of Subsequence

Acts 2:4 is the charismatic touchstone, containing what many Pentecostals and charismatics view as the core truth of the New Testament; "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Most charismatics believe this verse teaches that at conversion Christians receive the Holy Spirit only in a limited sense.  Therefore, they believe, Christians need to seek Spirit baptism in order to move to a higher level of spiritual life, being supernaturally immersed in the power of God's Spirit.  The experience is usually -- many say always -- accompanied by speaking in tongues and results in new spiritual motivation and power.

The notion that one gets salvation at one point and the baptism of the Spirit later is often referred to as the doctrine of subsequence.  Gordon Fee lists two Pentecostal distinctives "(1) the doctrine of subsequence, i.e., that there is for Christians a baptism in the Spirit distinct from and subsequent to the experience of salvation . . . , and (2) the doctrine of tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Spirit."  

In his thorough investigation of Pentecostal theology, Frederick Dale Bruner wrote, "Pentecostals believe that the Spirit has baptized every believer into Christ (conversion), but that Christ has not baptized every believer into the Spirit (Pentecost)."  Not only do most charistmatics believe that the baptism of the Spirit happens at some point after salvation, but most also believe that Spirit baptism is something Christians must seek.  Bruner goes on to say, 

The most important characteristics of the Pentecostal understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit . . . are; (1) that the event is usually "distinct from and subsequent to" the new birth; (2) that it is evidenced initially by the sign of speaking in other tongues; (3) that it must be "earnestly" sought.

Those three elements -- baptism of the Spirit subsequent to conversion, the earnest seeking of those who are baptized, and the evidence of speaking in tongues -- are characteristic of nearly all charismatic doctrine.  In most other areas of theology charismatics are vague,  but here they usually speak a clear word regarding what they believe.

Charismatics attempt to support their doctrine of subsequence from the book of Acts.  First Corinthians 12:13 ("For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free and we were all made to drink of one Spirit") cannot be used to prove subsequence because the verse simply says that all believers have been baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ.  Indeed, it would seem clear that the baptism described in 1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot take place at a point in time after salvation.  Otherwise, what Paul says could not be true of all Christians.  No evidence such as tongues is mentioned, and no requirement of seeking the baptism is alluded to. 

Charismatics are also unable to use 1 Corinthians 14 to prove the tenets of subsequence, evidence, or seeking, because the chapter has nothing to say about any of those elements.  In fact, the only passages charismatics can use to support their doctrine of subsequence are found in Acts.  The epistles say nothing that can be construed to support the idea.

The truth is, even the book of Acts fails to support the charismatic view.  Only four passages mention tongues or receiving the Holy Spirit:  Chapters 2, 8, 10 and 19.  Only in Acts 2 and 8 do believers receive the Spirit after salvation.  In Acts 10 and 19, believers were baptized in the Spirit at the moment of belief.  So the doctrine of subsequence cannot be convincingly defended even from the book of Acts.

What about tongues?  Believers spoke in Acts 2, 10, and 19, but there is no record of tongues in Chapter 8.

What about the requirement of earnestly seeking the baptism?  The believers in Acts 2 simply waited prayerfully for the fulfillment of the Lord's promise (cf. 1:4, 14).  In Chapters 8, 10, or 19, no seeking is mentioned.   

The point is clear.  To say that the book of Acts presents the normal pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit presents a problem:  no consistent pattern is evident in Acts!  

It is true that Christians at Pentecost (Acts 2), Gentiles in Cornelius's household (Chapter 10), and the Jews at Ephesus who had only the baptism of John (Chapter 19) received the Holy Spirit and tongues followed.  But because those three events occurred does not mean they are to be the standard for every other Christian.  In fact, none of the passages we are discussing (Acts 2, 8, 10, or 19) imply that similar experiences are to be had by anyone else.   

If tongues were to be the normal experience, why were tongues not mentioned in Acts 8 when the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit!  Why does the text in Acts 2 through 4 not say that everyone who believed following Peter's sermons (over 5,000 people according to Acts 4:4) and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) also spoke in tongues?  In order for something to be normative, it has to be common to everyone.  

John Stott reasoned that:

The 3,000 do not seem to have experienced the same miraculous phenomena (the mighty rushing wind, the tongues of flame, or the speech in foreign languges).  At least nothing is said about these things.  Yet because of God's assurance through Peter they must have inherited the same promise and received the same gift (verses 33, 39).  Nevertheless, there was this difference between them:  the 120 were regenerate already, and received the baptism of the Spirit only after waiting upon God for ten days.  The 3,000 on the other hand were unbelievers, and received the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Spirit simultaneously -- and it happened immediately when they repented and believed, without any need to wait.

This distinction between the two companies, the 120 and the 3,000, is of great importance, because the norm for today must surely be the second group, the 3,000, and not (as is often supposed) the first.  The fact that the experience of the 120 was in two distinct stages was due simply to historical circumstances.  They could not have received the Pentecostal gift before Pentecost.  But those historical circumstances have long since ceased to exist.  We live after the event of Pentecost, like the 3,000.  With us, therefore, as with them, the forgiveness of sins and the "gift" or "baptism" of the Spirit are received together.

Subsequence -- not supported by Scripture !
Tongues -- grossly misinterpreted Scripture !
Earnestly Seeking -- simply false teaching !


God must be having a good laugh at what He sees Pentecostals and charismatics doing down here, or is He?

CHARISMATICS JUST DON'T GET IT!

Still looking for that book about the false teachings of the Baptist church !


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. 

Charismatics Just Don't Get It!

Experience, as we have noted repeatedly, is the foundation upon which much of the charismatic belief system is built.  Experience is also the authority charismatics most frequently cite to validate their teachings.  Their experience-centered approach to truth even influences the way charismatics handle Scripture.  The book of Acts -- a journal of the apostles' experiences -- is where charismatics usually turn in search of biblical support for what they believe.

Acts is historical narrative, in contrast to the epistles, which are didactic.  Acts is a chronicle of the infant church's experiences, the epistles contain instructions for believers throughout the church age.  Historically, Christians committed to a biblical perspective have recognized the difference.  That is, evangelical theologians have drawn the heart of their doctrine from Bible passages penned expressly to teach the church.  They have understood Acts as an inspired historical record of the apostolic period, not necessarily viewing every event or phenomenon recorded there as normative for the entire church age.

Charismatics, however, craving the experiences described in Acts, have assembled a doctrinal system that views the extraordinary events of the early apostolic age as necessary hallmarks of the Holy Spirit's working -- tokens of spiritual power that are to be routinely expected by all Christians for all time.

That rather serious interpretive error undermines charismatics' comprehension of Scripture and muddies several key biblical issues crucial to a right understanding of the charismatic controversy.  Gordon Fee, himself a charismatic, commented on the hermeneutical difficulties posed by the way charismatics typically render the book of Acts;

If the primitive church is normative, which expression of it is normative?  Jerusalem?  Antioch?  Philippi?  Corinth?  That is, why do not all the churches sell their possessions and have all things in common?  Or further, is it at all legitimate to take [any] descriptive statements as normative.  If so, how does one distinguish those which are from those which are not?  For example, must we follow the patterns of Acts 1:26 and select leaders by lot?  Just exactly what role does historical precedent play in Christian doctrine or in the understanding of Christian experience?

But the book of Acts was never intended to be a primary basis for church doctrine.

It records only the earliest days of the church age and shows the Church in transition from the Old Covenant to the New.

The apostolic healings, miracles, signs, and wonders evident in Acts were not common, even in those days.

They were exceptional events, each with a specific purpose, always associated with the ministry of the Apostles and their frequency can be seen decreasing dramatically from the beginning of Acts to the end.

Written by Luke the physician, Acts covers a crucial period that started with the beginning of the church at Pentecost and ended some thirty years later with Paul in prison, following his third missionary journey.

Transitions are seen from beginning to end in the book of Acts.

Changes happen in almost every chapter.  The Old Covenant fades away and the New Covenant comes in all its fullness.  Even Paul was caught in the changes.  Although he was an apostle in the New Era, he still had ties to the old, as indicated by his taking Jewish vows (see Acts 18:18 and 21:26).

In Acts we move from the synagogue to the church and from law to grace.  The church is transformed from a group of Jewish believers to a body made up of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ.  Believers at the beginning of Acts were related to God under the Old Covenant; by the end, all believers were in Christ, living under the New Covenant, indwelt by the Holy Spirit in a new and unique relationship.

Acts, therefore, covers an extraordinary time in history.

The Transitions it records are never to be repeated.  
The Transitions it records are never to be repeated.  
The Transitions it records are never to be repeated.  

And so the only teachings in the book of Acts that can be called normative for the Church are those that are explicitly confirmed elsewhere in Scripture.

" Charismatics just don't get it!!"

Useless Love

Just recently my daughter-in-law started a conversation with the following words, "I know you love us . . . " and then proceeded to tell me why I wasn't going to see my grandchildren this year or potentially ever again unless I remove some comments from my blog that they didn't like.  I told her I wouldn't have posted them if  I didn't believe they were true.  To do so would take away my freedom of speech.

To get back to the subject at hand "Love."

If I "Love" you, as you say I do, wouldn't I yell "fore" on a golf course if I saw a golf ball heading straight for your head?  Of course I would.

If I "Love" you, as you say I do, wouldn't I yell if your car was stalled on a railroad track and a train was barreling down on you very fast?  Of course I would.

If I "Love" you, as you say I do, wouldn't I warn you about your involvement with a cult?  I know it's a cult and you don't because you have never attended a real church.  I also know that cults prey on or target people like you "the unchurched" because you are unable to question their teachings due to your lack of knowledge about true Christianity.  Of course I would warn you as I did five years ago and you chose to disregard the warning.

You know what that means?  That means that "my love" for my family is useless and of no consequence.  If my "Love" for my family can't protect them from a charlatan and a false teacher like PM, my "Love" for you is totally useless and an absolute waste of time.  I should stop loving and let you all fall into the dark pit that is BVC and let you suffer the consequences even if they are eternal in nature.

Is this the kind of "Love" that you want from me?  The kind where I see great danger and instead of yelling, I shut my mouth and walk away.  Life can be a lot easier when you don't care.  "Love" compels me to yell at the top of my lungs to get out of BVC.  PM is leading you down a wrong path which will ultimately lead to hell.

If you want a "Love" that stays silent in the face of danger, then it isn't "Love" that you want.  When "Love" sees danger, it speaks up loudly.  That's what I've been doing now for over 5 years!

This blog has only one purpose and that is to get my family safely home to truth where they belong, to stop Satan's gibberish, reject Pentecostalism, the Faith Movement and their false teachings based on Scripture twisting.

This blog represents 5 years plus of "Love."  So far, you  have rejected that "Love" to cling to the fake love of a stranger who only loves you as long as you give him lots of money or time.

This seems to be the "Love" you prefer or the "Love" you owe because you are beholden to him for furnaces and cars they gave you.  If PM cared about you, he should be teaching you how to save money so you can pay for furnaces when they break down but don't hold your breath.  He'll think of some cause to get his hands on all of your spare cash.

These are the "Love" choices you have to make:  "Love" that has at its core, a lust for money and wealth or "Love" that will warn you about danger for 5 years even at the risk of never seeing my family again.

Perhaps the problem is that you worship "the god of your own opinion" and that's why you can't leave.  That would be admitting you are wrong or you have made a grave error in judgment.  You can't do that or your self esteem would be totally eroded.

I could shut-up and go away but that would mean I didn't "Love" you.  You said that you know I "Love" you so you are going to have to decide.  Do you want a "Love" that stays silent in the face of peril or a "Love" that cares enough to warn of the danger and impending doom?  Will you make the wise choice?

You have been reading the blog for over 5 years and still Satan has a hold on you!

I learned recently that your brother has become a Christian and is attending a church that teaches true Christianity.  I am also aware that you tried to get him to attend BVC but he rejected it.  He is a very smart person but it was likely the Holy Spirit that gave him discernment about the fact that there is something very wrong at BVC.  Good for you, Peter!  Hopefully your sister will follow your example and move her family to a true Christian church.  I know the kids will be very happy to attend there rather than rebelling at the nonsense going on at BVC.  Teenagers can sometimes be very perceptive and I would guess they have begun to realize that something is very wrong at BVC.  Could it be that Satan attends BVC every week?

Will my "Love" continue to be useless and inconsequential or will you decide to move your families out of BVC to a real church where the truth is taught uncompromisingly and there is no funny business like gibberish and constant demands for money?

BVC -- Your Jesus is Not My Jesus!!!

PM should make it clear to his attendees that BVC doesn't follow or trust in the Jesus of the Bible.  PM wants you to think his Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible but nothing could be further from the truth.  When PM uses the word Jesus he is deceiving you.  When PM speaks the name of Jesus, he is not talking about the Jesus of the Bible.  He is talking about the newly created Jesus of the Faith Movement.  This new Jesus also died to make us healthy and wealthy.  He should not call him Jesus, he should call him Jesus II.

PM believes that people will not come to Jesus for just the forgiveness of sins.  He believes there has to be more than that as all those in the Faith Movement do.  He has no right to use the name of Jesus when he is really talking about Jesus II.  PM needs to make up his mind and decide which Jesus he serves; the Jesus of the Bible who died only for our sins or Jesus II who also died to make you healthy and wealthy.

PM cannot speak the name of Jesus and pretend that he is talking about the Jesus of the Bible -- he is not!  I, as a born-again Christian, do not believe in PM's Jesus.  I believe in the Jesus of the Bible who died for my sins only.  Sin is the only thing that can keep me out of Heaven.  The crucifixion was only about one thing -- Jesus paying the price for my sins so that I can go to Heaven.

``By His stripes we are healed" is talking about the disease of our sin, not physical healing.  This is what happens when the unqualified misinterpret Scripture -- you have the creation of a new Jesus -- Jesus II who is a fraud, a lie, a mirage, a deception!  Rest assured that false teachers will face a much harsher judgment.

The people at BVC think they have the same Jesus as I do -- they do not!  This is a very serious problem.  The people in leadership at BVC need to decide which Jesus they serve and declare it clearly at every turn.  If you declare you serve and trust in the Health and Wealth Jesus, you need to differentiate this fact from the true Jesus by giving him another name so that followers are not fooled into thinking he is the same Jesus who appears in the pages of the Bible.  You could call him:

• Jesus II
• Jesus the Second
• The Faith Movement Jesus
• Jesus, the Other
• The Reformed Jesus
• The New Jesus
• The Health and Wealth Jesus
• The New Improved Jesus

BUT NOT JUST "JESUS"

End the deception, tell the truth, be honest, no more lies, declare which Jesus you serve.

One More Thing About the BVC Jesus

My Jesus does not demand or urge me to speak in tongues/gibberish.  My Jesus does not demand that I make a fool of myself at church every week.  My Jesus does not have some Christians who are "haves" and some Christians who are "have nots."  Paul asserts that all Christians have been baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ and that we have been made to drink of that one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).  BVC's teaching on tongues/gibberish is absolutely 100% totally false, not found in Scripture.  They misinterpret Scripture to create this teaching.  Gibberish is not tongues.  This fact opens up the opportunity to create some other names for the BVC Jesus.  Names they might want to try:

• Gibberish Jesus
• Tongues Jesus
• Woohoo Jesus
• Crazy Jesus
• Foolish Jesus
• Stupid Jesus
• Nonsense Jesus
• Idiot Jesus
• Wacko Jesus
• Silly Jesus

BUT NOT JUST "JESUS"

My Jesus doesn't demand so much of my income that I am unable to look after my family or save any money for my future.  My Jesus doesn't make me behave in church in such a way that my children are ashamed of me or embarrassed.  This wouldn't happen in a real church!

If you are interested in knowing why the pentecostal church / Faith Movement / Victory churches are wrong on subsequence, tongues, and seeking, you will need to read the upcoming nine or ten posts on What Was Happening in the Early Church.  The previously mentioned three movements grossly misinterpret Scripture and totally misunderstand what was happening in the early church which is why they teach the falsehoods that they do.