Controversy is like a social hemorrhoid that will flare up on a regular basis & need to be cooled and soothed (I almost used the term strange anal fire but I thought better of it). Some controversies are uglier than others. The worst kind of ugly controversy is the kind that might have been avoided because it wasn’t entirely necessary. Usually the culprit is misunderstanding, failure to define terms, or generally sloppy reactionism. When the internet was set ablaze with the anointing flame of controversy last week over the “Strange Fire” Conference in So-Cal, I had to wonder if this had the makings of one of those misunderstandings and failures to make responsible distinctions.
And in large measure I fear that this was just the case. As the smoke from the temple clears, I think there is a lesson to learn from this. The controversy was not just a quiet charismatic-cessationist stare-down. It was at times noisy and contentious. Names were dropped, reputations put on the line, and personal feelings bruised. Unfortunately there will likely remain some rifts between prominent persons and between prominent churches over the affair. And it may have been avoidable.
The biblical and theological debate about the gifts aside, wisdom demands something from us when it comes to a big public cyber-spat like this one. In this case I humbly submit that discernment requires distinctions. Some distinctions were not made that should have been made. Going forward, here are three things that must be clarified and made distinct on this subject.
1. The meaning of “charismatic”
Quick word association: I say “charismatic” you say …
Maybe you think of Robert Tilton with eyes shut tightly and hand raised, asking viewers who need a financial miracle to place their hands on their TV screens. Is that what we mean by that word? For some people it’s anyone who ever lifted a hand during worship. Maybe it’s belief in Holy Spirit baptism (aka “Second Blessing”). Or is it merely non-cessationism?
One thing is for sure, you’d better make clear the meaning you have in mind, and if you’re debating someone about it, you’d better agree between the two of you what precisely you both mean when you use the term. It has been painfully obvious to me in the brief eruption of attention on this issue that people are using the term differently. Some of them mean merely those whose theological position is not cessationism. Others seem to mean Todd Bentley, Kenneth Copeland, and people spending hours “Holy Ghost glued” to the floor.
Often usage determines meaning, and common or shared usage of a word can alter how we perceive it. Since this word is biblical, it seems most appropriate to recapture, as best we can, its early etymology as at least a starting place for defining it properly. As first year Greek students learn and as footnotes in your Bible may tell you, the word is essentially the word “grace” (“charis”) used in such a way (charisma or charismata) as to denote gracious acts or gifts. The specific use of the word to describe spiritual gifts (mostly in I Cor. 12 and Eph. 4) – and particularly the more extraordinary and supernatural gifts, like miracles, healings, tongues, prophetic words – is responsible for it being used to describe Christians who emphasize those kinds of supernatural gifts of the Spirit.
So far so good, but this still doesn’t help me know whether or not I should use the word only to describe those who believe that the supernatural gifts did not cease (as opposed to “cessationists” who believe that those gifts were for the messianic and apostolic eras and not normative for the church all-time), or whether I should use the word to include things like the prosperity movement, the strange semi-Eastern doctrines about how your words create spiritual realities (the so-called “Word of Faith” movement), and the outlandish “outpourings” that have people spending hours gyrating, fainting, laughing then growling, freezing and seizing.
Like many people, I have seen both the good and the utterly bizarre under this umbrella of “charismatic.” I have attended churches and have known ministers (even in my own family) who are charismatic by identification, of whom I would never say the sorts of things I say about certain televangelists. I’ve met old-school Southern Baptists overseas serving as missionaries who, though they were raised in a non-charismatic church setting, are convinced of supernatural spiritual activity based upon years of experience.
Then again, I’ve attended a charismatic service where the so-called preacher reads one verse from Isaiah (31:4 in case you need an idea for Sunday) about how God speaks as a “roaring lion” and then proceeds to lead the congregation in 45 minutes of “roaring in the Spirit.” A simplistic approach won’t do. There are charismatic Roman Catholics whose language and church life bears little resemblance to what you would find at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church (as it used to be called). When debates on cessationism broke out in the seminary classes I attended long ago, the mostly Southern Baptist students were very much split on the issue.
It may well be that we cannot presume to know what another person hears in the word “charismatic”, which means that we have to make the minimal effort of finding out and negotiating a definition that we can all understand. Even if I and an opponent agree to define the word differently, each of us will at least know what the other person is meaning when he or she uses the word.
2. “Charismatic” vs. the Prosperity and/or Word-Faith & Otherwise Whack-job Televangelists
A lot of what we say and think is categorical in nature. This is simple categorical logic, meaning we are identifying things in categories. Basic categorical propositions come in forms like “All x is y”, “No x is y”, “Some x is y” and “Some x is not y.” Part of the task of critical thinking and discernment is getting these kind of statements right and not being sloppy about it. Suffice to say that when someone uses the more sweeping and universal forms “All” and “No” there is a risk of over-generalizing in that hasty fashion that ends up unnecessarily implicating and offending otherwise innocent people in a given category.
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. “All Charismatics are biblically ungrounded spiritual wierdos” would certainly count as the kind of categorical statement that ought not be uttered by a discerning individual. Not that anybody in the recent conference said that exactly, but similar sentiments, it turns out, are what caused such an uproar. A wiser person goes with the more modest “SOME x is y” and then proceeds to explain in greater detail. Would anyone disagree or take offense at the statement, “Some of those who identify as charismatics are caught up in unbiblical weirdness?” Maybe a few of those of whom this is actually true would take offense, but that is not a problem, so long as those taking the offense actually are those of whom the statement speaks. But you know who would NOT be offended? Those not described by the statement.
By similar example, if I hear someone say (as I have in recent years), “Christians are hateful bigots toward gays,” I am obliged to take exception to this. Without clarification this is in the form “All x is y.” It is an unfair hasty generalization. BUT if I hear them say, “Some Christians are hateful & bigoted toward gays,” I may well agree and assist in making the distinction clear (naming names – e’hem (under my breath) “Westboro”) & maybe re-stating it as “Some who claim to be Christians are hateful toward gays.”
Can you see how a little fairness and accuracy prevents an unnecessary fight? Why not take the effort to zero in on the true target instead of going all ‘drunk cowboy’ & firing buckshot into the crowd? There exists a legitimate problem to be addressed, and according to transcripts & summaries of the talks given at the conference, this very real problem was discussed. But it is a problem not unknown to many of those who identify as charismatic.
I am talking, of course, about that vast freakshow that includes prosperity teachers, self-proclaimed apostles and prophets, televangelists, etc. We all know who I’m talking about here, and unfortunately their success has indeed made them a global presence. They dominate the religious airwaves, they fill arenas, and they transmit their spiritual diseases to other continents like the early Europeans transmitted smallpox to populations around the world. Only the Europeans did so mostly by unwitting accident. These guys know full well what they are doing, and they are laughing-in-the-spirit all the way to the bank. They deserve all of the condemnation we can muster against them. Their jets can’t crash into their island resort summer homes fast enough to suit me. That’s the kind of strange fireball (and spiritual gift) I can believe in. (Note: I’m just kidding about the deadly jet crash, so commenters need not chastise me).
But that being said, what, I ask, does Paula White, for example, have to do with, say, Wayne Grudem, a writer of seminary theology texts who is a notable representative of the non-cessationist view? At most, I guess both of them would agree that the Holy Spirit actively does the sorts of things that accord with the more supernatural gifts. That, I would think, is where their agreement would end. I doubt very seriously that Grudem would, on that account, number among the fans and devotees of the pasty prophetess with the strangely contrived accent. There are several rather popular Youtube selections in which the prosperity gospel is given both barrels-full by one of the very writers who is theologically sympathetic with non-cessationism (see this one for example, where Piper uses the theological term “crap” in his scathing assessment of the movement).
I don’t fault the conference one bit for taking full aim at specific teachings, practices, even specific teachers, ministries or churches, so long as they remember that this means that “some”, not “all” charismatics are in league with Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn. Make the correct distinctions and then fire away. Had the conference designers and advertisers done this, I doubt we would be dealing with the uproar and aftermath of the whole affair.
3. Orthodox Charismatic Churches vs. Unorthodox (Perhaps Heretical) Teachers & Churches
An important distinction that charismatics need to make, make loudly and make often, is essentially the same one as #2 above but from their unique position and perspective. These are two sides of the same coin, in other words, but I want to be clear that charismatic churches, preachers and writers are under an obligation today, given the proliferation of the aforementioned excrement of false teachers, to distinguish themselves and join the open rebuke against them. Assuming a charismatic church is reasonably orthodox, I can think of a couple of pretty good reasons why the people would want to distinguish themselves from others who call themselves charismatic but are not orthodox.
One is concern for the overall reputation of the Church and the Gospel to the outside world. Those too enveloped in the Christian cocoon can forget just how many people on this planet have never been inside a Christian church nor had much interaction with believing Christians. They stand on the outside trying to figure us out, and very often their perceptions have been shaped by the worst possible influences. When I lived in Utah I often met people who had spent their Mormon lives looking from the outside at evangelical churches. Maybe they knew where a few were located in the city and had worked with someone who attended one, but as to what really goes on inside, it was mostly mysterious. But they HAD seen movie portrayals and plenty of televangelists. I discovered that some people suppose that every non-Roman Catholic church is something like what they’ve seen on TV, and every preacher inside basically some sub-species of Jesse Duplantis.
So if we fail to distinguish biblical churches -especially if they are charismatic in style – from the prosperity or ‘word-faith’ nonsense, we simply allow people to have a false impression that maintains an unnecessary obstacle for people and tarnishes the image of Christianity. Talk to secularists, Muslims or other outsiders sometime and get their impressions of what they think your church is probably like. You may be surprised. In all likelihood they will guess that your preacher yells everything, or maybe that the sermons are all about abortion and gays (thanks to the media’s portrayal), or that your church spends a lot its time getting people to give their money, only interested in the Almighty (Creflo) Dollar. These are stereotypes based on real cases, but people are allowed to persist in these characterizations and the Church gets a black eye because of it.
Besides removing false images of the Church that outsiders may have been given, another reason why charismatic churches should distinguish themselves is to maintain unity among all biblical and historic Christians while preventing hucksters and charlatans from using the silence of reputable teachers and churches as tacit approval or endorsement. The simple and undeniable fact is that the influential heretical movements in question have cast themselves in the charismatic image (again, mostly I’m thinking here of prosperity, word-faith, and wierdo-fests with the people becoming barnyard animals in the spirit – sometimes all being mixed but not necessarily in every case). Once called “Neo-Pentecostalism”, the worst offenders – whether getting filthy rich or prophesying falsely out of their rear-ends – have dressed themselves in the cloak of Pentecostal charismatic church stylings.
Because of this reality, like it or not, charismatic churches bear more scrutiny and have all the more duty to show themselves biblically faithful while calling liars and pseudo-apostles out. Non-charismatic (or at least less charismatic) churches need their charismatic brethren to uphold a more biblical picture of charismatic church than what the shysters are demonstrating. As some charismatic leaders have admitted, opening the door to the supernatural gifts requires a particular vigilance, given that people, simply by virtue of what they are, will always be prone toward error. Since we live in a biblically illiterate age where post-modern thinking has aroused a kind of mindless and undiscerning spiritual cocktail served up by writers and speakers whose expertise amounts to Oprah endorsements, it is that much more vitally important that charismatic churches keep things biblical and guard against a slide toward an anti-intellectual spiritual free-for-all. I don’t think this point is all that controversial. Sam Storms, our local theologically erudite while decidedly non-cessationist pastor of the Reformed persuasion, has said more than once that being fully open to the supernatural gifts, on the one hand, while warding off mere subjective whims & wide-upon spiritual freelancing, on the other, is not the easy road. Charismatic churches, however, can’t afford to take the easy road these days.
Ultimately the debate between cessationism and non-cessationism remains itself distinct from the discussion about prosperity & word-faith televangelism. The latter need not require much debate. We should roundly condemn it and seek to undermine it and/or correct it. But cessationism, like eschatology & a few other all-time intramural theological debates, can continue to be a civil discussion among Christians. To be fair, a lot of what was done at the controversial conference, according to transcripts I’ve seen, was simply defending cessationism and critiquing abusive heretical weirdness, neither of which should be controversial among biblical Christians, since the first is an ongoing debate of a mostly civil nature while the second is largely agreed upon by orthodox charismatics and non-charismatics alike.
The error was a lazy lumping together of all non-cessationists with the weirdos, or at least somehow blaming non-cessationists for the wierdness of certain self-identifying charismatics. And in full equality we should admit that some of those in the charismatic camp have been guilty of the reverse error, as Phil Johnson’s talk at the conference demonstrated, by calling cessationists deists or God-deniers (or even atheists). Why do that? Why run your mouth so recklessly and cause offense to people who are your brothers and sisters? I can’t see any excuse for it. Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Mormons are polygamists, etc., so likewise not all cessationists deny the Holy Spirit’s existence or God’s activity on earth, and not all self-identifying charismatics flail wildly & bark like dogs during worship, have imposing Jan Crouch hairdos, and send their money to this guy hoping for a “harvest.” Failure to make these distinctions insults a lot of people unnecessarily and turns the blogosphere into a holy war. Let this be a lesson to us all.
267 replies to "Let this Strange Firestorm be a Lesson"
Clint, as graceless, petty and deceptive as you have been from the outset. I continue to await (in vain almost certainly) for your substantive response. You stated what you could do … without ever having done so. Cowardly, indeed.
If I have misrepresented you, then by all means have at it. Now is your opportunity to fully address my response. Point by point, with a biblical counter point.
In the absence of such a response, you are revealed as pretentious, insecure and an intellectually dishonest bully … full of himself, with room for little else.
So, again, Mr. Roberts … for someone so utterly knowledgeable of my gross error … have at it. It should be complete child’s play for one so certain.
I eagerly await your detailed response.
By the way … securing the disfavor of this group is as easy as speaking. They have all been, variously, at each others throats during the entire discussion. Quite a group here … quite a group, indeed.
Well what a show, what a show. Larry has a way with words– too bad he chooses to employ his talent with rank dishonesty. I won’t attempt to respond to all the points in his latest dodge, but focus on one only.
No one spoke of whether or not Clint’s replies to his 2 questions were adequate. But Clint did in fact respond to the questions put to him by Larry in “black and white”, in this forum, for all to see. Yet Larry claims Clint’s replies were so poor they don’t actually constitute a reply; thus, he denies that Clint replied! Amazing.
Larry on the other hand, regaled us with nothing but weird stories which he failed to show had any bearing on anything in the original post, and offered readers a lengthy “overview” article over on his own website– an article which was at best an introduction to his thoughts on the topic but failed to provide a specific, cogent argument in response to Clint’s post.
As far as tone and manner, I leave it for the observer to decide whether Larry was charitable, and in the spirit of “Galatians 6”, gently correcting folks, with a view “to minister life and yield liberty … revealing to us more fully the person of Jesus Christ”, as he claimed he was doing here. Being on the receiving end of his numerous negative and in my view baseless accusations about my character and motives, I certainly did not find his words matching his stated aims.
I thank Susan for offering me some encouragement during the conversation–by saying that my comments were helpful to her; and I appreciate Michael T’s effort to proceed with fairness towards Larry by hearing out his argument. Still we see that Larry wanted the conversation to proceed only on his terms, and in the end, he offers nothing of value. But I hope I have learned a lesson in all this– to not allow myself to be drawn into lengthy discussion in a forum with someone who appears to be interesting only in playing games and wasting people’s time.
One more thing Clint, as you assail these men (you continue to studiously avoid addressing the nub of this discussion, which is doctrinal) you are trafficking in the basest form of gossip … unless you posses firsthand, irrefutable evidence of your increasingly bizarre rant like accusations.
You continue to speak the language of the pharisee. Smugly self righteous yet blind to your disqualifying and hateful invective … you betray the dangerous tendencies of a spiritually abusive leader.
You rather put me in mind of those unfortunate and frightening men whose insecurities find them seeking a badge and a gun to compensate for their perceived inadequacies. The very worst and most dangerous sort of policeman … you’ve sought out a lectern and pulpit to address yours.
Couple that with a strange theological bent which finds you posturing like some citizen of a sort of spiritual Aryan race … and you’ve got a toxic brew of the rarest sort.
Blinding and destructive, you careen about unconcerned by the damage your recklessness leaves in its wake.
” They are on the lowest moral tier, next to grimy Thai child-traffickers” … what sheer buffoonery.
Larry,
One question: What is the message of the gospel, as you understand it?
If you love The Lord, and want all who are reading to know this, you might be able to show this by your answer to this foundational question.
If you don’t love The Lord you will certainly reply to my simple request by explaining why I not worthy of a response.
Which would honor God more?
If not for remarkable consistency & predictability, I would claim that my previous post was a word of prophetic knowledge. But I can’t. Anyone reading the previous hundred posts could have called that shot.
Gentle readers, watch with me and let us see if any of the following questions might be entertained by Larry so as to merit any kind of answer to any of them:
1. Larry do you believe that the Nazi leaders of the 40’s committed any atrocities? Did Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, etc., do any deeds terrible enough to merit condemnation? If so how do you KNOW they did? Do you have any firsthand knowledge? Were you there? Did you see any of it take place with your own eyes?
Maybe your condemnation of them is an example of “the basest form of gossip”. Maybe they were great humanitarians, lovers of and carers for those less fortunate, and models of the highest and noblest ideals of self-sacrificial charity. If you say they were evil men, it could just be that you feel the need to denigrate them due to some inadequacy of your own (which, according to a commercial I heard several times during a recent football game, could simply be an issue of bloodflow – FYI).
OK so the first question is really more rhetorical to demonstrate a point, which I hope is clear enough (although my hopes have been dashed thus far). Here are the others:
2. Do you believe that the Christian message guarantees physical health and financial prosperity to all who believe in & follow Jesus?
3. Do you believe that our spoken words affect reality? Is it dangerous, for example, for me to say casually that “I’m getting really sick of” something or that “I’m just dying to” do a certain thing?
4. Do you believe it is God’s will that his servants (his messengers, missionaries, etc.) be exorbitantly wealthy & live in overt opulence?
My expectations of getting any answers to these are extremely low, mind you, but I must keep the door cracked open at least a sliver. You may…
@ Larry
1. A quick word on the burden of proof here. You must realize that you are in hostile territory on this blog, just as I am when I discuss Calvinism on this blog (being a non-Calvinist). This is not a neutral debate. Whenever you are trying to show that someone is wrong in what they believe the burden, rightfully or wrongfully is on you to show it.
2. Although this is not a neutral debate it is still a debate. When someone gives a response, even an inadequate one or one that misrepresents something it falls on the other party to show that this is the case (even if it is painfully obvious to you it may not be obvious to others). Otherwise one gives the impression that they are dodging the issues raised.
3. While Clint’s demeanor may not be to my or your liking simply shouting “ad hominem” does not negate the things that he said on substantive matters. I can say that Clint is a ugly, good for nothing moron who is a Calvinist. While the first part is ad hominem, it doesn’t affect the truth of the substantive statement that he is a Calvinist.
4. If Clint’s accusations against these people are based upon watching them on TV, reading their books, and watching the court cases against them, what he is saying is not slanderous or gossip. The examples Clint gave above of those in the past fits quite nicely here. We have to go off the evidence available to us. If you can contradict him please do so.
5. I must admit a little bit of selfishness in appointing myself arbiter of this discussion. As I’ve said before I want to be wrong about WoF/Prosperity and I’ve never had anyone who has claimed to be able to rationally defend the theology in front of me before. I was hoping to guide the discussion to something more substantive and gain a better understanding of your perspective.
6. As far as asking my own questions they would be a combination of one’s already asked with a couple additions – I’ll list them in the next…
Folks, I understand that sometimes things get hot in a conversation. And sometimes things are said that are not all that “irenic”. I have been guilty on both counts here myself.
But in my opinion, this conversation has become a bad joke of 200 plus comments on a site that prides itself on irenic and tactful conversation. And that is right from the top, the writer of the OP, on down.
I am not sure how anyone reading this is ever supposed to take the claim and the admonition to be tactful and irenic in conversation here seriously again when the very writer of the OP, to say nothing of a good share of the commenters, have often shown little apparent interest in doing so.
Amen Alex. “Wasting people’s time”, indeed. In the days that this unholy debacle has persisted, without scarcely a point being made whatsoever, more people have been suffering, more dying (most with the probability of eternal separation from the Lord) and we have been sitting and spending our time in a dialogue that has done absolutely nothing to further the Kingdom of God. Blogging is a gift from the Lord to the extent that it puts the Body in a connection with each other so that we can be discussing and thinking together about doing the good works the He has for us to walk in (Eph. 2:10). I do believe that much good discussion could have been had here, based solely on the content of Clint’s excellent post. I had much to say about my Charismatic background and the destruction it has wroght in my family, but I never bothered to demean it here because of the terrible distraction that ensued from the outset. So I admonish all of us, myself included, that we repent, take Alex’s advise and learn from this great waste of time the lesson that this vociferous “son of Hell” has so ungraciously taught us: to not waste the precious few “talents” of time that we are given, love one another, as our Lord and Savior loved us, and move forward from here wise as serpents toward the Larry’s of the world, but as gentle as doves toward each other and all of those who show forth the evidence of their salvation by walking in the true Fruits of the Spirit, “making the most of the time, because the days are evil”. As it now takes time just to scroll to the bottom of this mess, I purpose a new article, authored by anyone at Credo House, so that we can begin afresh this discussion. And if Larry or any other tool of the Enemy seeks to devour our minutes and hours from a legitimate and productive discussion, let’s simply turn a blind ear and let the Body of Christ be the mouth and ears that He has created us to be.
My questions
1. Who do you see as the primary leaders of the movement? In other words if I’m going to go read some books, whose books should I read?
2. What is the nature of the godhead (i.e. describe the Trinity)
3. Who is Jesus?
4. What is the nature of man?
5. What is the Gospel?
6. What is the nature of salvation?
7. Does being a follower of Christ with adequate faith guarantee health and prosperity?
8. Is it God’s will that his followers be materially wealthy and healthy?
9. Does God require the faith of humans to effectuate miracles? or can He act as He pleases even in the absence of faith?
10. Is faith the deciding factor in who is healed and who is not healed, who is wealthy and who is not wealthy?
11. Does the spoken word effect reality and is the spoken word necessary to effectuate miracles?
There you go – those are my questions. I look forward to you responses.
Mitchael … I’ have addressed the questions pertinent to thi9s discussion. I am still awaiting an intelligent reply that doesn’t seek to dodge what I’ve asked and what I’ve written.
The absurd assertions regarding “eastern thought”, new age philosophies, etc, and assertions regarding prosperity.
I have read innumerable assertions … no theological response. Again, I provided a 14 page response and … nothing of substance. Arguing from assertion is bad enough … arguing from the national Enquirer is inane.
Again, you pointed out the fact that Clint’s response was a non response … what changed?
I will answer questions and further discuss the issue I engaged Clint on … namely, his reckless assertions regarding WOF theology. He, the ever artful dodger continues to hide beyond the noxious smoke screen of innuendo, gossip and assertions … but flees a theological debate.
He has yet to offer a substantive remark … style and nastiness aside. He will not engage on the issue under discussion.
Larry,
1. The fact that i may realize it doesn’t change the general workings. I found his initial response lacking in a number of respects, however yours is nonexistent and he has posted a number of times since then.
2. As i have said before i do not like or approve of clints style. That being said if you have read the writings, and watched them preach one is not “reckless” in calling them out as heretics based on this. Out of all the mean things Clint has said this is the most serious and the only one I’m really interested in. If what Clint had said misrepresents them and their theology please show this. That is the point of my questions.
3. If you are only willing to discuss Clints behavior and not substantive matters of theology I’m rather disappointed as that is why i engaged on the first place. I would really think you’d want to dispel the accusations leveled against wof. I’m baffled why you would be more interested in talking about whether or not some blow hard treated you properly then correcting the misconceptions.
“1. Larry do you believe that the Nazi leaders of the 40’s committed any atrocities? Did Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, etc., do any deeds terrible enough to merit condemnation? If so how do you KNOW they did? Do you have any firsthand knowledge? Were you there? Did you see any of it take place with your own eyes?
Maybe your condemnation of them is an example of “the basest form of gossip”. Maybe they were great humanitarians, lovers of and carers for those less fortunate, and models of the highest and noblest ideals of self-sacrificial charity. If you say they were evil men, it could just be that you feel the need to denigrate them due to some inadequacy of your own (which, according to a commercial I heard several times during a recent football game, could simply be an issue of bloodflow – FYI).”
Clint, thank you for underscoring my pointed appraisal of your behavior and general approach to this discussion. You continue to prove yourself not only unwilling, but incapable of either intelligent, adult and cogent responses or even a modicum of civility. You prove yourself more adolescent with each new post. Congratulations.
The answer is rather simple. Yes I believe they did, because we have the irrefutable evidence in the form of their own words and speeches. We have the forensic evidence of their crimes and memos which underscore their guilt.
You, in asserting conditions of heart have only your ugly imagination and fetid bitterness by which you assign motivation and aims. Though, it does appear that you’ve elevated in your own mind, your ability to know such things to the status of omniscience … you’ll forgive mere mortals for doubting your penetrating analysis.
2. Do you believe that the Christian message guarantees physical health and financial prosperity to all who believe in; follow Jesus?
I believe quite simply what scripture states. The redemptive work of Christ provided for a complete solution to the human condition…
I believe quite simply what scripture states. The redemptive work of Christ provided for a complete solution to the human condition. This is further borne out in Christ’s own earthly ministry. Healing relied upon the faith of those who approached Jesus. Never do we find Jesus denying healing to any who came to Him believing. Never. This was a serious oversight by God if indeed not all who believe should expect healing. On at least one occasion we should find Jesus advising that God’s will would only find fulfillment through continued illness, followed by premature death. Instead, we find Jesus referring to illness and disease as “works” of satan and healing as the “works” of God.
Those who wished to confuse the two met with the simple logic that if God was doing evil and satan was good, they would be leading a house divided.
As to prosperity, please define. Yes, God promises a full supply to those who trust in Him. Poverty is viewed as a consequence of the fall, not as a virtue or as an expression of God’s will. As to extravagant wealth. No, that is not promised. Indeed, we are warned against avarice pointedly in scripture.
“3. Do you believe that our spoken words affect reality? Is it dangerous, for example, for me to say casually that “I’m getting really sick of” something or that “I’m just dying to” do a certain thing?”
I believe that faith enjoys a voice (as Jesus explained … please see Mark 11:22-24). I do not believe that our words, themselves, enjoy any special metaphysical power. I do believe that when our words harmonize with God’s word and exist as an expression of our heartfelt faith, that they form the basis for thanksgiving … praise … and that praise is indeed a potent thing.
I believe that words betray our inward condition … Jesus said as much.
“4. Do you believe it is God’s will that his servants (his messengers, missionaries, etc.) be exorbitantly wealthy & live in overt opulence?”
Your question merely underscores your ignorance of the message. Again, no responsible leader or minister would ever apply the term heretic as recklessly and as arrogantly as you have unless they had conducted exhaustive research. You apparently exhausted before your research did.
To use your own absurd metaphor, do you believe that Germans, led as they were by Hitler, Heimlich, Eichmann, were all anti-Semites? All mass murderers? Or only those proven to be so? Again, remarkably buffoonish.
I am acquainted with minister after minister, missionary after missionary who has served sacrificially. My first pastorate was located in Boston. Within a one mile radius were 5 catholic parishes. I labored to befriend those priests and in order to avoid any hint that my motive was even remotely mercenary, I took an extremely small salary … requiring me to work an additional job. I did not get rich. Nor have the thousands of men and women I know who trust God to abundantly supply their needs but have no yearning for mansions.
Now Clint … screw up your courage and address the substance of my remarks (found in the lengthy piece I provided for you, at your request).
Larry you said, As to prosperity, please define. Yes, God promises a full supply to those who trust in Him. Poverty is viewed as a consequence of the fall, not as a virtue or as an expression of God’s will.
Can you please explain to me how that dovetails with the Apostle Pauls’ testimony in II Cor 11:23-28? Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.
Was Paul experiencing what you would call “full provision?” If not, why not? Do you think he was not trusting the Lord?
This is a serious question. It is just one of the places that it seems to me the WoF understanding of the Bible fails to meet the test of reality.
Yes, Paul is enduring hardship in the form of persecution … a different matter (“Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted”).
You are now addressing extraordinary circumstances, not normative life. Paul admonished the unmarried to remain single, even as he (Paul) was. Yet, this was not the rule by which people would guide their life. His was an extraordinary lifestyle unique to his calling.
More to the point, we have an abundance of scripture which address this issue, so my question to you is, how do reconcile those promises and admonitions to your premise.
Does scripture simply speak in ambiguous and unreliably broad terms? Or, does each word communicate an accurate understanding of God’s will?
Paul was martyred? Do you anticipate such an end? If not, why?
Now, more to the point, can you identify scriptures which state plainly that God’s approves of poverty and imposes it at will upon his children?
@ Larry
In addition to what Cheryl said regarding Paul’s testimony in II Corinthians 11:23-28 I immediately though of two other passages and one other fact that just don’t seem to be congruent with your position.
1. You mentioned that God’s will is not for people to die a premature death, however it seems that every last Apostle, save perhaps John did in fact died a premature death. Furthermore, it seems to indicate elsewhere in Scripture that God has set the number of our days. Who is to say what is premature? Reality is that everyone dies of a last illness of some type. It may be at 30 or at 100.
2. In regards to faith being a deciding factor when you look at the heroes of the faith described in Hebrews 11:32-35 who conquered versus those in Hebrews 11:35-38 who perished horribly including those who “went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated” it doesn’t appear that faith was at all a deciding factor. Instead both groups were commended for their faith.
3. In regards to healing why does Paul not advise Timothy to pray harder, or have greater faith, but rather advises him to “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”?
Also what of pauls thorn? It seems clear in the passage that it was God s will not to heal him of it.
Michael, I’m trying to answer your first comment, however, in addition to what to response to Cheryl please read), I trust you understand the difference between the promise of long life and the choice of martyrdom. The former is declared will for all … the latter a choice made by those who wish to so honor Christ (and receive a martyr’s crown).
You’ll recall that Agabus warned Paul concerning the death which would await him. Was Agabus endowed with powers which enabled him to see the future (no) or was he prophesying as God revealed to him these events (yes)?
Why do so? Perhaps to allow Paul the latitude to choose his path?
As to Timothy, both here and in James epistle, special instructions are given with regard to those who are struggling in their faith.
Here Paul advises what is in effect, medicine. James advises that the elders pray for the sick, anointing them with oil. Is oil curative? No.
However, if someone is challenged in their faith, they are instructed to join with others who believe, for prayer and to be anointed with oil. Oil it would seem, provides a physical symbol of God’s healing virtue … something to touch and to feel. An obvious help to someone for whom the invisible realities of God’s kingdom and power seems distant.
Conversely, if it is God’s will for them to be ill, then Paul is in great error and encouraging rebellion in Timothy’s heart. The same can be said of those who are to pray for the sick in order that they will be healed (please note the finality, the lack of ambiguity with regard to outcomes in James epistle).
If you believe that illness occurs by God’s will, the we must account physicians as threats to the outworking of God’s will. If your child is sick … await his fate. If it is God’s will for him to recover and live … all is well. If not … you’ve no choice but to submit. Absurd? I certainly think so.
Why do those who believe that sickness occurs as a matter of God’s will, labor so diligently to be cured?
So folks are promised absolute provision for every need–unless they are facing persecution.
In Galatians 4:13 Paul speaks of being sick. And in II Timothy 4:20, Paul speaks of leaving a coworker who was sick. It seems there were quite a few exceptions to universal health spoken of by Paul.
And how do these promises work for Christians in third world countries that often do not have adequate food, water, shelter, or clothing?
Larry,
I also wonder what you tell folks that have prayed in faith believing that they or their friend or family member would be healed only to have the disease continue year after year or get worsens to the point that the person dies? I have seen this happen more then once in my life time.
Do you tell them that they only thought that they had faith but really didn’t? Do you tell them that they didn’t have enough faith? (How much faith is “enough faith” anyway?) I have seen the devastating effect on a family that has prayed for the healing of their child when the child wasn’t healed and they were told by someone that, “If you only had faith, he would of been healed.”
The last person that I had such a conversation with spoke of how people had prayed for healing for a friend and that person had died of cancer anyway. She told me that they knew that God desired to heal everyone but they hadn’t learned how to “tap into” that yet. Obviously they had faith. But God hadn’t healed. Where were they left after that experience? Wondering what they still needed to do to get that healing.
Something becomes very wrong with a picture like that.
Cheryl, your argument, I think, is with God’s word … not me. Jesus healed all who came believing. He came as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”.
On the sad occasion of His visit to Nazareth, He was unable to heal any, with the exception of a few minor ailments. Why? “Because of their unbelief.”
His response? He began teaching in their synagogues for … “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Jesus queried those who came to him, again and again, “do you have faith?”. Shall we choose to rewrite God’s word because of the experience of others?
Our answer should harmonize with scripture … not attempt to adapt scripture to our experience.
Again and again, relative to life’s challenges Jesus urges faith … adamantly.
Consider the experience of the disciples in the boat as they plied the waters of Galilee. A fierce storm arose on the lake, so violent that the disciples, many of whom were seasoned sailors, were certain that they were about to perish.
They awakened Jesus imploring to save them. “Don’t you care that we’re perishing?” they asked. Consider that question and what it implies.
Was Jesus so indifferent to their plight that He found his own rest a higher priority? Or, was the ship really near disaster? Could omniscience be so unaware?
Or is it possible that faith is perfectly content to trust in God’s care, to rest in His power regardless of our circumstance?
Did Jesus rebuke the storm, calming the winds and sea in order to preserve their lives … or to simply calm their fears and challenge their perspectives (with the questions he then posed)?
He asked them, “why are you so fearful … how is it that you have no faith?”
A seemingly absurd question on its face, yes? “Well, we were terrified because the boat was about to sink … ARE YOU PUTTING US ON?” “Why do you think we were afraid?
But Jesus’ question was not pointless,…
Larry,
1. Ignore my earlier questions for now, I think there is more than enough to discuss in what you responded to Clint with.
2. I strongly disagree that long life is declared for all and martyrdom for a few who choose it. In the Early Church, and many places today, the very act of admitting to be a Christian ensures poverty, persecution and, in many cases death. If there is one thing I get from Christ’s teaching to his disciples it is that sufferings, trials, and persecution are the norm for a Christian, not the exception. We are the exception.
3. On the warning to Paul. Would Paul have been being obedient to God if he had just walked away? I, unlike my Calvinist friends, believe that Paul had the ability to walk away, however doing so would have been disobedience to God’s calling.
4. In Timothy the point I’m making is Paul doesn’t give a formula (i.e. pray and have faith and you will be healed). Timothy is often ill. Paul doesn’t tell him to pray harder, or have more faith and he will be cured (though certainly Timothy should do this). Instead he offers palliative help.
5. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy by indicating that it is either God’s will for someone to be sick, or His will for them to be healed. Why not both? Why cannot God will that someone be sick for six months and then healed (through medicine or miracles)? Isn’t this exactly what happened to the blind man in John 9? This man was willed to be blind from birth so that Jesus could display God’s glory by healing him. Was it not also God’s will to allow Satan to wreck Job?? and then restore Job later? May not God’s will also be that one perish or not be cured. What of Paul’s thorn where God refused to heal him in II Corinthians 12:7-9? What of David’s child who was killed by God as a result of David’s sin? Has not God numbered our days according to His will?
6. No one doubts that faith and prayer are important. Additionally no one doubts that God heals people who believe and have faith. The difference that you seem to be missing is that it isn’t formulaic. The reason you weren’t saved from death or healed from sickness may have nothing to do with your level of faith. God works and the Holy Spirit moves as He pleases.
His question probed the nature of fear. Fear is our response to impending loss or harm. It’s natural. Yet Jesus, after rebuking the storm, turns now and mildly rebukes the disciples for their reaction. Seems harsh doesn’t it?
What if Jesus understood that life doesn’t unfold within a vacuum. That as we pass through this life we are not only interacting with God and man. What if there is an adversary who “walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour”? What if faith not only opens the door for God to perform His will, but what if turns back the efforts of our adversary?
The book of Ephesians seems bent on introducing us to the reality of the spiritual dimension. We’re told of spiritual blessings which are ours in heavenly places. We’re urged to trust God to reveal to more fully the risen Christ, through the spirit of wisdom and revelation. We are told that we are seated with Him in heavenly places.
Each chapter seems to reveal spiritual reality and our place in it. At last, as we reach chapter 6 we read (as if everything has been communicated to bring us to this point of practical application)
“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Our failure to reckon with this reality, an adversary who is actively laboring to undermine God’s will, to do harm … to destroy, leaves, I fear, blaming God for another’s handiwork
Much more to say … sorry, didn’t check for typos. I’ve arrived home obviously. Will eat dinner and turn my attention to a remarkably temporal matter … the World Series.
See you all tomorrow and thank you for your patience.
Larry,
So first of all you tell us that if we have faith we are gauranteed healing. At least that is what I thought you were saying.
Then when I say I have friends that had faith for healing you say that we can’t go by their experience. Well, I agree that the Word of God always trumps our experience.
However, when our experience shows over and over that the way we understand the Word of God just doesn’t seem to be working out in reality, don’t you think perhaps it is time to check our understanding of that Word?
As Michael and I have both suggested, there seems to be much more at work in the Word then faith guarantees our healing.
Now you yourself have introduced one more element, the enemy working against God’s plans. Yes, that may be true. So now are you saying that the enemy “stole” the healing from the people I know?
One of my primary hopes at the beginning of this thread is that productive dialogue would happen. I am very pleased to see it finally moving in that direction. Can we all agree at this point that Larry is now making some excellent points here, at the very least things that deserve careful dialogue and consideration? I pray that continues unabated.
Having grown up in the charismatic movement and having family still very much a part of the WOF world, I have had the unique privilege of being a part of and deeply loving family members on both sides of this issue. I feel that JMacs demonizing and lumping together all Charismatics as being of the same ilk and doing the works of the devil is unproductive at best and demonic in its divisiveness at worst. As a man who is deeply reformed in my own theology, my observation has been that these are secondary issues almost across the board. The essentials still unite us at almost every level.
I believe quite simply what scripture states. The redemptive work of Christ provided for a complete solution to the human condition. This is further borne out in Christ’s own earthly ministry. Healing relied upon the faith of those who approached Jesus. Never do we find Jesus denying healing to any who came to Him believing. Never. This was a serious oversight by God if indeed not all who believe should expect healing. On at least one occasion we should find Jesus advising that God’s will would only find fulfillment through continued illness, followed by premature death. Instead, we find Jesus referring to illness and disease as “works” of satan and healing as the “works” of God. Those who wished to confuse the two met with the simple logic that if God was doing evil and satan was good, they would be leading a house divided.
Larry, what you wrote about healing above contains some truth. It is true that the “redemptive work of Jesus provides for a complete solution to the human condition.” Likewise the fact that Jesus’ earthly ministry was characterized by healing the sick is a reflection of this redemptive work. I would add also that sickness and death are evils — for when sin entered the human condition, sickness and death came in its wake. And it’s true as you say that sickness is sometimes attributed to the work of satan.
Yet truths concurrently taught with these in Scripture are vital to keep in mind, lest we try to guarantee in this life what is fully promised to us only in the next. One of these truths is that God is sovereign over all the events of our lives, including sickness. It seems He does not always heal those who earnestly pray for healing. Another truth is that sickness, though an evil, is not in Scripture always portrayed as directly caused by satanic forces. Sickness may simply be a matter of being born in a fallen world that is under the curse of sin and all that results from sin (Genesis 2:17; Gen 6:3), rather than a…
…direct result of one’s personal sin or the sin of one’s parents (John 9:3). Even when satan is the immediate cause, God, being sovereign over satan, is ultimately in control. For example, Job was assessed a righteous man by God, yet the Lord permitted his faith to be tested by all sorts of bad things happening to him, including great physical suffering that came through the agency of satanic attack. Another example is Paul, a man of God in faithful service to God, yet apparently afflicted by a physical ailment for which he asked for healing several times but was denied by God. Presumably this man of God had great faith as he asked God for healing, nevertheless his request wasn’t granted. Other faithful believers in Scripture have been described as experiencing sickness, for example Timothy (1 Tim 5:23), Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20), and Epaphroditis (Phil 2:25-30). The sickness of these men is not explained in Scripture as being the result of sin, lack of faith or an attack of the enemy, but rather it is simply recorded. I think this demonstrates that sickness is just a part of life in a fallen world, even for the believer. These are men the Scriptures holds in high regard, yet they were at times afflicted by illness.
As to whether faith is a necessary condition for healing to occur, there are plenty of examples of healings done by Jesus in which the condition of faith in the person receiving healing was not present. Did Lazarus demonstrate faith so that he was rewarded with being raised from the dead (John 11)? Obviously being dead he had no faith to express. Who showed faith when Jairus’ daughter was likewise raised from the dead (Mark 5:35-43)? In that story, Scripture records that the people present did not express faith, but rather, laughed at Jesus. Jesus healed despite a seeming lack of faith on the part of those surrounding the dead girl. What of the demon-possessed man in Luke 8:26-39. Did Jesus deliver him in response to his expression faith?…
… More examples could be provided. Now, I’m not denying that the Bible draws a connection between faith and God’s healing works. Faith is apparently the instrument God is most pleased to use as he heals people. He delights to see people having enough faith in Him to trust that He can heal them. Still, since He is the sovereign, almighty God, God can heal even when faith is not present, or choose not to heal, as in the cases mentioned above.
In James 5, the prayer of faith is often pointed to as a promise of healing that is pretty much always guaranteed. But does this passage absolutely assure us that everyone prayed for and anointed by elders will always be healed? No, the passage must be taken together with other passages in Scripture that teach us that we don’t even know what will happen tomorrow, and that often God’s saints suffer all sorts of calamities in this life, which may include unhealed illnesses. Is this not what simple life observation confirms? Is everyone prayed for always healed? Obviously not, and the many not healed includes those prayed for by teachers who themselves have great faith in the healing message, as do the people coming to them. Does this mean God cannot heal today, even miraculously? No. It simply means that God will heal in accordance with His perfect will, and not in accordance with faith formulas incorrectly inferred from Scripture.
The redemptive benefits of Christ’s work, or the “healing in the (atonement”, must be properly understood in the context of the whole of biblical counsel. Author Bob DeWaay writes, “Healing is in the atonement in the sense that all the benefits of Christ’s substitutionary death apply to all believers and will find their complete fulfillment at the return of Christ and the resurrection. It is because of the atonement that Christians have been healed, are being healed and will be healed. This does not mean that we should expect never to suffer with an illness in this life or that God has…
… has guaranteed to remove any illness that might come into one’s life.”
Cherylu, just stopped in quickly (Go Red Sox!), I’m in the middle of a national roll out right now for our new product line … working with agents and suppliers here and overseas … it’s a little busy.
However, I will be tackling this from time to time throughout the day. As I do, I’m going to pose some questions … please don’t feel as if I’m attacking you.
Certainly I will challenge some of your positions … I just want to understand what you believe … and the the underlying reason’s and perspectives which lead to those beliefs.
So, please … take your time in answering them. I’m delighted to be having this discussion and will invest whatever time is required to complete it… even if it should require the balance of the week.
Good night to you, Michael and whomever else may be plugged into this discussion.
With that said there is much lacking in WOF theology, things that I believe deter it’s followers from seeing and fully savoring the sovereignty and glory of God in all things and in all circumstances, and erroneous doctrine that keeps people from putting Satan where the Bible places him, under the absolute control and will of a supreme authority who allows him to do his work for a season, and yet is a tool of redemption and sanctification wielded by God in the life of the believer (see the book of Job).
But where so much ground could be gained is if we could all acknowledge that neither camp is perfect in our doctrine. The reformed world, I believe, lacks much of what charismatic people possess in regard to the marriage of faith and belief, hope and boldness inprayer and oftentimes intensity and joy in worship (see Hilsong). As brother Driscoll has stated, sometimes people in the Reformed world see the Trinity as “Father, Son and Holy Bible.” So true. But how beautiful would the unity and love be and how powerful a witness to a dying world if we could but learn from one another, rather than pointing the finger of heresy.
Erich, I agree– the discussion has taken on a better, more helpful tone. I think it could have been like this a lot sooner if there had been immediate focus on specific issues, as is now taking place. Anyway since it’s happening we can be happy for the improvement .. and try to keep it going ;).
Larry,
In response to Cherylu’s comment#219, you made this statement: Or is it possible that faith is perfectly content to trust in God’s care, to rest in His power regardless of our circumstance?
I think this is correct- faith indeed is “perfectly content to trust in God’s care, to rest in His power regardless of our circumstance”. This means that sometimes in answer to earnest prayers for healing, God may choose to not provide the healing we request; yet believers need not give up faith in God or in His power to heal, but should continue to trust Him, no matter what.
Job declared, after his property was destroyed and his children killed, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” The Bible states that in attributing these calamities to God, “… Job did not sin or charge God with wrong (Job 1:21-22).
By faith, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.’” (Daniel 3:16-18). These men display an amazing level of faithful dedication to the Lord. They do not know whether they will be delivered from the flames– yet faith prompts them to trust in the Lord regardless of what will happen to them. In the same way, when we ask God to heal, we don’t know the outcome. In James 4:14-15 we read “you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”
In a fallen world, both good and bad things happen to saints and sinners alike, as…
(continued from above) we see in the testimony of both Scripture and history. But the godly don’t despair and lose their faith when God does not always deliver them from the troubles of this world, which according to Jesus are sure to come: “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
As Michael T also pointed out, Hebrews 11:35-38 testifies to the fact that faith is just as evident when the godly are persecuted, martyred, afflicted, and destitute, as when God delivers them from such calamity. And sickness may be one of those misfortunes God permits in the life of a believer, because God knows how to use trials to test and mold our faith (1 Peter 1:6-9) and in His sovereignty will work (all things) together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). Therefore the teaching that states healing is always guaranteed to believers in this life contingent on their faith flies in the face of much biblical evidence to the contrary, and contradicts the universal experience of humanity— who among us has not been sick without being healed, or least known someone sick that has not been healed and even perhaps died? So we pray to God for healing, with faith that He is able to heal any condition. Yet by faith we rest in Him, trusting that no matter what His answer, he will bless and sustain us in this life until He brings us to Him in glory.
Wow! Lot of comments on this thread.
What’s the score?
😉
Two more proofs for my position that troubles in this life are to be regarded as ultimately under the control of God, and that by faith sustained by grace, we may learn to be content in all circumstances:
Paul declares:
I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Paul states that in any and every circumstance he has learned the secret of contentment — to be strengthened by the Lord.
Going back to one of the sick saints mentioned above- Epaphroditus. Paul testifies in Phil 2:25-27, “I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill. Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.”
If WF teaching is correct we would expect to see Paul here claiming or even declaring healing for his fellow worker on the basis of faith in Christ’s finished work. Instead, we observe him simply give praise to God for a positive outcome. It seems he did not take this healing as having been guaranteed, but rather is immensely grateful for God’s mercy.
Sometimes God does not heal the one we pray for who has cancer. Does this mean God is no longer compassionate? Or that faith was lacking in us, and if we had built up requisite faith God would have been pleased to heal? I think this passage lends no support to this idea.
Healing relied upon the faith of those who approached Jesus. Never do we find Jesus denying healing to any who came to Him believing. Never.
@ Larry,
Isn’t there some kind of logical fallacy at work here? While undoubtedly true Jesus rarely healed anyone who didn’t have faith that He could in fact heal them (the exception being the servant of the high priest Luke 22:50-51), it doesn’t necessarily follow that Jesus was compelled to heal all those who came to Him in faith. Now granted, you haven’t come out and stated that directly. But that is what is implied within the meta-narrative of your posts, and certainly within the teachings of the WOF movement generally. It is this component, that God is compelled to act because of our faith, that is problematic.
I believe that it is more biblical to assert that Jesus healed not because of the faith of those who sought healing (though the lack of faith certainly would have hindered it), but because it served to validate the greater testimony regarding the salvific plan (i.e. it showed that He was greater than the effects of the curse, see John 9:3). That and I believe He simply felt compassion for those whom He healed (Matthew 14:14).
Wow. This is SOME kind of discussion. I have known and respected some Christians in very charismatic churches. I am not a charismatic myself but some of those I have known are good Christians and they do not endorse the beliefs described as Word of Faith.
I think even if you believe in miracles and healings and that God will answer prayers spoken aloud if you have strong faith, you would still see through some of what TV preachers say. The preachers talked about in this discussion give charismatic churches a bad name. I say defend the charismatic gifts and worship style if you want, but don’t defend the health and wealth preachers. Its possible you could persuade me to charismatic beliefs but never to follow those men.
Hello all, just a quick note. I’m terribly sorry for the delay in providing a comprehensive response to your several questions and posits. As you might guess these are fairly common objections … I’m very, VERY much looking forward to addressing them all.
However, this week has been far, far busier than I imagined. As I wrote earlier, we are in the midst of a national roll out. Additionally, new products are being tested in our Chicago lab and I’m in meeting after meeting with our teams this week. Too bad this wasn’t taking place last week 🙁
Please forgive the delay … I will provide detailed answers … and look forward to the further discussions they will encourage. Thank you for your continued patience.
Fire in the hole!
Cessationist Red Sox beat the charismatic Cardinals in the World Series!!
Health and wealth and prosperity in Beantown tonite, baby!
🙂
I must say I have come to be thankful for MacArthur speaking out against the abuses in the Charismatic movement.
I have spent the last decade trying to recover from the mind bending, confusing and abusive beliefs in the prophetic vein of charismaticism.
Those beliefs and practices nearly caused me to lose my faith and belief in God. I have not really seen anyone take on those unhealthy practices head on like this.
People can quibble about how it was handled, who should have been included. But at the end of the day, I dont care.
I needed someone to call what was wrong wrong. Doing so brought legitimacy to my loss and has encouraged me to be vocal about what I see as the continuing false concepts perpetuated by charismatics.
I believe these movements have wrought wreckage in peoples lives and lead them away from Christ.
I once believed what I WANTED to be true was. I feel as if a fog has lifted from my mind and I am dealing with a sober mind grounded in reality.
I do not now consider myself a pure cessationist though, but like CMP a soft cessationist. Which is to say I am still open, but I have not seen it or seen it to the satisfaction of the claims made about it.
Unlike my former self, the things that consume charismatic believers (gifts, manifestations, WOF wealth formulas, etc) no longer interest me as a believer.
To the average charismatic believer out there I feel a heart of acceptance, patience and understanding towards them. I think they are following beliefs and other people, and don’t really know any better. But for those who lead and teach the body in such matters, I give only one thing for them – Matthew 18:6.
Amen brother Brian, 100% share your view but my lack of communication skills prohibits me to put words to it. I will steal yours, hope you don’t mind. Admire your graceful spirit, not quite there yet in my process. The people in the movement I kind of feel for, but those orchestrating the madness I won’t even bother thinking about again.
Interesting how so called Christian doctrine can lead to bondage, darkness, while the intention amongst the followers is noble and good. Not saying it proves anything, but it certainly is not enough. It being good intentions.
So, thanks for sharing, and all the best in breaking free.
Churrs
So what was it Satan tried to tempt Jesus with???
Ahh yes that is right.
Health, wealth and prosperity….
Keep goin Larry!
Ken, thanks for your tenacity in finding the lost MSS, yes, the longer ending of Susan in the midst of this haystack! :-). You note that my concluding comments pass the tests of authenticity, including embarrassment ;-). I don’t think your comment posted on the thread but that has apparently happened to others here as well. You said,
” if you really believe God has impressed you to say something, but evangelicals can wrongly instill fear about this. I call this the prompting of the Spirit, and on one or two occasions this has almost been ‘the Lord told me’, but I have never heard a voice and would not talk like that. (I was once ‘prompted’ in such a way whilst praying to visit someone”
Yes, well put! I also refer to this sort of thing as a prompting of the Spirit. I think MacArthur would agree with this and has no doubt experienced this many times himself. He’s saying its wrong when people claim that God TOLD them something, something that falls outside of scripture, and thus qualifies as a further revelation. It is so common for people to say, “God told me____”. Of course this emerges from one’s thoughts, which are subject to any number of influences. If someone is in such a church environment where such statements are readily accepted to in fact BE God’s word, that’s where we can get into trouble. If it is God who said it then is HAS to be true. My question for one who makes that claim would be “Did. God speak to you in an audible voice? If not, it would be wise to refer to it as a seeming ” nudge of God’s Spirit”. I listened to the Grudem debate on prophesy and it seemed that he and the pastor from Cambridge were somewhat close in their understanding, but the big point of difference was how they defined these nudgings, as new revelation ( with allowance for error) Grudem, or NOT as new revelation because that would then be a word that would “bind ones conscience”‘ as does scripture. I think this is where the discussion needs to be…
Everyone, this interview of MacArthur by Tim Challies is well worth the read. Challies collected top questions and critiques of readers to the Strange Fire conference and presented them to MacArthur who then addressed them. Well worth the read.
http://www.challies.com/interviews/john-macarthur-answers-his-critics