[BBC List] the fringe

[Mike Abendroth]

THE PROSPERITY MOVEMENT:
Wounded Charismatics
by
Roger L. Smalling, D.Min
Table of Contents
Chapter One:  The "God" In the Mirror...6
Chapter Two: Faith or Fiction  ...14
Chapter Three: Sovereignty and Suffering  ...20
Chapter Four: Origins of Word of Faith ...34
Chapter Five:  Positive Confession  ...40
Chapter Six: Wounded Faith ...48
Chapter Seven: Even As Thy Soul Prospereth  ...54
Chapter Eight: As Rich As Abraham  ...64
Chapter Nine: Sufficiency, Yes!  ...71
Chapter Ten: The Jesus Died Spiritually Heresy  ...79
Chapter Eleven: Job And The Kingdom  ...89
Chapter Twelve: The Psychology Behind The Word Movement  ...95
Chapter Thirteen: Denying the Symptoms: Is it valid? ...101
Chapter Fourteen: Did Jesus Heal Them All?  ...111
Chapter Fifteen: How To Grow In Faith  ...118
Appendix A: Comparative Chart, Word of Faith vs Bible  ...124
Appendix B: On "Divine Nature" 2Pe.1:3-4  ...126
Appendix C:150 Verses That Word-Faith Cultists Don't Like To Hear...127
Bibliography: ...137Preface
Jason drove away from the Bible school in despair. He had invested his life,
money and faith in the teachings of the school.
He had watched a fellow student die the week before from dysentery, an
easily curable disease.The unfortunate student, motivated by the teachings
of the Word of Faith school, had not resorted to medical treatment. 
Jason still believed in God. He simply did not want to pray to him. In
Jason's mind, he was not abandoning God, for God had abandoned him. His
Bible lay closed in a corner of the car as he headed home to attend a state
university. He had decided on a career that did not include gospel ministry.

I met Jason at the university. He was a fellow student in an educational
psychology course. We got acquainted through a mutual interest in good
Mexican food. 
During lunch one day, I asked Jason if he was a Christian. He replied yes,
though he had not read the Bible in three years nor attended church and had
no plans for doing so. He then related the above story.
Jason did not know I had just finished writing the manuscript for this book.
I gave him a copy and it changed his life. 
Today Jason is a public school teacher and a member of a sound evangelical
church. God had not abandoned him. He realizes now the true God had
delivered him from the false one, taught at the Word of Faith school. 
The last time I saw Jason, he told me a really funny joke and was laughing.
I had not seem him laugh much before. 
If you are looking for ammunition against the Charismatic movement, put this
book down. It is not for you. Likewise if you are looking to support the
view that spiritual gifts and miracles no longer exist.
I am not a cessationist, (one who believes gifts and miracles of the Spirit
ceased after the Apostolic age.) I believe New Testament spiritual gifts
exist today, though not necessarily for the same purposes nor in the same
way as sometimes taught in Charismatic circles. 
This is vital to clarify, because a common defense by the prosperity
teachers against critics, is that we are "against the Holy Spirit" or
"against spiritual gifts." I am against none of these. I am against false
gods, false christs and false prophets.
The Charismatic movement initially had commendable aspects. Asking God for
fresh empowering of the Holy Spirit and earnestly desiring spiritual gifts
to edify the church, is laudable. Scripture, in fact, commands it.
The movement tended to be a well-deserved rebuke to older and colder
denominations. It was a fresh reminder of my own duty as a minister to pray
for the sick...with occasional dramatic results.
A great reverence for the Word of God also characterized much of the
movement. While some Charismatics mistakenly thought of the Bible as a magic
wand to get what they want, some traditional denominations did not seem to
think about the Bible at all. 
Fresh enthusiasm in worship is another praiseworthy by-product of the
Charismatic movement. Personally, I was getting tired of "climbing Jacob's
ladder." Many fine worship songs in traditional churches today were born out
of the movement.
What I do NOT appreciate is the manner in which large sectors of the
Charismatic movement have been hijacked by a bizarre gnostic cult, known
variously as The Prosperity Movement, Word of Faith or Faith Movement.
I appreciate even less the psychological and spiritual damage done to many
former adherents of the movement who have crashed into the wall of reality.
Perhaps these are the lucky ones. Thousands of others are still unaware they
may be worshiping a false god and a false christ through revelations of
false prophets.
This book is not intended as ammunition, but as a tool of mercy. I want it
to help those whose faith has been injured by the Faith Movement and
deliverance to those still involved, before they too crash into the wall of
reality.About The Author
Dr. Roger Smalling and his wife Dianne are missionaries to Latin America
with the Presbyterian Church In America, a theologically conservative branch
of the Reformed movement. He is director of "Visión R.E.A.L", (Reformación
En América Latina), dedicated to training Latin American Christians in
principles of biblical leadership and sound theology. 
He is author of a popular book in Spanish, Si, Jesús, on the subject of
God's grace. He is also a professor with Miami International Seminary, which
shares his vision for a Latin America reformation.
The Smallings travel extensively throughout Latin America, holding seminars
and conferences in churches of various denominations.
Study guides, essays and courses written by the Smallings, are available on
their website in both Spanish and English at: 
www.Smallings.com.
CHAPTER ONE
The "God" In The Mirror
Pagan religions have a typical way of reconciling God and man. They split
the difference by reducing God to more like a human and exalting man to the
status of a god. Mythology, whether ancient or modern, invariably diminishes
God to less than what he is, and exalts man to more than what he is.
To the Greeks and Romans, Zeus was king of the gods. He was similar to a
very big man, powerful, but neither infinite nor omniscient. He could be
fooled. These gods displayed all the foibles of human nature... jealousy,
greed and fighting amongst themselves.
In typical pagan mythology, some gods were previously humans, ultimately
deified by gaining the favor of a god, or by drinking the divine elixir,
ambrosia. Some humans were exalted after death to became stellar
constellations.
The Apostle Paul referred to this reduction-exaltation process in Romans
1:22-23:
	Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23) and
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal
man and birds and animals and reptiles. 
Christian revelation, in contrast, brings man and God together in a
relationship, while leaving both intact. The meeting point between God and
man in Christianity is a mutual righteousness... the righteousness of
Christ, credited to the believer's account through faith in Jesus (Romans
3&4). No change in quality of existence or essence of being takes place in
either God or man. 
In the gospel, God remains the sovereign, infinite, all powerful being the
Scriptures portray Him to be. Man remains a dependant created being.
Kenneth Copeland describes God as:
	A being that stands somewhere around 6' 2", 6' 3" that weighs
somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds or a little
better, has a hand span of 9 inches across
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn1
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Copeland exceeds the ancient Greeks in bringing man and God together.
Referring to the creation of man, Copeland adds,
     
	God and Adam looked exactly alike.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn2
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Even Zeus was not exactly like a man. 
Does God have a body?
Sometimes children, or new converts, have a humanistic view of God. They may
picture him as an enormous heavenly grandfather sitting on a throne. While
such mental imagery is inaccurate, it is not dangerous as long as a
Christian eventually grows out of it.
In theology, the notion that God has a body is called "anthropomorphism,"
from two Greek words: anthropos= man, and morphos= form. Varieties of
anthropomorphism range from the Mormon idea of a physical body, to the more
benign view that God has a spiritual body shaped like a human. 
All Word of Faith teachers hold to some form of anthropomorphism,  though
they differ among themselves. Hinn, for example, does not endorse Copeland's
views, although his own thinking is strongly anthropomorphic. 
	...Do you know that the Holy Spirit has a soul and a body separate
from that of Jesus and the Father? ......God the Father is a separate
individual from the Son and the Holy Ghost, who is a triune being who walks
in a spirit body and He has hair...has eyes...has a mouth...has hands"
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn3
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Though Hinn's concept of a Trinity with spirit-bodies falls short of
biblical orthodoxy, at least he does not endorse Copeland's extreme
anthropomorphism.
The danger in anthropomorphism, is that it leads to a denial of the three
central attributes of God: All mighty (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient)
and infinite (omnipresent.) Scholars call these three qualities,
"incommunicable attributes," because we finite creatures do not share them
in common with God. 
Whatever the nature of a body, whether physical or spiritual, it cannot
possess any of these three qualities. A body, by definition, is limited. If
God has a body, he cannot be infinite. If not infinite, then not
omnipresent, etc.
If God has a body, even a very large spiritual one, then compared with
infinity, he must be infinitely small also. I have never met an
anthropomorphist willing to say God is infinitely small. Instead, the
contradiction is ignored.
Little gods 
While reducing God to a big human is theological disaster, equally serious
is exalting man to a little god.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn4
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Earl Paulk says,
	Adam and Eve were placed in the world as the seed and expression of
God. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, so God has little
gods; ... Until we comprehend that we are little gods, we cannot manifest
the kingdom of God http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn5
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
So, in Word of Faith thinking, created in the image of God implies being a
duplicate of God. 
Do these teachers also confuse the difference between a mirror and a man?
When I shave in the morning am I looking in the mirror at flesh and shaving
cream? Not really. I'm looking at polished glass. It reflects what I am but
does not bleed when I cut my cheek. 
The notion of equality with God did not originate with Copeland or Paulk.
Their mentor, Kenneth Hagin, taught, 
	Man...was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand
in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority...God has made us
as much like Himself as possible...He made us the same class of being that
He is Himself...Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms equal with
God...The believer is called Christ...That's who we are; we're Christ!
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn6
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Here, Hagin makes no effort to define God. It's unnecessary. If Adam stood
in God's presence on equal terms, with no sense of inferiority, then this
alone reveals Hagin's concept of God's essence and Being. 
The Bible, of course, teaches nothing of the kind. In Genesis we see God
walking in the garden and communing with Adam. Is this sufficient to suggest
Adam and God were equals? Hardly! If Adam were an equal, why did he try to
hide from God when he sinned? He could have created his own universe and
escaped. 
Back to the garden
Let's go back to the Garden of Eden and see where the truth lies.
Genesis never deifies Adam. How can we have something restored which never
existed in the first place? If Adam had deity by any definition, why would
Satan bother to offer to make Adam and Eve, "as gods"? Eve would have
replied, "No thanks, we already have some."
Yes, there is a promise in the Bible that we can become gods. But notice who
made the promise. SATAN! And he is still making the same vain promise today.
But the Lord God says,
	Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. Is.
43:10
	I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.
Is.45:5
In Word of Faith mythology, Adam lost his privileges and status as a god.
Man recuperates them through conversion to Christ. Benny Hinn explains,
	Christians are little messiahs. Christians are little
gods.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn7
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html>  
In case we assume Hinn is speaking figuratively, notice these quotes:
	Are you a child of God? Then you're divine! Are you a child of God?
Then you're not human! http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn8
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
	I am a little messiah walking on earth,..... You are a little god on
earth running around. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn9
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> Christians are little
messiahs. Christians are little
gods.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn10
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html>  
It seems these teachers are not saying every human being is a god. Only
Christians are gods. Copeland adds,
	Every Christian is a god. ... You don't have a God in you; you are
one. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn11
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Before Copeland, his mentor Kenneth Hagin taught, 
	You are as much the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ was...the
believer is as much the incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn12
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Copeland parrots this error, 
	Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn13
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Both Hagin and Copeland disregard the importance of the term "only begotten"
in Jn.3:16. This word sets apart the sonship of Jesus as distinct from our
own. 
Not only do these teachers confuse "image" with "duplicate," they also
confound union with Christ with identity as Christ.
We are adopted children (Romans 8). Jesus was never adopted because he was
in the family (the Trinity) from all eternity. It borders on blasphemy to
apply the word "incarnation" to a mere human. 
Paul Crouch and the TBN Network
The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), is the biggest religious television
network in history. Founder Paul Crouch is close friends with Hagin,
Copeland, Hinn and other Word of Faith teachers. Crouch exclaims,
	Christians are little
gods.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn14
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
	God draws no distinction between Himself and us. God opens up the
union of the very godhead (Trinity), and brings us into
it.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn15
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Declaring no distinction between God and us is pretty radical. If Crouch is
referring to the God of the Bible, he should conclude Christians are
omnipresent, omniscient, all-mighty and perfect. Either that, or he is
referring to some other god. 
In the Bible, our union with Christ is through the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. "Union" does not
mean "deify."
We would think Crouch and friends would hesitate to make such claims on
public television. He must have known he would draw criticism. His reaction?
	Do you know what else that's settled then tonight? This hue and cry
and controversy that has been spawned by the devil to try to bring
dissension within the body of Christ that we are gods. I am a little god. I
have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in covenant relation. I am a little
god. Critics be gone!" http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn16
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Crouch thinks the devil is behind the criticism he and his friends have
drawn though calling themselves gods. The critics should be silenced. In
Crouch's mind, he is proclaiming self-evident truth.
His complaint did not silence the critics. Five years later, Crouch blasts
them again with:
	I think they're damned and on their way to hell and I don't think
there's any redemption for them...the heresy hunters that want to find a
little mote of illegal doctrine in some Christian's eye and pluck that
little mote out of their eye when they've got the whole forest in their own
lives and in their own eyes. I say to hell with you! ...Oh hallelujah. Get
out of God's way, quit blocking God's bridges or God's gonna shoot you if I
don't! http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn17
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Apparently it is a "little mote" to redefine the Christian God. Those who
disagree are damned with no hope of redemption. Crouch thinks they deserve
that God should annihilate them. 
Defending his Word of Faith friends, Crouch continues, 
	... if you want to criticize Ken Copeland for his preaching on
faith, or Dad Hagin. Get out of my life! I don't even want to talk to you or
hear you. I don't want to see your ugly face! Get out of my face in Jesus'
name. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn18
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
It is understandable we may say things we regret in a fit of frustration.
We all offend in many ways. To date, there have been no expressions of
regret from Crouch or his friends, nor a whisper of retraction of these
teachings. 
In paganism, a progression takes place. First, a human is like a god. Then
he is part god. Then he is a god. The final stage is, he thinks he is God
Himself.
Word of Faith teachers stop short of this last stage. None of them have ever
suggested they are God himself. They come close to it, however, by claiming
a union with Christ so intimate that the demarcation between themselves and
Christ is blurred. 
By union with Christ, they mean a mixing of divine essences, not just
personal relationship. Benny Hinn declares,
	When I stand in Christ - I am one with Him; united to Him; one
spirit with Him. I am not, hear me, I AM NOT PART OF HIM, I AM HIM! THE WORD
HAS BECOME FLESH IN ME! ...When my hand touches someone, it's the hand of
Jesus touching somebody. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html -
_edn19 <http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
	I [Jesus] loved you enough to become one of ya! And I love you
enough to make you one of me!" http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html
- _edn20 <http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
We would hope Hinn is speaking figuratively, but it does not sound like it.
He confuses relationship with Christ, with mixture of divine essence.
	Are you ready for some real revelation knowledge....you are God.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn21
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
It is possible Hinn meant to say, "you are A god." Hopefully he was not at
this moment digressing toward the final stage of paganism. 
Conclusions
It looks like the Word of Faith teachers have taken the pagan route in
bringing man and God together. Their "god" is not even as big as Zeus.
If we thought these Word of Faith teachers were merely immature in their
doctrine of God, we would be less alarmed. This is not the case. For three
decades they have paraded their teachings openly. Biblical scholars have
tried to reason with them. Books have refuted their pagan doctrines. They
have ignored every rebuke, refused every correction, disregarded sound
scholarship and cursed those who have tried to help them.
Is there anything worse than worshiping a false god? Possibly. It would be
for a person to imagine he is a god himself. Word of Faith teachers do both.

So be careful about sipping from the fountain of their teachings. The drink
they offer is not ambrosia. It will not make you a god. It is deadly poison.
>From this chapter we learn:
*   Word of Faith teachers replicate pagan thinking by redefining the
Christian God as less than what the scriptures reveal him to be and granting
divine status to man.
*   Word of Faith teachers are therefore prophets of a false god.
*   The movement teaches that Christians are little gods, of the same
essence as God himself. 
*   These teachers confuse man as image of God with man as a duplicate of
God. 
*   The Bible teaches union with Christ through the Spirit. Word of Faith
doctrine teaches joining with Christ though a mixing of our supposed
divinity with his. 
*   Word of Faith teachers define their critics as unenlightened and
spiritually dead, worthy of divine judgment.CHAPTER TWO
Faith or Fiction
Near my house is a gymnasium where personal trainers teach body building.
Like these trainers, the prosperity teachers see their mission as helping
Christians develop strong faith muscles to control reality.
Faith in God is the whole point of the Bible. How could anything be wrong
with this emphasis? Nothing... assuming these teachers mean the same as the
Bible intends by the words "faith" and "God."
Poison in a milk bottle
Filling a milk bottle with poison is not necessarily wrong. It would be bad,
however, to give someone the bottle and call it milk.
This often happens in theology. Teachers take biblical words, empty them of
their original content, add their own meanings and pass them off as
legitimate. Followers end up accepting ideas they might ordinarily reject.
So, just because a teacher uses words like God, faith, Jesus, does not
necessarily mean they are teaching the Word of God. It may be poison in a
milk bottle. 
Which faith?
	Kenneth Copeland: Faith is a power force. It is a tangible force. It
is a conductive force.  http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html -
_edn22 <http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
	Copeland:  Faith is a spiritual force....It is substance. Faith has
the ability to effect natural substance.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn23
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
These teachers see faith as a mystical force we manipulate to our advantage.
In combination with our spoken words, faith becomes a catalyst to create our
own reality. 
They do not see faith as simple trust in God. It is a mystical power in its
own right, almost like a law of nature such as gravity or electromagnetism.
Though not really a physical law, it is powerful enough to effect matter. 
We would be unconcerned if we thought they were speaking figuratively.  Or,
if we thought this view were uniquely Copeland's, we could ignore the
anomaly. However, it typifies the movement. Charles Capps,
	Faith is the substance, the raw material....Faith is the substance
that God used to create the universe, and He transported that Faith with His
words....Faith is the substance of things, but you can't see faith. Faith is
a spiritual force. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn24
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
In case we suppose Capps was speaking metaphorically, note the following,
	Here, essentially, is what God did. God filled His words with faith.
He used His words as containers to hold His faith and contain that spiritual
force and transport it out there into the vast darkness by saying 'Light
be!' That's the way God transported His faith causing creation and
transformation. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn25
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
 Copeland echos Capps on the power of this force-substance in the creation
scenario.
	God used words when He created the heaven and the earth....Each time
God spoke, He released His faith -- the creative power to bring His words to
pass."  http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn26
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
To these teachers, God has faith and depends on it for his creative power.
The prosperity movement sees this as a self-evident fact. In discussing the
potential of faith in the lives of Christians, Copeland refers to, 
	The very faith that God used when He
created,...http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn27
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Who made this mystical faith-substance on which God depends for his creative
power? If God, why would he be dependent on it? 
Where do we fit in?
According to prosperity doctrine, we have access to the same force God used
to create the world. As little gods, we can tap into this faith-force at
will and create the reality we wish. If we lack prosperity or good health,
the problem is our ignorance of how to control the law of faith.
Throughout the centuries, Christian theology has understood "faith" to mean
trust or belief in God. Whatever else prosperity movement adherents mean by
the term, it is clear they do not mean that.
Shock effect
Sometimes I like to grab the attention of my theology students by saying,
"faith, by itself, has no inherent value, power or merit. It is not a good
work and deserves no reward. In some circumstances, it may not even be a
virtue."
My remark loses its radical tone after explaining that faith is like an
empty box. It takes its value from its contents. If the box contains Christ,
then its value is immeasurable. What if the box contains the devil?
Faith itself is morally neutral, taking its value from the object to which
it is associated. Looking at it this way, faith may not even be a virtue,
unless it is directed toward Christ. In fact, it can even become a vice,
such as faith in a false god, or faith in one's own righteousness.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn28
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Faith is the vehicle which brings Christ to us. When a friend pulls into our
driveway, we think of the friend, not the vehicle. The relationship is what
matters, even though it would not take place if a vehicle had not brought
him. 
This is what I mean by faith has no value, "by itself."
So, if faith has no inherent virtue or power, how could it be a creative
force? Christ possess all the virtue and power. Faith is merely the vehicle
which brings him to us. 
Is faith a "law"? 
Throughout The Laws of Prosperity, Copeland portrays faith as an
indispensable law. We sow seeds of faith like a farmer plants a crop,
anticipating a harvest. 
This is true as long as we understand it as a metaphor for simple trust in
God's promises. If we go beyond this and make it a "law" in the sense of a
mystical force, we fall into serious error. 
Only once does the Bible refers to faith as a "law."
	Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay:
but by the law of faith. Romans 3:27 (KJV)
In context, Paul contrasts faith with works as the principle through which
God communicates the gift of righteousness. This has nothing to do with
mystical forces. The NIV translates the Greek term "law" as "principle,"
possibly to avoid such confusion. Scripture never portrays faith as a "law"
in any other sense than this. 
Faith in faith?
Hagin's booklet, Having Faith In Your Faith, became a milestone in the
development of the Word of Faith movement. It crystallized the central
concept that faith is a law to manipulate. 
To Hagin, it makes perfect sense to have faith in our faith. If faith is a
force we control, we should obtain more faith by growing in our confidence
to manipulate it. Hagin viewed this process as an upward spiral leading to
greater power. 
Hagin was right if faith is a mystical substance we manipulate. If not, his
reasoning is carnal self-dependence.
Grace out the window
[--- Unable To Translate Text Box ---]
The gospel is a "grace" movement, not a "faith" movement.  When Paul said,
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, it settled forever
the question as to what saves us. Faith does NOT do the saving. Grace does
the saving. Faith is merely the vehicle by which God's grace comes.
Grace means unmerited divine favor. If faith were a force or substance we
could manipulate, then salvation would be a work deserving reward. In that
case, faith could be excluded for the same reason as we exclude
works...precisely because it would deserve reward.
 The Apostle Paul clarifies,
	Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift,
but as an obligation. Romans 4:3
	Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace...
Romans 4:16
Why does he say, so that? Because he understands faith is not deserving of
reward, and therefore is the only appropriate vehicle of grace. 
How then could faith be a law, substance or a force we control to obtain
blessing? Where does this leave grace?
Prosperity teachers miss this paradox: It is precisely because biblical
faith is NOT a law, force or substance that grace comes through it.
Where does faith originate?
Faith is not a gift of grace in Word of Faith thinking. Grace contradicts
the concept of a mystical force-substance manipulated at our own discretion.
The Bible teaches clearly that faith is a gift of grace. Even though saving
grace comes through faith, this faith is generated by grace itself. This is
not circular reasoning. God is the origin of the whole process.
	 ..., He [Apollos] was a great help to those who by grace had
believed. Acts 18:27
	The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with
the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 1Tim. 1:14
Shorthand
Christians often say we are saved by faith. Do we mean it is faith itself
which does the saving? No. This is biblical shorthand for expressing faith
is a vital instrumental for bringing Christ who does the saving. 
A good example is when Jesus said to a repentant woman, Your faith has saved
you (Lk.7:50). He meant the woman's faith opened the door to the One who
does the saving. He would never imply that the woman's faith did the saving
without him. If that were the case, she need not have bothered coming to
Jesus at all. 
At times scripture associates two things so closely, that the one becomes a
metaphor for the other. Example: In Jn.17:3 and 12:50, obedience to God's
command is called "eternal life." The obedience itself is not the eternal
life, but leads to it. We would hesitate to call obedience a mystical
substance to manipulate in order to generate eternal life. 
Likewise in scripture, faith is so vitally associated with obtaining
blessings, that it may sound like faith itself generates the blessings. This
is shorthand for showing the importance of faith, not showing faith to be a
mystical force which properly manipulated, will produce whatever we want.  
Does it denigrate biblical faith to question the so-called Faith Movement?
No. Our intent is to give faith its rightful place, no more, no less.
Christ, in turn, receives the glory he deserves. 
The so-called Faith Movement is a misnomer. These teachers are not
exercising faith in any biblical sense of the word. It is a pseudo-Christian
movement of idolatry, egotism and narcissism. Idolatry? Yes. What idol?
Themselves.
>From this chapter we learn:
*   The prosperity movement teaches:
     -   faith is a mystical force and a spiritual substance.
     -   God himself was dependent on the force of faith to create the
universe.
     -   as created gods, man has the ability to create his own reality by
manipulating the law of faith.
     -   we ought to have faith in our own faith.
*   The prosperity movement does not teach faith by any biblical definition.
*   Biblical faith is neither a law, a force nor a mystical substance.
     -   Faith is simple trust in God.
     -   Faith is morally neutral, dependent on the object with which it is
associated.
     -   The gospel is a grace movement, not a faith movement.
     -   Faith is a gift of the grace of God. 
CHAPTER THREE
Sovereignty and Suffering
I glanced across the large audience under the tent. Usual crowd. An
interesting mixture of Ecuadorian faces, from toddler to elderly. A few
teens hid shyly in the back shadows, fearful of being noticed by their
peers.
Many had heard a rumor that the "gringos" were working miracles over at the
tent and that constituted the best show in town. Besides, they didn't want
to miss the free film we would show after the preaching.
This typical South American crowd had one thing in common. None had ever
heard a clear presentation of the gospel and most of them never would again.
Whatever I preached in the next few moments had to be simple and clear. I
started with: "GOD IS A GOOD GOD!"
As I proclaimed this, I knew those saved that night would face trials in the
coming months. We would need to help them through the lengthy process of
learning who God really is and what He intends by the term "good." I also
knew there are no short-cuts.
Do I regret using the simplistic slogan, "God is good"? Not a bit. If I
returned to Ecuador, I would start the next evangelism campaign with the
same approach.
When people begin to mature in Christ, they soon realize that issues are not
as simple as previously thought. Eventually the convert suffers a financial
setback, an illness in the family, or the loss of a loved one. The suspicion
enters that perhaps God has something wholly different in mind than was
first imagined. The convert learns from the Bible that God is Almighty. Why
then did He not do something about this problem? Friends tell him the devil
caused it. Does this mean that God has no control over the devil? Little
comfort in that!
Soon the local faith-brigade comes along and dutifully informs him that it
is his own fault because of a lack of faith. So it all depends on himself?
But "self" doesn't seem quite up to it these days. Guilt feelings come as he
wonders if he's starting to blame God.
In short, he eventually encounters the age-old dilemma: The Sovereignty of
God and the suffering righteous.
Is it possible to lay the responsibility at God's doorstep  while continuing
to love and trust him?
Part of the problem with the slogan, "God is a good God" resides in a
perverted definition of the word "good." Left without explanation, it
suggests a standard of goodness outside of God which He Himself follows.
This is nonsense. 
No rules are tacked up on His throne-room wall for Him to consult to make
sure He does everything right. If any standard existed independently of Him
then it would be greater than He. The will of God alone is the ultimate
standard of goodness.
In Genesis Chapter One, God planted a tree in Eden and called it "the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil." God forbade man to eat of it, and for
excellent reasons. Man's finite nature restricts his ability to define
correctly for himself what is good and evil. God alone has that prerogative.
We repeat Adam's sin when we presume otherwise. 
But before we address the issue of the highest good, we must not ignore the
question of whether or not God is in absolute control. If He's not, then it
doesn't matter what He esteems as the highest good because He can't enforce
it anyway.
The options are clear: Either He is Sovereign or He isn't.
There was a time in church history in which anyone who even questioned the
Sovereignty of God would have been considered heretical. Yet just today I
read the first chapter of a book by a very popular evangelist who
categorically denies that God is in control of this world. He claims that
God's hands are tied unless someone prays. Such statements are blasphemous
because the Bible says:
	...He does according to His will in the army of heaven, and among
the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His Hand or say to Him,
'What have You done? Daniel 4:35 
	My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure. Isaiah 46:10
	But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. Psalms 115:3
But what about the "free-will" of man? Can God control that? Let's check
some Bible examples:
Nebuchadnezzar
This pagan king of Babylon made three serious mistakes. First, he made a god
to suit himself. (Daniel 3) How typically human!
Man wants a god he can manipulate. Non-threatening. Easy to live with. 
But today people are more enlightened. Instead of using gold they simply
invent gods of their own imaginations.
Secondly, he used every means at his command to get others to worship his
sham god. (It's a good thing Nebuchadnezzar didn't have radio and TV at his
disposal. He might have succeeded.)
Thirdly, he committed the most serious error. He attributed the works of the
Almighty to his god. (Daniel 4:30) 
The true God called him a madman.
What did God do about it? He reached inside Nebuchadnezzar, and yanked his
mind out of his head...reason, free-will, and all. It left him a raving
beast for the next seven years.
Did God require Nebuchadnezzar's permission to do that? Did He need anyone's
prayers to accomplish it?
After the seven years, when God was good and ready, He restored
Nebuchadnezzar's mind.
What did Nebuchadnezzar understand about his experience when he came to his
senses? ."..and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven and
among the inhabitants of the earth: AND NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND..."
THE ANTICHRIST AND THE TEN NATIONS
Who is going to be in control of the thought processes of the
Antichrist...the false prophet, the Great Whore and the Ten Nations during
the end times? The Devil?
"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree, and
give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled." Revelation 17:17
THE ENEMIES OF JESUS
Acts 2:23, "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and
foreknowledge..." (NIV).
DID THE APOSTLES BELIEVE IN GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY
OVER MAN'S ACTIONS AND WILL?
Acts 4:24,27 & 28 ..."Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and
the earth and the sea, and everything in them... Indeed Herod and Pontius
Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city
to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did
what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." (NIV)
DID GOD CONTROL THE EGYPTIANS?
Exodus 14:17 "And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and
they shall follow thee; and I will get Me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all
his host..." 
 
 
WOULD ANY OF US HAVE BEEN SAVED IF GOD HAD PAID ANY ATTENTION  TO THE
INCLINATION OF OUR THOUGHTS AND WILLS?
Romans 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
John 6:65 ."..no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of My
Father."
John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me."
Multitudes of Christians today are worshipping a false god. They praise a
parody of the true God...the result of modern culture via the vain
imaginations of honored and confused teachers. I call this the "sham god" of
modern Christianity. 
WHAT IS THIS "SHAM GOD" LIKE?
His highest ambition is to exalt man's wonderful self-potential.
He waits humbly and patiently for the kind permission of man's free will in
order to do anything.
He depends on man's own self-generated faith.
He is frustrated in His plans by his rebellious creatures, having been taken
by surprise and helpless to stop them.
His hands are tied unless someone prays.
He is subjugated to a set of spiritual laws superior to Himself.
He rewards men with money in direct proportion to their faith.
He is not really in control of this world.
He is not Sovereign.
However accommodating such a god may be to human reason, He has one fatal
flaw: HE DOES NOT EXIST.
WHAT IS THE TRUE GOD LIKE?
The God of the Bible is Sovereign. He is in absolute control of all things.
"He does as He wills in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the
earth..." whether it seems agreeable to human reason or not.
Some say, "This makes man a puppet"! I reply that anything else makes God a
puppet!
Others add, "But this doesn't seem fair"! I remind these of Paul's
admonition: "One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us?
For who resists his will? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
Romans 9:19-20 (NIV)
Now that we see the Bible doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, where does
that leave us? Have we painted ourselves into a corner? We were trying to
explain how to answer the dilemma of the suffering saint without laying the
blame at God's doorstep. Yet we just proved that God does as He pleases,
restricted by nothing and no one. Doesn't this add to the dilemma?
In the short run, yes. In the long run, no.
The tendency to deny God's Sovereignty is a defensive reaction on the part
of well-meaning Christians. We want to get God off the hook somehow.
But consider this possibility: Perhaps God doesn't want to be let off the
hook. Perhaps He put Himself there deliberately. If so, we must be careful
not to let Him off because He might resent it.
  
A problem with getting God off the hook, is that the hook doesn't stay
empty. Instead we find ourselves on it!
Many Christians consider this solution quite acceptable. They suggest that
God has relinquished part of His authority to us, and that the answers to
all our problems rests with ourselves. His hands are effectively tied, to a
degree, unless we act. So, this wraps up the package neatly and we can all
go home now.
But a couple of knots on this package are loose, and I'd rather not go home
just yet:
If God has relinquished any part of His Sovereignty to man, we must
determine exactly which percentage He has  given up. Then we'll know to what
degree we can worship Him. After all, we surely don't want to give Him all
the glory if we are partly in control. That wouldn't be fair, would it? If
He has given 25% of His sovereignty to man, then let us worship God 75% and
man 25%. Or we can alter II Corinthians 1:25 to read "for by 75% faith in
God ye stand: yea, the other 25% belongeth to thee." Instead of calling Him
the Almighty, let's call Him the Almost Mighty. Forgive this sarcasm. But if
we must talk about dilemmas, this is a royal one.
The basic error here is in failing to distinguish the difference between
sharing authority and relinquishing it. It's like a joint checking account.
If you add someone else's name to the account it doesn't remove your own
authority to write checks nor are you limited to the approval of the other
parties. If you want, you can set it up so that the others need your
approval, but you don't need theirs. Perfectly legal and logical.
What a horrendous error to imagine that God has ever given up any of His
authority just because He allows some of His creatures to share it!
That's why truths about our authority in Christ are no grounds for
self-dependence. God controls the degree of our personal involvement in each
case. If you drop the pen, don't worry. He can still write the check Himself
if He has to.
WHO HAS THE KEY?
If the degree of responsibility is individual and personal, then it is
irrational to judge a brother as faithless for being poor or sick. Example:
A car requires gasoline to run. The car is not running. Therefore it is out
of gas. Sounds good so far. But wait! A car can stop for many reasons.
Perhaps the engine has failed...or maybe the owner doesn't intend to use it
right then.
So it is with our problems. Lack of faith could be a factor. But, on the
other hand, maybe the brother's faith "tank" is full. In such cases, the key
is in the hand of our Owner and He will turn it at the time and place of His
choosing.
God's Sovereignty must never be used as an excuse for a poverty doctrine nor
passive acceptance of illness. Few today believe the archaic notion that
suffering is intrinsically good for the soul. Or that we must submit
passively to every affliction. But some fail to realize that the opposite
view (that health and wealth are inherently good) is wrong. Both views are
opposing sides of the same false coin. Many Christians imagine themselves
full of fuel because they are whizzing down the highway. But some are just
coasting downhill toward a crash. Knowing these things makes it easier to
avoid judging our brother, doesn't it?
"GOOD."..BY WHOSE DEFINITION?
At the beginning of this article, I suggested that our perception of "good"
might be distorted. Most people assume that man's welfare is God's highest
priority. Then they define "welfare" in terms of creature comforts: Health,
Wealth, Peace and Security.
We are greatly deceived if we imagine there's any truth in these
assumptions.
Consider this: God created man knowing full well that he would fall. Acts
15:18 "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." He
foreknew that the vast majority of mankind would go to hell forever. Yet He
created man anyway. Why?
Romans 9:21 suggests the answer. "Does not the potter have the right to make
out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for
common use?" (NIV)
God's highest priority is to reveal His nature, not the welfare of man. The
entire redemption story, both in salvation and condemnation, provides the
background on which God displays His attributes.
"Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God:" Romans 11:22 (NIV)
"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God
should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
according to His eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our
Lord." Ephesians 3:10,11 (NIV)
C.S. Lewis brought out the striking thought that Shakespeare was wrong when
he said, "All the world's a stage and we the actors." As we look closer at
the theater we discover that the play is not about us, but about God. He is
the one on center stage, and we are merely the backdrop.
Grace could not exist without a sinner. Like a flower growing out of manure,
the very element that is so repulsive, produces the beauty. But can grace
exist for the majority? Hardly! If you do the same favor for everyone, then
it becomes general policy rather than a favor. A neighbor brings us fresh
home-baked bread as a sign of special friendship. If she did this for
everyone, it would cease to be a special favor.
Neither could the wrath of God exist without a sinner. To demonstrate
destructive power, there must be something to destroy. (Romans 9:21).
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WELFARE OF HIS CHILDREN?
Doesn't God have their concern in top priority? Yes, He certainly does. He
loves and cares for us and has planned our highest good from before the
foundation of the world. And He is determined to see us attain His best,
whether we like it or not.
Recently I was struck by the following comment in a book: "The ultimate goal
of sanctification is nothing." After recovering from temporary befuddlement,
I had to agree. Sanctification is the goal, and God loves us too much to
back down from it. Holiness has no further purpose than itself.
It follows, then, that God defines the term "good" in consequence of
whatever will produce holiness in us. All other scriptural principles are
subservient to this.
Considering this, it becomes less surprising that Christians experience
trials and sufferings. If anything could be cause for doubt, it should be
that believers do not suffer more than they do.
I have observed Christians who maintain a Biblically solid understanding of
God's Sovereignty. They go through their trials easier and rarely ask the
question, "Why did You allow this"?
What then are the options when we confront a serious trial? We have three,
and only one is right.
OPTION ONE
Accuse God of injustice for leaving us in a helpless state.
All spiritual tests consist in being apparently abandoned by God. If this
feeling were absent, it would cease to be a valid test.
Knowing that trials are inevitable is a potent weapon for going through them
successfully. Don't worry - this knowledge isn't some sort of dangerous
mystical confession that will magically produce the trials. Reality is
reality regardless of what we say about it. Peter said, "Therefore, since
Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the
same mind..." I Peter 4:1. He warned, "Beloved, do not think it strange
concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing
happened to you..." v.12.
Blaming God gives only a temporary and artificial feeling of relief... Like
trying to put out a fire by throwing sticks at it.
OPTION TWO
Submit passively to the affliction as God's will since He is Sovereign and
could have prevented it.
This reaction is almost as dangerous as the previous one. Exploitive
religions use such reasoning to keep the oppressed in subjection.
In Judges 3:2 we read that God left enemies in the land knowing that they
would attack Israel. Why did He do such an apparently mean thing? Because He
wanted them to learn how to fight.
Suppose the Jews had assumed that God was teaching them humility. They might
have just laid down in the streets and submissively let the chariots run
them over. They would have learned humility all right, but that wasn't the
lesson intended. Sometimes God allows the devil to attack the believer so he
can learn to fight.
I recall the story of a young Bible school student who suffered severe
trials for several weeks. Nothing was going right. Everybody was hassling
him. Constant depression. Then one night while alone, he suddenly lost his
temper and shouted, "Satan! In the Name of Jesus, get off my back!" Peace
enveloped him. The pressures were gone. And a Still Small Voice broke
through to his spirit..."Well, son, I see you finally decided to stand up
and fight."
Passive submission to every trial and affliction is both unscriptural and
dangerous.
OPTION THREE
Submit to God but resist the affliction, even though you know that God, in
His Sovereignty, allowed it.
Never in the history of humanity has a thorn existed as sharp as Paul's
thorn in the side of charismatics. Elaborate explanations have been devised
to prove that his affliction was not a physical illness...as if that were
important.
By engaging in such disputes, Christians successfully rob themselves of the
main points of the lesson. If God felt it mattered that much, He would have
made it indisputably clear. Let's observe some of Paul's instructive
reactions to this thorn:
First, he never stopped to enquire as to the source of the affliction. If it
was bad, he fought it. Simple.
Second, observe the way he fought it. It was with humble and beseeching
prayer. He asked God to remove it. He didn't command God, nor try to
maneuver Him. Nor did he try to manipulate it out of existence with some
special knowledge of spiritual principles, such as "confession." He had
better sense than that. He simply prayed.
Never try to manipulate God. Every time I attempt it, I get my hands
slapped. 
Notice also that Paul prayed more than once about his problem. Some have
taught that it's unbelief to pray twice for the same thing. But Paul didn't
think so. If my car doesn't start the first time, I try the key again until
it does.
Isn't it amazing the clever theological devices that Christians invent to
get themselves into bondage? Some people are absolute geniuses at making
traps to catch themselves in. Paul's approach to the problem demonstrated
that the ultimate outcome depended on his Sovereign Lord. Doubtlessly, if
God had told him that the answer was to stand on his head and whistle "All
hail the king," he would have done it. He was open to whatever the Lord told
him to do, even if it was to do nothing.
In fact, "nothing" is exactly what the Lord said to do. "My grace is
sufficient for thee." Yet even then, Paul didn't lose his holy aggression.
He reached out and took hold of the affliction and wrung out every last drop
of grace he could. Then he picked up that grace and slapped the tar out of
the devil with it. Most likely when Paul was through, the Devil was sitting
back on his haunches thinking that it would have been better to have left
that preacher alone.
Someone asked me how to tell the difference between a Satanic attack and a
Divine testing. Actually, it doesn't really matter. Since God is Sovereign,
it is always both anyway. God allows Satan to attack us because He wants us
to defeat him. If it weren't for the devil, the church would be lazy, and
Christians would learn little.
It distresses some people to learn that God and Satan can agree on anything,
but it's so. For two parties to test a third, they must agree on the
conditions of the test. The Book of Job illustrates this:
God declared Job's sincerity, while Satan denied it. This resulted in a test
of Job's integrity, with Satan being the immediate and active cause and God
the ultimate and passive cause.
The notion that Job's problems were his own fault, caused by his fear,
(quoted out of context from Job 3:25) is easily dismissed by Job 2:3
."..although thou movedst Me (God) against him, to destroy him without
cause." (No cause from Job's side of the fence). The only thing that Job
ever feared was God. (Job 1:1,8)
Not only does God affirm that the test was without any basis in Job, but He
also takes full responsibility for it. 
We see then that both Satan and God used the same events but with opposite
intent. The difference then between a Satanic attack and a Divine testing is
not in the means but in the opposing purposes. Satan wants to prove the
worst about us, and God is out to prove the best. So it's a waste of time
trying to figure out which is which. Just submit to God and fight the
affliction. "In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly." Job
1:22
The love that both Paul and Job had for God was of a rare and beautiful
kind. It was different from mere "natural affection," which is to love those
who do good to us. As long as the relationship is profitable, we desire to
maintain it. This is natural affection. When it ceases to be useful, we drop
it. Job's wife had this kind of love for God. It wasn't enough in a pinch.
She wanted Job to curse God and die.  
Natural affection is normal. Mothers love their children, husbands their
wives. But the difference between Agape love and natural affection shows up
the minute the relationship ceases to be beneficial. The opposing reactions
of Job vs. his wife glaringly expose this difference.
Sometimes the essence of a spiritual trial revolves around the question of
the quality of our love. We love the Lord because He does good things for
us. But in His Kingdom, this won't pass. He wants us to love Him for
Himself. This involves a mental rather than an emotional choice. In times of
testing this choice is made.
This sheds some light on ordinary trials. But what about genuine tragedies?
The loss of a loved one? A crippling accident? These can hardly come under
the category of "trials."
A tragic accident occurred during our missions conference in Ecuador,in
1981. A pick-up truck carrying about a dozen young people overturned due to
an error in judgment by the driver. She was going about 60 miles an hour at
the time . It was a miracle that no one was killed. But an eight year old
boy was permanently crippled in his right leg. The driver, a missionary
lady, was in anguish, filled with guilt and confusion. A few days after the
accident, she asked me the inevitable question, "Why did God allow it? If
God is in control of all things, why didn't He let me be the one injured
instead of the child"?
I knew the question was coming and wanted to be prepared with an answer. So,
partly out of my own frustration, I responded with another question, "Even
if God were to give an answer, would it relieve this child's pain, or yours?
No answer could ever replace the tragedy. So you might as well quit asking
the question. Either God is God or He isn't. Sometimes that is the only
question that He allows us to face." To my amazement, this brought
tremendous comfort to the young lady. Though the experience left scars, she
is a fruitful and happy missionary today.
Christians with a firm grasp on God's Sovereignty go through their trials
and tragedies much easier than those who doubt it. This truth has been the
bulwark of saints throughout the ages, and as we enter the end-times, we
must cling to it tenaciously.
Let no one imagine that because I proclaim these truths, that I am an expert
sufferer. I admire those sweetly passive folks who accept difficulties with
quiet repose. Are they that way by grace or is it really the result of a
natural predisposition of temperament? It's doubtful if most of my readers
are like that though. Personally, my disposition prefers temper tantrums.
To my chagrin, I discovered early that God remains unmoved by my protests.
He just continues the operation anyway, as though it were none of my
business. Apparently, we can add Tenacity to His list of attributes. He
seems determined to bless us with qualities we did not know were part of the
bargain when we accepted Christ.
I could have done better in the past. I hope to do better in the future. It
would be simple if we could only find a way to remove from suffering one
minor detail: IT HURTS! Apart from that, suffering would be quite tolerable.
I say this to clarify that understanding a few truths about our trials, and
how they relate to our Sovereign Lord, will not relieve the pain, nor answer
all the questions. It will still hurt. But at least it becomes endurable
when we understand that there is meaning and purpose behind it.
I'm painfully aware (excuse the pun), that the views I've shared do not
fully cover the ground any more than does the slogan, "God is a good God." I
would be the prince of fools to say they did.
So let's lay the matter at God's doorstep, where He wants it to be, and go
on with humility... knowing that He is greater than any concept of Him that
we could ever imagine.
>From this chapter we learn...
*   God is sovereign over everything, including evil. Though he is not the
cause of evil, it is under his control.  
*   Since holiness is God's highest value for Christians, he allows us to
suffer trials for our sanctification. Therefore, lack of faith may not be
the cause of sickness or financial problems
*   It is cruel, besides unscriptural, to accuse a person of unbelief
because of illness or poverty. 
*   Despite the philosophical tension between the goodness of God and evil
in the world, God calls us to trust him regardless. CHAPTER FOUR
The Origins of Word Of Faith
Word of Faith has its roots in a pagan cult that rivalled Christianity
during the first three centuries of the Christian era, known as Gnosticism.
The early Church fathers, such as Iranaeus eventually refuted and destroyed
it.
Various Gnostic cults existed, but all held to a form of Dualism. This meant
matter is bad and spirit is good. The Bible, however, teaches God created
both realms and called all creation, spiritual and material, 'good'.
Some Gnostics even taught two gods: An evil one which governed the material
realm and a good one, the spiritual. All, however, held that a series of
spiritual laws exist between the two dimensions by which both realms could
be controlled. Certain spiritually elite people were endowed with a special
"gnosis" or "revelation knowledge" by which they could learn to manipulate
these laws to their advantage ... even to controlling their own spiritual
destinies. 
A Gnostic goal was to attain to divinity and become a kind of creative
"god." This was through the "releasing" of his spirit from the material
realm through his special "knowledge" of the mystical forces governing the
universe.
Iranaeus, one of the third century fathers who combatted Gnosticism in his
book Against Heresies, comments on the spiritual pride characteristic of
Gnostics:
	They consider themselves 'mature', so that no one can be compared
with them in the greatness of their Knowledge, not even if you mention Peter
or Paul or any of the other apostles..." (I, XIII, 6)
	 ."..such a person becomes so puffed up that he ... walks with a
strutting gait and a supercilious countenance, possessing all the pompous
air of a cock! (III, XV, 2)
The parallels between ancient Gnosticism and Word of Faith are too striking
to ignore. But how did Gnosticism get transported into the 20th Century?
For this information, we are deeply indebted to Judith Matta, author of The
Christian Response to Gnostic Charismatic
Heresies.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn29
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> Judith is probably the
foremost expert in the U.S. today on the Gnostic origins of Word of Faith.
She is a graduate of Talbot Theological seminary and a first-class scholar.
In 1875, Mary Baker Eddy published Science and Health, thus launching the
Christian Science sect. The First Church of Christ Scientist was founded in
Boston in 1879. Eddy had adapted many of the early Gnostic concepts in her
writings, which included the denial of the reality of illness and matter.
One of the early converts to Christian Science, and a member of the Mother
Church from 1903 until his death in 1908, was Dr. C.W. Emerson. He founded a
college in Boston around the turn of the century called Emerson School of
Oratory. This was a prep school for boys, not a Bible school.
One of the early students of Emerson's school was a young man by the name of
E.W. Kenyon. Kenyon picked up some of the Gnostic concepts and incorporated
them into his own writings later on.
The terms, "Word of Faith" and "Revelation Knowledge" are found throughout
Kenyon's books. Positive rhetoric characterized his style and much of what
he wrote is legitimate. He exalts the power and lordship of Christ
skillfully and expounds certain aspects of the authority of the believer.
Unfortunately, errors abound in nearly every chapter.
His booklet, Two Kinds of Knowledge, is especially dangerous because of its
subtlety. In it, he falls into the usual Gnostic and mystic trap of using
reason to deny the validity of reason. Information derived from our five
senses, he terms "sense knowledge" and the correlation of that information
is done by logic. But "revelation knowledge" comes directly to our spirit,
bypassing both reason and five senses. Kenyon believed that since God is
spiritual, it is impossible to understand God or spiritual truth without
this special "revelation."
Through this, a dangerous and subtle error enters. If a person swallows it,
then the Bible itself comes to be judged by the standard of the "revelation
knowledge" that one experiences subjectively. Subtly and unconsciously, the
reader of Kenyon becomes his own standard of truth.
Kenyon forgot the eye which reads the Bible, the ear which hears it, and the
brain that correlates it are all physical organs. The Bible is a human book
as well as Divine. Bypassing the senses and reason inevitably leads to
bypassing the Bible also. Untrained Christians eager for supernatural
experiences can easily fall into Kenyon-style mysticism.
Kenyon died in 1948, but the Gnostic torch didn't die with him. It was
embraced by a young pentecostal hungry for the supernatural, Kenneth Hagin
... the recognized founder and leader of the Word of Faith movement.
Hagin praises Kenyon to the skies in one of his first books, The Name of
Jesus, and confesses his deep indebtedness to him. Hagin later passed on
these teachings to Kenneth Copeland. Through Copeland came Charles Capps,
Jerry Savelle, and others. T.L. Osborn also expressed deep debt to Kenyon in
a letter to Kenyon's grand daughter in 1972, calling an him "an Apostle."
Though Hagin based his views largely on Kenyon, he himself contributed some
interesting "revelations" of his own along the way. In the introduction to
one of the older editions of his "Art of Intercession," he describes his
eighth "visitation" of Christ. A spirit being, identifying itself as "Jesus
Christ," came into Hagin's room, sat down and talked for about an hour and a
half. 
During this visit, the supposed Jesus-spirit gave him a startling
"revelation." All the theologians in the past who taught that God was in
absolute control of all things were wrong. Hagin claims, "God is not ruling
in this world ... And God cannot do anything unless somebody down here asks
Him."
This "being" apparently forgot to do its homework before categorically
denying the Sovereignty of God. 
	Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth... Psalm
135:6 
	That the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of
men..." Daniel 4:17
In Hagin's seventh "visitation," the spirit-being told him not to pray for
his needs any more but to command the angels to get them. Again, this
"being" missed some key scripture. Our Father in heaven...give us this day
our daily bread. Matthew 6:11 In the context, the Jesus of the Bible
commands us to pray to the Father for the fulfillment of our needs.
Am I implying that the "being" who visited Kenneth Hagin and gave him the
Word of Faith revelations is not really Jesus Christ, but a deceiving demon?
Be assured, I am not implying it. I'm stating it as a fact. 
The Hagin hijack: How these teachings entered the Charismatic movement
The Charismatic movement took root in the late '60's and '70's. Sometimes
styled 'Neo-Pentecostalism,' it was characterized by a rejection of the dead
orthodoxy in some traditional denominations, in favor of a new emphasis on
the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn30
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
In its beginnings, the Charismatic movement was innocuous. Nothing is wrong
with seeking new fillings with the Holy Spirit or spiritual gifts. In fact,
we are commanded by scripture to do so. A fundamental flaw in the movement,
however, was the lack of solid theological foundations.
Charismatics had rejected dead orthodoxy. However, many failed to appreciate
the alternative....live orthodoxy. Instead, a mindless mysticism developed.
Hagin's teachings found fertile ground in the new movement.
Many Charismatics were middle-class Evangelicals. While interested in
exciting experiences, they were less enthusiastic about joining with
traditional Pentecostals. Classical Pentecostals were often from a poorer
less educated class. 
Charismatics were ripe for fresh teaching within their own sociological
context...a scenario primed for a Hagin hijack.
Though Hagin was the acknowledged leader, he was not as articulate as some
followers. His country accent, poor grammar and obvious lack of formal
education had little appeal to the middle classes. 
The movement gained momentum with the more articulate and younger Kenneth
Copeland. His book Laws of Prosperity launched him to Faith Movement
stardom, offering a new world view which filled in the theological gaps left
by an abandonned orthodoxy. 
Books by "faith" teachers flooded the market and the new Charismatics
snapped them up like starving fish after bait. Sadly, cash-flow rather than
truth determined what books appeared in the Christian market. Those with a
dissenting voice found it difficult to get their books published.
An even bigger boon for the Prosperity Movementcame in the 80's when Paul
Crouch of Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), announced the faith movement
was the route he would take in his programming.
Jim Bakker of the PTL Network and Paul Crouch endorsed the faith movement's
concepts, giving it world-wide exposure. Result: Gnosticsm, disguised under
the banner of "faith," began to root itself deeply into the psyche of
American Charismatics.
A Roman-American parallel
As with the United States today, Rome had been a prosperous society. In the
first three centuries as Christianity was taking root, Rome was in its
declining years. The society was rife with corruption. Established
governmental and religious institutions seemed helpless to stem perversity
throughout society. 
The culture seemed unable to recover the sense of strength and dominance as
before. A subtle but wide-spread insecurity permeated the population. In its
wars, Rome began to struggle harder to defeat weak enemies than it did to
overcome stronger ones before. We see this in America today.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn31
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
The middle and upper classes of any society, whether ancient or modern, are
used to controling their own lives. Under insecure social conditions,
optimism about the future weakens and their sense of control begins to slip.
This provided rich soil for gnosticism to take root. 
These conditions generate a psychological crisis. American Christians today
are subject to similar pressure. The dilemma: How to experience the comforts
of the gospel while maintaining the sense of control to which they are
accustomed.As in ancient Rome, this provides fertile ground today for a
gnostic-style pseudo-Christian movement like Word of Faith to take hold.
Religion which keeps them in control of their reality is the core of its
message. 
As a convenient byproduct, the teachers reap a financial harvest. Middle and
upper-middle classes have money and are responsive to the positive rhetoric
and fresh revelations. Everyone seems happy...except God. 
The influence of the Prosperity Movement has been partially stemmed by three
factors. First, the Assemblies of God, the largest and most influencial
Pentecostal denomination in the world, reputiated the Word of Faith
teachings in an official position paper.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn32
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Second, two books warning about the movement were published and became
well-known: Hank Hanegraaf's, Christianity In
Crisishttp://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn33
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html>  and Dave Hunt's Seduction of
Christianity.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn34
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Finally, the most serious blow came with the fall of Jim Bakker (PTL) in the
late '80's, and similiar scandals among American TV evangelists. These
events, however, were only a trimming of the branches and did not penetrate
the roots of the movement, namely Hagin and Copeland and their false god.
Though weakened, the tree still flourishes in the U.S. today.
An historical irony has occurred. The same pagan gnosticism which rivaled
Christianity in the first centuries, and which the early fathers fought to
destroy, has resurrected once again to infiltrate the Church today.
>From this chapter we learn...
*   The Prosperity Movement is a revival of gnostic concepts, translated
into Christian language.
*   These gnostic ideas were conveyed by Mary Baker Eddy and her Christian
Science cult, to Dr. Emerson of Boston. Eventually, E.W. Kenyon merged them
with Christian doctrines.
*   Kenneth Hagin embraced Kenyon's teachings and transmitted them to
Kenneth Copeland and others.
*   The Word of Faith movement found fertile soil in the Charismatic
Movement and virtually hijacked it. 
*   The movement's popularity can be explained in sociological terms.
Conditions in the United States today are similar to those in which fueled
gnosticism in ancient Rome.
CHAPTER FIVE
Positive Confession
		The entire pattern of nature and all of our life's
circumstances are controlled by our tongue! A powerful spiritual force is
generated within us when we speak positively, and this force changes the
world around us. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn35
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> The most impossible
situations can be changed by our tongue. If the wicked prosper it Is because
we Christians have said that they are. Even the salvation of other people's
souls depends on our positive confession! We can put curses accidently on
people by saying that they'll probably backslide. And when they do, it
wasn't prophesy, it was our curse that made them do it!
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn36
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
These statements are mild representations of the Prosperity Movement
teaching about the confessions of our mouth. As strange and extreme as these
are, they do not stop there. Charles Capps even attributes the Virgin Birth
to Mary's positive confession. She received the word of the angel into her
spirit and then it was manifest in her womb.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn37
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
Both Copeland and Capps tell us that Satan has insidiously programmed us
from our youth to speak death-dealing and perverse words. We must eliminate
them from our vocabulary because they "set in motion the blazing fires of
negative spiritual forces." What are these terrible words that Satan has
taught us to say? They are, "That just tickled me to death," "I'm dying to
do that," "That makes me sick," "I laughed until I thought I would die," "I
doubt it," and all other similar expressions. Perverse speech! Death-dealing
words! Contrary to God's Word!http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html -
_edn38 <http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
If we had grounds for suspecting that these men were just exaggerating then
we could ignore this teaching. But hundreds of groups are springing up
around the country called "Word" churches dedicated to these doctrines with
attendance in the hundreds or thousands. Adherents often isolate themselves
from other Christians lest their sensitive spirits become contaminated by
the negative confessions that the uninitiated might utter. This makes the
matter critically serious.
To support these ideas, the following texts are used:
Mark 11:22-24
"And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. 23. For verily I
say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed,
and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall
believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith.
24. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray,
believe that ye received them, and ye shall have them."
The most fundamental principle of faith is expressed in the last verse. We
must believe that God has already answered before we see the request come to
pass. This is the basis for a positive confession of our faith in God's
willingness to hear and answer us.
Positive confession is certainly better than negative. But without a solid
Biblical foundation, it can lead to a distorted view of reality.
The passage above was never intended as a blank check for whatever we want
or say. It is rather a very basic pattern of faith to be exercised whenever
God gives us a personal promise.
Notice that the text begins with the phrase, "have faith in God." In the
original greek, this is EXETE PISTIN THEOU. Literally translated it means,
"have a faith of God." Some of the older manuscripts add the word EI, which
is "if" and reads, "If you have a faith from God, truly I say to you..."
Christ is telling us that the first step in the process is to hear from God
and determine His will before acting. Some "Word" teachers understand and
teach this.
In the context of the chapter Jesus has just cursed a fig tree, and It
withered up. Curious Peter remarks about it in verse 21, " Master, the fig
tree which thou cursedst is withered away." As if to say, "how In the world
did you do that?" The verses that follow are merely Jesus' explanation of
how he did it. "Well, Peter, to start with, you have to be operating in the
Spirit, and not be impulsive. You must first determine what is the Intention
of the Father in the matter, and knowing that, you will have a solid basis
for acting in faith." Of course Jesus did not use those words, but a careful
analysis of the text and other passages on faith will reveal that such Is
basically the intent.
There's a big difference between the ordinary exercise of faith in our lives
and the special sift of faith which is given by direct revelation from God.
The latter Is referred to in I Corinthians 12:9 as a supernatural endowment.
In the context it Is clear that it is not meant for everyone at all times.
Paul says, "to another, faith by the same Spirit..."
The withering of fig trees and moving of mountains are not daily occurrences
in the life of the believer. By their exceptional nature they necessitate a
special gift of faith from God. Understanding this should lead us to a more
balanced position with regard to faith and the positive confession that
follows. Mark 11:24 is not a proof text granting us the right to anything we
happen to desire. The exercise of our faith is based on the previously
declared will of God in a matter. We can have whatsoever we say ... If God
said It first!
James Chapter 3
The super-faith proponents often use this chapter to support the view that
circumstances surrounding human existence are determined by negative or
positive confessions.
Verse 6 is a favorite Word of Faith text since it refers to the tongue as
capable of setting on fire, "the course of nature." However, the context of
this chapter, plus analysis of the Greek text, leads us to conclude that
James means something other than the manipulation of reality by the tongue.
The phrase "course of nature" is TON TROCHON TES GENESEOS In greek and is
difficult to translate. "TROCHON literally means "wheel," whereas "GENESEOS
means, "source," "origin," "birth," "existence," "life." Vine's Expository
Dictionary describes this as a wheel which catches fire from its revolving
axle and then spreads its fire outward, Just like the mischief done by the
tongue.
James is referring simply to the influence of our tongue with regards to our
relationships. He says, "therewith bless we God, even the Father; and
therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." Is he
referring to the control of our environment, or our health and finances via
the tongue? Certainly not! He is talking about relationships. If we talk
mean to people around us, this will naturally influence the course of our
life. We will make enemies. Our gossip might destroy others an well as
ourselves. Using James 3 to prove that all the circumstances of our
existence are controlled by the words of our mouth, in any sense beyond mere
human relationships, is to do violence to the text.
Proverbs 6:2
"Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth..." To quote this verse an a
warning against negative confessions to take it out of its context. It
refers, not to positive or negative confessions, but to an Injunction to
avoid indebtedness, especially with regard to being a "surety" (co-signer)
for a friend. The above statement in actually one clause out of an extensive
sentence which begins with, "my son, if thou be surety for thy friend, If
thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, thou are snared with the words
of they mouth..."
To resort to such a text to prove a positive confession doctrine is a
demonstration of its weakness rather than its strength.
What about this word "confession" in the Bible? Does It ever carry the
connotation that the movement claims? Some teachers are quick to point out
that the term in the original greek, HOMOLOGEO, is composed as follows:
HOMO=same; LOGEO=to speak. Thus, they say, it means "to speak the same
thing." So if we "speak the same things" that God says, we will have the
desired result.
Wrong. The word originated that way In pre-christian ages, but by the time
the New Testament was written, it carried the meaning of "to profess faith
in something or someone."
Out of the 40 times it is used in the New Testament, (in the above form and
in the emphatic form EXHOMOLOGEONAI, and noun form HOMOLOGIA), nowhere does
it support the view that the words of our mouth have inherent creative
power. Notice some New Testament usages:
Profession of Faith
Of false religious professors, Titus 1:16 Of profession of faith in Christ,
Luke 12:8 Of pharisees professing faith in angels and in a resurrection,
Acts 23:8 Of spirits admitting or denying the Deity of Christ, I John 4:3
Confession of Sin
Of converted Ephesian sorcerers confessing publicly their deeds, Acts 19:18
Of Christians confessing their sine to God, I John 1:9 Of believers
confessing faults to one another, James 5:16
Promising Something to Someone
Judas promising to betray Christ, Luke 22:6
Thanksgiving
Of Jesus thanking the Father, Luke 10:21
Not a shred of a verse exists in the whole Bible to support the Word of
Faith usage of the word "confess."
Two Serious Problems
Apart from the Incorrect application of scripture, there are two main
problems with the positive confession teaching.
1. Excessive Emphasis
The Epistles were written expressly to Instruct Christians in victorious
living. If this movement's degree of emphasis is correct, why don't we see
these teachings stressed to the same degree in the Epistles? We could expect
this aspect of teaching to be covered in detail if it were of such
importance.
Furthermore, we would not expect to see any negative confessions coming from
the Apostles. However, note some of Paul's:
."..but Satan hindered us." I Thessalonians 2:18
"For I think that God hath set forth us the Apostles last, as it were
appointed to death." I Corinthians 4:9
"Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and
are buffeted and have no certain dwelling place." I Corinthians 4:11
"We are troubled on every side..." II Corinthians 4:8
"But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much
patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in
imprisonments, in tumults..."
Responsible ministry will not teach people that negative spiritual forces
are released merely by the use of common idioms. The Apostles did not view
statements of fact about reality as negative confessions, nor fear their
consequences. Such fears are indicative of unbelief, rather than properly
grounded faith.
2. Making Universal Absolutes out of Particular Cases
Of the two main problems connected with positive confession teaching, this
is the most serious. Here is where people get hurt. As we have seen, "Word"
teachers consider the prosperity and health of the believer to be universal
absolutes. Every Christian without exception is supposed to be healthy and
wealthy right now, and God has already declared that this Is His will, they
say. To the, it is not only unnecessary but downright unbelief to pray and
ask God to reveal His will regarding these two things.
As we continue to see why this Word of Faith premise is untenable, we will
understand how dangerous it is for a person to launch out in faith without
first ascertaining the will of God for himself personally. Those who fail to
do this are heading towards trouble and pain.
A subtle trap resides at this point. Suppose It is the will of God for John
to become prosperous. Though he does not seek the will of God first, he
plunges on in faith, following the formulas in the books. The results?
Behold! It works! He assumes then, that it worked because the "Word"
teachers are absolutely right, and are teaching universal truths that
everyone can experience. He doesn't consider that it happened to be the will
of God for himself personally.
Now suppose he proclaims this good news to his friend at church. The latter
promptly goes out and launches himself down the same road. But for him It
ends in frustration and failure. He blames God, looses faith, and goes
through an emotional crisis. If he had sought God's will first, he might
have heard something like this, "No son, that is not for you. That was my
will for John. I have something better for you. I want you to serve in
India. And if you are faithful, I may count you worthy to suffer for My
Name's sake, or even let you water the ground with martyr's blood."
Shall we consider either superior if both find the will of God for his life?
The sort of gospel represented by this movement tends to make man the center
of activity and God dependent upon Him. God cannot act unless we say so. The
positive confession message is a gospel of works, not grace; faith in man
rather than God. As such it becomes a gospel of unbelief and not a message
of faith.
The Assemblies of God, the largest pentecostal denomination in the world,
denounces this teaching with,
	The positive confession emphasis has a tendency to include
statements which make it appear that man is sovereign and God is the
servant. Statements are made about compelling God to act, implying He has
surrendered His sovereignty; that He is no longer in a position to act
according to His wisdom and purpose. Reference is made to true prosperity
being the ability to use God's ability and power to meet needs regardless of
what the needs are. This puts man in the position of using God rather than
man surrendering himself to be used of God.
http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn39
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
As an example of the extremes to which the positive confession doctrine can
lead, we can take a look at a shocker from Kenneth Copeland on TBN network,
November 12, 1985. 
After humbly asking God permission to utter this "truth" he then turned to
Paul Crouch, the host, and asked him this question: "Do you know who the
biggest failure in the Bible is?" Crouch was at a loss for an answer. So
Copeland informed him. "The biggest failure in the Bible is God!" He went on
to explain that God was unable to prevent his creatures from rebelling
against him. He was really taken by surprise. 
But God didn't panic and make any negative confessions, because He knew that
you're only a failure if You say you are. So God, Copeland explains, fished
around for a solution. Praying wouldn't do because there was nobody to pray
to. Fasting wouldn't do because God doesn't eat. 
Then God hit on the solution: SEED FAITH! Yes! God would plant a seed
because He knew the law of seed faith always works. What was the seed He
planted? His Son Jesus, of course. Where did He plant Him? He planted Him in
hell where He suffered for sin. Since Jesus was in hell as a condemned
sinner in our place, as far as God was concerned, Jesus didn't exist. 
The only hope that God had was the law of sowing and reaping. God knew that
it always works. So when Jesus, who was in hell suffering as a condemned
sinner, was born-again by the Spirit three days later, He came forth with
power. Result: God not only got His son back, but He got many more sons
besides.
Yes, Copeland explained, God had faith. He knew that the law of seed-faith
always works.
The thundering applause and cheers Copeland received from the Christian
audience for this revelation, including from Paul Crouch, was nearly
deafening.
>From this chapter we learn...
*   The Faith Movement practices occult mind-science through a distorted
concept of positive confession.
     -   In occult theory, the mind controls reality. Words have inherent
power to go forth and transfer mental images of the mind into reality.
     -   According to Word of Faith teaching, a Christian should visualize
what he wants and then speak it into existence by 'positive confession.'
*   The term "confession" in the Bible carries two meanings only: The
profession of belief in a truth, or the admission of guilt. It never refers
to any inherent power in words.
*   The combination of errors in the Pr faith and positive confession has
resulted in some of the most blasphemous utterances in the history of
christendom. 
FOOTNOTES
9. Copeland, Kenneth; THE POWER OF THE TONGUE; Copeland Publications, 1996
p. 19.
CHAPTER SIX
Wounded Faith
The hyper-faith victim lives in a psychological limbo between the real world
and the fantasy world he tries to create with his positive confession. His
heart is in the right place, but his understanding isn't. Eventually reality
impinges at some point, usually through a financial or health problem, and
he smacks into the hard wall of reality. It hurts. He begins to experience
frustration and despair when the formulas fail.
Victims express their pain in different ways. Some feel despair. Others
become angry at God. They feel he has failed to honor their faith. One man
demanded God apologize to him for not keeping His word. If these people
weren't hurting so badly, this would be amusing.
When a person comes to this point, he is more open to understanding how the
enemy baited a trap and caught him in it. Yet he may not reject the false
teachings right away. Human nature has an amazing tendency to cling
tenaciously to the very illusions that do oneself the most harm.
My purpose is to help those who have been caught up in this movement and
injured by it. But since I've never been in it, I cannot pretend to know
what they feel. So I wrote to several former Word of Faith pastors who
graciously gave me some guidelines. My prayer and theirs, is that they will
restore confidence in God while at the same time liberating people from the
errors that caused their crash.
One former hyper-faith pastor, Eric Hill of Georgia wrote a personal letter
to me counseling,
	If you want to reach these people, you must let it be well known
that you pray for the sick and believe God for blessing. By so doing, you
take away their crutch. The prosperity people see everything positive or
negative, defeat or victory, poverty or wealth, sickness or health. Most
feel that they have no alternative between the Word of Faith movement and
traditional bondage and unbelief. You must show that disagreement with
Copeland's gospel does not necessitate returning to a poverty and defeat
mentality. As a former slave of this deception, I know that many would turn
from it if only they were brought face to face with the truth by a person
living in victory.
	Let's remember that Word of Faith leaders have no corner on the
market when it comes to blessings and miracles. Many missionaries and
ministers have lived by faith and held healing campaigns without the
hyper-faith teachings. So the question we are dealing with has nothing to do
with experience, but with right and wrong doctrine.
So, Guideline Number One Is:
Realize that we can reject hyper-faith error while still believing in
healing and divine supply.
Some feel uncomfortable discussing controversial doctrines. But did they
feel uncomfortable when they first began to learn the Word of Faith
teachings? Are these teachings any less controversial now? Doctrine effects
the way we think, pray, and live, especially those that touch on our concept
of God and of His dealings.
So the first area of teaching that we must examine, is our concept of God.
If this point to distorted, then everything else becomes distorted also. An
architect once explained to me that If the foundation of a building is just
a half-inch out plumb, then the higher you build, the more the building
leans. At the first floor, It Isn't noticeable. But after many floors, the
half-inch grows to several feet, and the building i.e. leaning over.
Eventually it will crash.
A right concept of God is foundational to Christian living. Both the heart
relationship and sound doctrine are essential. One without the other always
spells disaster. But let him who glories glory in this, that he understands
and knows Me. Jeremiah 9:24
If you have been involved with Word of Faith, you might recall at first that
their God appeared wonderfully accommodating and pleasantly manipulatable.
However, this "God" has one distressing drawback ... HE DOES NOT EXIST!
If this sounds shocking, be assured that my intention Is rather to bring
comfort. We have every right to be upset with the hyper-faith god. God's
Word allows us to feel angry against false gods. We needn't feel guilty
about it.
This god is the product of our culture ... a sham god produced in the vain
imaginations of ignorant men, whose coming was predicted in II Peter 2:1-3.
Now let's take a look at some scriptures which deal with this essential
question: Is God absolutely Sovereign?
Job 42:2 "I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of yours
can be withheld from you.
Psalm 135:6 "Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth..."
Isaiah 46:10 "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure."
(An extensive listing of verses on God's Sovereignty is in the appendix.)
God cannot be manipulated via obscure spiritual principles. The hyper-faith
teacher is senseless who said, "I have learned how to get God to work for
me." One wonders what god he is talking about.
The True God understands that the hyper-faith victim was only trying to grow
In Christ and attain to all that he thought God wanted. The Lord is
merciful, patient and compassionate. If you are one of these victims
wouldn't it be appropriate to apologize to Him for worshipping a bizarre
caricature of Him?
This brings us to guideline number two:
Realize that you have been serving a false god, and repent
Now that we have considered the nature of the god of the movement, it is
appropriate that we also discuss the quality of the faith taught. Different
kinds of faith exist. Not all are good. The Nazis in World War II had great
faith in Hitler. The communists have faith In the worthiness of their cause
and its eventual victory. The Mormons believe in a humanoid god from a
distant star system who migrated to earth and became Adam.
Several examples like these quickly expose faith as morally neutral. Whether
faith is good or bad depends on the object on which it is focused. If the
object is defective, so is the faith. Thus, such a thing as evil faith can
and does exist.
The issue then is not so much the strength of one's faith, but the moral
content of it. Far better to have a little faith in the True God than great
faith in a false one.
This leads to a series of important questions. The answers to them should
help restore your confidence. Is the true God obliged to honor our faith in
a perverse parody of Him? Is He obliged to honor promises He never made? Is
He responsible for our misinterpretations of scripture?
This last question is of supreme importance. Never in the history of
humanity has there been so much Biblical research available. The early
church fathers would drool with envy if they saw the commentaries,
chain-reference Bibles, study guides, greek research materials and multiple
translations that we have today. Much of it is by well-qualified scholars,
trained to miss nothing of importance in textual analysis. But the faith
teachers tell us that today we have access to something far superior.
"Revelation Knowledge" has supplanted sound doctrinal research.
This generation has less excuse than any other in history for such
foolishness.
Who would permit an unqualified surgeon to operate on his mortal body? Yet
people will flock by the thousands to let an ignorant person operate on
their eternal souls! And when they end up hurt, it is God who gets the
blame!
Someone might reply, "Yes, but it seemed to work at first." Acknowledged.
But this is because the True God loves you and is patient and kind. He
overlooks our mistakes. This kindness is precisely what prevents Him from
allowing such error to continue Indefinitely. For those with sincere hearts,
(not just the greedy and self-centered), He suspends every legitimate
principle, if necessary, to get them to see the problem. God truly gives His
word. But He leaves us the
responsibility for rightly Interpreting it. ."..a workman who does not need
to be ashamed and who correctly handles the Word of Truth." II Timothy 2:15
Following chapters contain a thorough analysis of the texts used by the
hyper-faith teachers ... 3 John 2, Mark 10:30, Abrahamic Covenant, healing,
etc. Study these carefully. Pay close attention to the quality of evidence
presented. Form your own conclusions based on sound reasoning and scriptural
evidence.
Jesus taught that if we build a house on sand, it is likely to crumble when
the storm comes. Such is the way with faulty interpretations of His Word. It
is imperative for hyper-faith victims to grasp fully guideline  No. 
God is not responsible for misapplied faith nor erroneous interpretations of
his word
During Involvement with the hyper-faith movement, the believer views his own
faith as strong and reasonable. He usually feels sorry for those who hadn't
seen the same wonderful light.
The sins of spiritual pride and common fruits of Word of Faith teaching. Yet
those who have them usually fail to realize it. They think that they are
just being factual. Rare It Is to find an adherent who fails to manifest
them to some degree or another.
So deadly, subtle, and so self-deceiving are these sins that the sincere
believer must be severe with himself whenever he detects them in his life.
Frankly, I cannot see how it is possible to hold to the faith message
premises without living in these sins.
A victim of the movement needs to examine his conscience and memory. This is
necessary In order to receive complete deliverance from the wounds. Are
there people he has Insulted by accusing them of unbelief or sin because
they were in financial straits or illness? Has he used at any time such
standard comments as, "Well, If you don't want to believe It, stay poor
then"? Or, "It's all up to you if you want to be healed or not." To be
completely clear of arrogance and spiritual pride before the Lord, he should
confess these sins to God.
It might be helpful as God directs, to make apologies to those he may have
offended. God might use this to bring healing of emotions both to both
parties, thus, healing of relationships also.
After all, it hardly makes sense to accuse others of unbelief and
disobedience on the basis of doctrines that cannot be defended, does it?
Sure, the Lord knows he didn't understand and was only trying to help
people. Let's strive as Paul did. to have always a conscience void of
offense toward God and men. Acts 24:16
This brings us to our last guideline, one requiring courage and conviction.
It will open doors to emotional healing for the hyper-faith victim:
Repent for any displays of spiritual pride and arrogance while you were in
the movement.
One last important comment: As long as the believer perceives his
involvement with the movement as merely "unbalanced," his liberation will be
incomplete and the "peace that passes all understanding" will not be
forthcoming. How can we "balance" a false god? How can we "balance" a
twisted scripture? The only solution to reject the false and replace it with
the true. 
My advice Is to seek out a church which preaches sound reformation theology
while at the same time believes in developing gifts of the Spirit. These are
hard to find, but they exist.
>From this chapter we learn...
*   Faith movement followers live in a fantasy world created by their
teachers. God may mercifully allow them to crash into the wall of reality.
*   To be free, former adherents should:
     -   Repent for worshiping a false god, however innocently. God's Word
gives adequate revelation about who he really is.
     -   Reject the errors without abandoning biblical faith for healing and
divine supply.
     -   Recognize God is not responsible for misapplied faith nor erroneous
interpretations of his word.
     -   Repent for spiritual pride while in the movement.

CHAPTER SEVEN
...Just As Your Soul Prospers
	Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health,
just as your soul prospers. 3 Jn.2.
Rarely does a faith-message publication, however small, fail to quote from
Ill John 2. The prosperity teachers claim this verse proves conclusively
that Christians will always prosper in direct proportion to the condition of
their soul. Faith and obedience are the keys. To them, prosperity follows
certain laws as absolute as gravity.
Basically, the faith teachers draw three premises from this verse:
1. It is God's will that all believers prosper.
2. Prosperity and health are God's highest priority for us.
3. Our degree of financial prosperity Is an exact reflection of our
spiritual condition.
Have these brothers really found a spiritual formula and life style that can
make us all rich? If so, I'm willing to accept it wholeheartedly under the
condition that someone can adequately answer the following four objections
to their interpretation of this verse:
Objection No. 1 - There are no conditional clauses in this verse.
A conditional clause is the part of a sentence that states the condition for
something else to happen. Often, these clauses are introduced by the work
"if," as in the sentence, "if you believe, then you will be saved. The "if"
part introduces the condition and the "then" part Is the result.
Of course, not all conditional clauses contain the word "if." Sometimes it
is implied by the grammar or another word might be substituted for it, such
as "whoever" or "whenever."
Now, the greek language is very precise about this. Whenever a general
condition Is meant, certain grammatical constructions occur which indicate
it. But the phrase ."..even as your soul prospers," contains no such form,
and therefore cannot be taken as a condition for anything.
Jerry Savelle uses a strange line of argumentation to overcome this. He
points out that John 3:16 is a promise, and that it was written by the
Apostle John. Since III John 2 was also written by John, therefore it too
must be a promise.http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn40
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
He fails to notice that John 3:16 contains all of the characteristics of a
promise, while III John 2 contains none of them. The former uses the
relative conditional clause "whosoever believeth," with certain grammar
aspects (the subjunctive) which make the verse a promise. If John Intended
III John 2 to be a promise with equal force, no reason exists why he
couldn't use the same sort of construction.
The context also bears this out. In the very next verse, we see the same
phasing, but this time in such a way in which it cannot possibly be taken as
a condition for anything. ."..testified of the truth that is n thee, even as
thou walkest in the truth." John is simply stating a fact about Gaius, not
setting up a condition for him or us. This sort of clause is called an
indicative clause, because it simply indicates a fact, with nothing further
Intended.
Some have insisted that the words "even as" means "in direct proportion
to."6 This word in greek is KATHOS, and John uses it 45 times in his 5 New
Testament books. While the word might, under certain circumstances, be
translated that way, it is difficult to find examples of it in John's
writing. Normally he uses it to simply indicate a fact. Some examples are:
John 17:11 ."..that they may be one, as we are one.
John 17:14 "They are not of the world even as I am not of the world."
John 13:15 "For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have
done for you.
I John 4:17 "Because as he is, so are we in the world."
Prosperity teachers assume that because KATHOS can introduce a conditional
clause, that this proves that the final clause of verse 2 is one. But being
ignorant of greek grammar, they fail to realize that it is not the presence
of KATHOS that makes a clause conditional, but rather the form of the verb.
The above examples illustrate this.
No reputable commentary that I have examined endorses the prosperity
interpretation of this clause. Gray and Adams, for example, points out that
John had knowledge of Gaius spiritual condition via the visitors that had
recently come from him. This is confirmed by the following four verses (3-6)
in which he goes into detail about what he meant when he referred to the
prosperity of Gaius' soul. In verse 3 John says he rejoiced when the
brethren came and testified of the truth that was in Gaius. in verse 5, he
commends Gaius' hospitality to strangers. In verse 6, he mentions that the
visitors have testified of his love. In short, the clause, "even as thy soul
prospereth," is simply an acknowledgement of the report given to him by the
visitors from Gaius.
Objection No. 2 - The word "wish" is more properly translated "pray."
The Amplified Bible, the New International Version, the New American
Standard, and the New King James all correctly render the original greek
word EUCHOMAI as "pray."
Vine's Expository Dictionary also states that even when the King James
translates this word as "I would," or "I wish," as in III John 2, the
meaning still indicates that prayer is involved.
Since this verse merely records the prayer of John for his friend Gaius, it
cannot be construed as a declaration from God for the Whole Body of Christ,
nor should it be viewed as a promise.
The phrase "above all things" must also be re-examined. Barnes Commentary
says that it would be more correct to translate it as "concerning or in
respect to all things." He explains that the common translation "above all
things" would seem to indicate that John considered health and prosperity a
higher priority than anything else, but that this cannot be the meaning and
is not the proper interpretation of the original greek.
The New International Commentary, highly respected in evangelical circles,
also states that the correct rendering of "above all things" is from the
greek PERI PANTON and means "in all respects," and is not equivalent to PRO
PANTON, which would mean "above all things."
Therefore, the assumption that health and wealth is God's highest priority
for man is not supported by III John 2.
What then is God's highest priority? Paul explains it in Ephesians 1:5-6,
"having predestinated us ... to the praise of the glory of his grace..." The
glorification of Himself, not our personal comfort, is the issue. Whatever
it takes to bring about that purpose is legitimate with God; whether
prosperity or poverty, persecution, or popularity.
Some have asked me, "which is more glorifying to God: A saint who is rich or
one who is in poverty?" We could reply "which is more glorifying God: A
saint who is victorious despite his riches, or a saint who is victorious
despite his poverty?" The issue is victory, not economics.
ObJection No. 3 - It is a common first century greeting.
This epistle modeled after the typical letter format of the first century.
William Barclay, one of the world's outstanding scholars, points out this
fact by quoting from a pagan ship's captain which uses almost identical
phraseology at that found In III John 2.
Howard Marshall, in the New International Commentary confirms Barclay's
views in stating that the elder (John) follows the traditional custom of his
time by expressing good wishes to his friend, Gaius.
Of course, this fact does not detract from the truth that It is inspired
scripture. It simply explains why it is found in that form. More important,
it shows what it is not. It is not a universal declaration from God with
regard to His will for all believers. To construe it that way is to remove
it from its literary and historical context.
ObJection No. 4 - It is not a universal declaration from God for the whole
Body of Christ.
Although the Bible is a book for all of God's people, not everything in it
is addressed to every person. Paul's commands to Timothy to watch out for
Alexander, and to bring his cloak before winter, and his instructions to
Titus to remain in Crete are all a part of the Word of God. But many people
fail to make this distinction. In the case of the prosperity teachers, they
have confused the difference between an individual address and a universal
promise.
Neither the grammar, nor the context, nor the historical background, nor
reason supports the prosperity doctrine interpretation of the final clause
of verse 2. In the light of sound Biblical research, the premise that we
will always prosper in proportion to our spiritual condition comes crashing
to the ground.
Does this mean that III John 2 is worthless for Christians today, or that we
are all condemned to live in poverty? No! This verse has its place as an
example of the loving concern and prayerfulness that Christian brothers
should have for each other. How encouraged Gaius must have been to see
John's recognition of his qualities! How sensitive was John to the needs of
his fellow believers!
The Bible is full of promises from God concerning his care of his children.
It Is His ordinary will that Christians enjoy life and have their needs
supplied. But He does so on the basis of His grace, not on the basis of our
worthiness.
In twenty years of missionary service in five countries, my wife and I have
seen God supply our needs consistently. But never have we had to resort to
unscriptural and indefensible interpretations of scripture to stimulate our
faith. To me, the irony of the prosperity movement's view of III John 2 is
not in its falsity, but in that it is simply unnecessary.
Before leaving the prosperity doctrine, let's take a look at two other key
Word of Faith texts.
TEN THOUSAND PERCENT INTEREST
"Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my
sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this
time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers and children, and
lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Mark
10:29-30
"The staggering return of 100 times is our divine right!," proclaim the
leading prosperity teachers. "God is obliged to give us $100 for every
dollar we give to the gospel. And if we give $1000, then God owes us
$100,000," they say. http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html - _edn41
<http://www.smallings.com/Books/ProspENG.html> 
If these verses are a blanket promise for a 10,000 percent interest rate on
our loans to God, then it merits our thorough attention. Naturally, we don't
question the truth of the Bible. But we can question the interpretations
that some people give it. I was once exhorted to "Just believe the Bible,"
after a discussion on these points. However, to question a popular
interpretation is not disagreement with scripture.
There are three logical options for interpreting these verses: literally,
partly literally, and figuratively.
Since a literal interpretation is the one presented by the Word of Faith
movement, let us examine it first. By its very definition this requires that
we read nothing into the verse nor remove anything from it.
Prosperity doctrine violates Its own literalism principle at two points.
First, there is no mention of giving anything to anyone. The whole concept
of giving things to God Is absent here. Jesus did not say, "whosoever shall
give to the gospel..." He said "whosoever shall leave..." The parallel text
in Matthew uses the word "forsake." That means completely abandon
everything.
The same verb describes the way the disciples forsook their nets to follow
Jesus. It is used again when they abandoned Him and fled. They didn't give
Jesus to God. They forsook Him. Nor did they go to the Temple to give away
their nets. They walked away from them, and followed Jesus. There is no
thought of offerings to God of material goods. The offering Is rather of
one's entire life. The goods are to be left behind and forgotten.
Secondly, money Is not mentioned either. Only eight specific items are
listed that will be restored 100 times. Six of the are various relatives and
the other two are lands and houses. The choice of what to give, even if
giving were the issue, is not ours to make because the list is limited.
If a literal Interpretation is demanded, then we must also require that the
thought of giving money be excluded from the conversation. Otherwise we
violate the literalism principle. On the other hand, if we don't require a
literal interpretation, then we can't claim the 100 fold clause as literal
either. Here, prosperity teaching finds itself impaled on a dilemma of its
own making.
It looks like literalism has already run into snags. But there are others.
How can we literally have 100 mothers or children? What about the disciples?
Did they all cash in on this, or did they live and die as martyrs?
The clause, "with persecutions," at the end of the verse must not be
forgotten. Some teachers remain undaunted by this, answering that
persecution will only stay if we allow it to-8 We can speak to it in the
Name of Jesus and command it to so away. Positive confession will win the
victory. But we never see the Apostles practicing that view or teaching it
to their converts in their Epistles.
Let's look at the next option, partly literally. If we categorize the
relatives as figurative, and the lands and houses as literal, we have a
neatly wrapped package. But before we settle too comfortably into this
approach, let's ask this: by what authority can be arbitrarily divide a list
like this into literal and figurative parts? Certainly not on the basis of
unprovable, "revelation knowledge"l If any part of the verse is figurative,
why not all of it, including the 100 fold clause? It is poor scholarship to
make such arbitrary divisions. It's preferable to interpret the whole list
uniformly.
We have seen why a literalism interpretation is impossible, and that a
division in the list is unlikely. Now we are left with the figurative one.
Let's consider the possibility that these verses are meant as a hyperbole. A
hyperbole is a kind of second cousin to a parable used as a teaching device
in ancient times. It involves deliberate and extreme exaggeration to
underline the certainly of a principle.
The parable of the sower, for example, contains a hyperbole. Jesus taught
about the good seed multiplying 30, 60, 100 times. In the context it refers
to the converts won for Christ. But it doesn't mean that you will always get
exactly 30 converts in very place you preach. As a missionary I have
ministered in countries where it takes 20 years to get that many converts,
and in Latin America where you might get that many in 20 minutes. There are
places in the world where you might get none. Jesus was illustrating the
principle of the productivity of His Word.
The "100-fold" statements are similar. They express truths with regard to
God's certain care and blessing upon those who give up all for the cause of
Christ. It is possible that God may even supply 100 houses for someone who
does that. It Is certain that He will take care of that person and use him.
Christ wants us to expect earthly blessings for our sacrifices for Him and
not relegate everything to heaven. 
He wants us to know that any blessings we receive now are not subtracted
from our heavenly account. We will get the full measure there. That is the
whole point of these verses. In this, the prosperity doctrine is partly
right. This principle is the basic content of the verses, whereas the
comments about lands and houses, 100 fold, and so forth, are only the
packaging.
"HE BECAME POOR..." II Corinthians 8:9
"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich,
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be
rich."
Was the whole life of Christ a substitutionary sacrifice so that we can live
prosperously? At first glance it may appear that the Word of Faith people
are right on this point.
Though the proponents concede that there are other forms of riches than
material ones, the hasten to add that we could hardly attribute spiritual
poverty to Jesus.;He was only poor in relation to the world's economy, not
spiritually. So the verse can only refer to the guarantee of earthly wealth
for us, through faith in Christ.
This argument is valid if we grant as an assumption that the verse refers to
the entire course of the life of Christ. The whole interpretation hinges on
the meaning of the clauses "become poor" and "become rich."
The verb translated "become poor" Is an aorist participle in the greek. This
grammatical construction causes the word to refer to a specific point in
time, not of a continuous nature. If Paul meant to say that Christ lived a
life of poverty during His time on earth, he would have put the verb in
another form, (the imperfect indicative), which refers to continuous action
in the past.
In contrast, the clause "he was rich" is in a continuous form (this time the
perfect participle). Paul is affirming that there was a time when Christ was
continuously rich. Then a definite event happened once which suddenly caused
Him to abandon those riches.
To correctly interpret the verse now, we must ask ourselves two questions:
When was Jesus continuously rich? And in what did those riches consist? It
certainly wasn't on earth; it was only in heaven. Therefore, what happened
to Jesus in heaven to suddenly make Him poor? The Incarnation, of course. He
left His continuous eternal dominion, to perform the act of coming to earth
for us, that we might share the riches of that spiritual dominion.
Considering this fact, it becomes impossible to interpret the verse as
meaning earthly riches.
The riches into which we are to enter are not earthly. They refer to our
co-heirship with Christ, and our sharing in His Sonship, our participation
in His grace. This Is theme of the whole chapter.
Reputable Bible scholars confirm this view. Meyers points out that the
Aorist denotes the single event of entering into poverty, and does not refer
to the whole life of Christ. The International Commentary agrees that the
Aorist refers back to the event of the incarnation.
When clear evidence exists for an alternate interpretation of a text than
first proposed, then to the degree of the evidence, one must refrain from
dogmatism with regard to it. This is a key principle in scripture
interpretation. It is fair to ask that the prosperity teachers not be
dogmatic with regard to II Corinthians 8:9 since strong evidence for another
view clearly exists.
We recognize that God sometimes blesses believers with prosperity so that
they can advance the gospel. We have seen this even among our poorer Latin
America believers. These Christians sometimes undergo moderate persecution.
Some antagonists claim that they only follow the gospel because the
missionary pays them. Since God often blesses them materially the unbeliever
assumes that this must be the case.
Yes, we acknowledge that God blesses people and our converts learn that. But
we do not promise them that they will be rich, because the Bible doesn't.
When my wife and I mention to them that there is a movement in the U.S. that
believes that a person is lacking in faith if he is not rich, they often
burst out laughing.
>From this chapter we learn...
*   The Bible does not support the Prosperity Movement's premise that it
Christians should always prosper.
*   The Bible does not support the assumption the prosperity of a believer
is directly linked to his spiritual condition.
*   A text often quoted by prosperity teachers, 3Jn.2, lends no support to
these views because,
     -   No conditional clauses are found in the verse. 
     -   The word "wish" is more properly translated "pray."
     -   It is a common first century greeting.
     -   t is not a declaration for the universal Body of Christ.
*   Prosperity teachers use other verses out of context, such as 2Cor.9 and
Mark 10:29-30.
*   The Bible teaches it is God's will for believers to enjoy sufficiency,
not necessarily riches. 
CHAPTER EIGHT
As Rich As Abraham?
While discussing the Prosperity Doctrine in a restaurant with a Word of
Faith pastor, I commented, "I can't judge a Christian brother as being in
sin or lacking faith just because he is poor." The pastor replied calmly,
"But I can!"
His confident answer made me realize that he hadn't intended to appear
judgmental. To him, this was an obvious fact based on his faith-message
premises.
He added, "You see, the Bible says we are all the children of Abraham by
faith in Christ. Abraham was rich. So if we have lack, the cause is our own
unbelief."
If any truth resides in this, we must investigate it. Many desire to be
rich, and if God has revealed a plan for attaining it, let's find it. But
years of watching spiritual fads pass across the evangelical scene has
generated enough caution to cause me to research this doctrine thoroughly.
After reading about 40 books and publications by the leading "faith"
teachers, their position is clear: Via Abraham's Covenant, we have access to
wealth beyond our wildest dreams. Not merely prosperity, but more than we
can ever use. The only hinderance is our lack of faith, they say.
The New Testament truly teaches that we are Abraham's children through faith
in Christ. Galatians 3:7 says, "Know ye therefore that they which are of
faith, the same are the children of Abraham." But to be convinced of a
prosperity doctrine on this basis, I must publicly challenge the prosperity
teachers to answer these five objections:
ObJection No. I - The original Abrahamic covenant contains no promise of
material wealth.
The covenant is portrayed in Genesis 12. Paul quoted from it in Galatians
3:15-16 and called it that.
If we go back to the original terms as found in Genesis 12, we read this: 
	And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them
that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed.
Specifically, these terms are:
1. He will make Abraham into a great nation.
2. He will bless those who bless Abraham and curse those who curse him.
3. All people of the earth will be blessed through him.
4. He will make his name great.
The mention of material wealth to conspicuously absent. Paul said, "though
it be but a man's covenant, yet if It be confirmed, no man disannulleth or
addeth thereto." Galatians 3:15 It seems that the prosperity doctrine
"addeth thereto," which is precisely what Paul said not to do.
Objection No.