Texas televangelist Kenneth Copeland came under fire this...

[UnitedWithChrist]

How do you know what I believe about the sovereignty of God? You make a lot of comments like that, and it is rather rude.

I believe God is in control, but there are plenty of things in scripture that do not fit with the heavy deterministic lens that some Calvinists uses:



Having a Biblical world view is more important than the sense of certainty that comes from heavy determinism.

Where did God decree that? What do you mean by that?

Where does scripture teach that God has a decretive will and a presecriptive will? Some people's beliefs rely heavily on terms and concepts developed by theologians, rather than scripture. That seems to be the case of many, many cessationists on the topic of cessationism.


I do not agree with WOFers, but I do not think any of them would say there is no reason for human suffering. They would allow for suffering through persecution. As far as Pentecostal go, there are Pentecostals who would recognize that people can learn things through suffering sickness, who also believe in healing.

I don't have any problem with someone sharing all the promises and teaching of scripture regarding healing with the woman, to help encourage her to believe God for healing. There are plenty of scriptures on that.

But it is possible for someone to know some of God's thoughts or attitudes toward a particular individual and a particular illness if the Lord reveals that specifically to the individually. Whether that happens or not, we still have the teaching of the Bible.

That is rude of you to tell me what I believe. If you were an elder of the church and anointed her and prayed for her, I might be tempted to blame your lack of faith.

You are assuming a false dichotomy, that seeing that God has a purpose in such a situation is contrary to believing in healing.

The elders could pray for her, anointing her with oil in the name of the Lord. Scripture says the prayer of faith will save the sick.

This is your issue, not mine. I don't blame sick people. I believe we should encourage people to ask and keep on asking. Not all my prayers are answered instantly. Does that mean that I should not trust God for what I pray for?

I went through over a year of unemployment, doing a little small business that did not make very much money while I looked for something. I'd turned down a job at a Christian organization that required I make a vow, to the Lord a foolish one at that (impossible to keep all of it), so I was unemployed. I did pray for money and a job. It took me over a year to get a job. But the Lord fed my family and somehow kept us in a house, even though I went for months unsure of where the rent would come from. Now, I am employed and work from home during the current crisis. Should I have 'blamed myself' when my prayers about finances were not instantly answered, or should I have kept believing God for provision?

What about salvation? Would you say that if she believes the Gospel she will be saved if that is according to God's sovereign will, and otherwise not?

Like I said, I am not from the WOF movement. In the churches I have gone to that believed in healing... as far as I can tell... the attitude was that God can heal through doctors, natural means, and through supernatural intervention. But if you have a choice to pray that God heal completely or simply 'guide the doctor's hands, I prefer the former. I remember praying for a young woman in college, when many of us from the Bible study gathered around to pray, that when she went to the doctor, the doctor would tell her he could find no evidence of her problem and that she would be completely healed. She told me later that was what happened. I'd rather have that than God guiding a doctor's hands while they cut me open.


Maybe because you have (or have until recently) had some unbiblical ideas when it comes to believing God for things and for healing. You apparently weren't aware of the connection between healing and faith in the gospels ('according to your faith be it unto you' and many similar passages.)

'Word of faith' is a Biblical phrase from Romans 10, so that is not what I am talking about, but the group that uses that label tend to believe that Jesus died spiritually in Hell after His death on the cross. Many of them have a very extreme view about calamities coming from the Devil and not from God-- at least those who accept Hagin's view on it. Some of the fund raising technique are rather unseemly. If you say, "I've got a cold" they might jump on your case and tell you you are making a negative confession. Those are things I haven't heard in a Pentecostal church. Pentecostals tend to be more like regular evangelicals, sometimes with 'livelier' worship music. I've never seen a Pentecostal preacher tell everyone to come to the front who wants to pledge $1000 for the new building, but you might see something like that in a WOF church. Pentecostals teach that God provides for our needs. But in a WOF church, you might hear sermons about needing to have money so that rich people will respect you when you tell them about the Gospel. Pentecostals have their own denominations, too. There are some Pentecostals who draw from some WOF ideas, too. But I haven't read the Jesus dies spiritually doctrine from Pentecostals or rebuking people for negative confessions, etc.

Word of Faith is a subset of the Charismatic movement. There are a wide variety of styles in Charismatic churches, and there are Charismatic churches where you don't hear or see those WOF doctrines and practices I mentioned above.

Concerning "heavy determinism", can you distinguish the difference between your view and "heavy determinism"?

Regarding God's decretive and permissive will, these two are taught in concept, whether the specific terms are used. Your argument against the concepts is as flawed as non-Trinitarians who claim that the Trinity is not true because it isn't mentioned in Scripture.

"Decretive will" means that God has decreed something will take place, and it will take place infallibly. God can permissively decree something by simply allowing it, and God can actively decree something by causing it to happen, through whatever means he chooses to use, even means that are evil. He doesn't commit the evil acts that are the causes, though.

Examples? Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. Jesus being crucified on the cross by his fellow Jews. Assyria being used by God to punish Israel for their disobedience. In each case, Scripture makes it clear that the causes God used were sinful acts, yet the outcome was something he wanted.

Why does God allow evil? Because it fulfills his ultimate purpose. He could have destroyed Satan and all evil people, but that would mean destroying everyone. I believe he allows evil to convince the elect that he is to be feared and pursued as the only desire in life, and that the failure to do so results in destruction and misery. All mankind is learning this lesson now. Even believers learn it when they stray and suffer the effects of pursuing ungodly desires.

"Prescriptive will" means that God expresses his desired will for mankind, but this does not ensure that it will take place infallibly. For instance, God expressed his prescriptive will in the Ten Commandments, but that does not mean that mankind infallibly obeys God in regards to them.

Again, I don't care if these words are in the Bible or not..the concepts certainly are taught there.

And, I do believe God heals and provides for his children. I do believe the elders anointing believers with oil and praying over them is biblical. I do NOT believe that healing is a GUARANTEE in this lifetime. God knows what each person needs on their faith journey and he provides it. A proper theology of suffering allows for God to use this as part of the instruments in his toolbox of sanctification. Some members within the charismatic community deny this, including Bill Johnson. In fact, he says if you have a theology of suffering, to make sense of the fact that Christians suffer, you have a false gospel.

Regarding this sentence:

What about salvation? Would you say that if she believes the Gospel she will be saved if that is according to God's sovereign will, and otherwise not?

Anyone who believes the gospel is saved according to God's sovereign will. The issue is, what causes belief? My position is that God regenerates the person, giving him a new heart, which responds with the fruit of faith and repentance. So, obviously, if anyone believes, they will be saved in my worldview.

The difference between me and a free willer is that they believe man must dredge faith and repentance out of a cold, dead heart of flesh in order to be saved. THEN, and only THEN, are they saved. This view is called "decisional regeneration" and I deny it.

God gives a heart of flesh to his elect, who express faith and repentance from this heart of flesh. Scripture most certainly teaches that God chooses certain individuals for salvation. This is something that free-willers will ignore, and will seek to twist Scripture around, to the point where it really is not God who chooses, but it is them. Or, they will claim that there was something about them that attracted God to them, which is merit based salvation.

They will not believe the truth that God chooses and redeems specific individuals. They will always seek to edit the Bible in this regard. 1 Cor 1:26ff is a good example. It is plain from these Scriptures that God chooses specific individuals, and does not choose others. In fact, it shows that God chooses humanly weak individuals in order to display his glory more clearly.

 

[biker]

I don't think Calvin taught that, but I don't know since I don't pore over Calvin's teachings.

However, perhaps you can read Calvin's teaching yourself and see if Hank Hanegraaff fairly represented him:

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/christdecended.html

Calvin may have believed the teaching of one of the creeds, which gives this indication. However, I don't hold that view.

Joyce Meyer claims that God showed her a revelation that validated this teaching. She didn't appeal to Scripture. She said she saw "her Jesus" with demons all over his back beating him.

And, this is not surprising that someone from TBN would appeal to their alleged personal revelations.

Not my point!
The point I was making is there are false teachings in every sect, every known Denomination, and every idealism. So if we judge a whole by a few, we will find fault even with the "Absolute Truth!"

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Not my point!
The point I was making is there are false teachings in every sect, every known Denomination, and every idealism. So if we judge a whole by a few, we will find fault even with the "Absolute Truth!"

I could agree that I think every group and individual holds some doctrinal error somewhere. And, there are some areas which are subject to debate and are not central.

Some errors are fatal, though.

I consider disbelief of any of the following principles to suggest the person is not a Christian.

1) the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ (Jesus is God and glorified man)
2) monotheism or the belief in one God
3) the doctrine of the Trinity
4) justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone
5) the inspiration and sole authority of Scripture as the rule of faith
6) penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross (Jesus died in the place of the believer)
7) original sin
8) virgin birth of Jesus
9) bodily resurrection of Jesus
10) eternal reward of the righteous and eternal punishment of the unrighteous

These teachings are so central, that disbelief in any of these points compromises their understanding of the person and mission of Jesus Christ.

I allow that many new Christians might not understand some points here, though, and I realize there is some haziness concerning original sin because of poor teachings in the church on this topic. Plus, some real believers who are part of the elect could be deceived by cults.

 

[biker]

I could agree that I think every group and individual holds some doctrinal error somewhere. And, there are some areas which are subject to debate and are not central.

Some errors are fatal, though.

I consider disbelief of any of the following principles to suggest the person is not a Christian.

1) the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ (Jesus is God and glorified man)
2) monotheism or the belief in one God
3) the doctrine of the Trinity
4) justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone
5) the inspiration and sole authority of Scripture as the rule of faith
6) penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross (Jesus died in the place of the believer)
7) original sin
8) virgin birth of Jesus
9) bodily resurrection of Jesus
10) eternal reward of the righteous and eternal punishment of the unrighteous

These teachings are so central, that disbelief in any of these points compromises their understanding of the person and mission of Jesus Christ.

I allow that many new Christians might not understand some points here, though, and I realize there is some haziness concerning original sin because of poor teachings in the church on this topic. Plus, some real believers who are part of the elect could be deceived by cults.

I see nothing wrong with that list. I am just stating if someone did find that list to be incorrect, you cannot blame everyone they are associated with as believing the same way.

 

[biker]

If I say the sky is purple, don't think the guy beside me also thinks it is purple. Lumping everyone as the same is what is most incorrect, in my opinion.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

If I say the sky is purple, don't think the guy beside me also thinks it is purple. Lumping everyone as the same is what is most incorrect, in my opinion.

True, IF the other person doesn't express similar beliefs in other areas associated with the same matrix of beliefs.

Then, I begin to suspect they have a lot of unexamined presuppositions that both individuals share.

Anyways, I don't really care. I intentionally stay out of the WOF/Pentecostal/charismatic world because I find there is too much intermingling and shared presuppositions.

If others don't agree, fine.

I am not obligated to fellowship with WOF/Pentecosal/charismatic individuals I am not comfortable with (which is none). I am free to point out where I am convinced they are in error.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I think the "Hell" version from Copeland is heretical just like Calvin's was.

John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Sep 15th, 2009 | By Taylor Marshall | Category: Blog Posts
Years ago while listening to Hank Hanegraaff’s Bible Answer Man radio program, a caller called in about “Christ suffering in Hell.” Hank rightly explained that “Christ suffering in Hell” is not a biblical doctrine, but noted that the doctrine was held by John Calvin. Hank respectfully disagreed with Calvin.

By the way, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Hank converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

They would deny original sin as well as justification by faith alone, and hold many strange teachings in common with Roman Catholicism.

This was a big shock to me. At one time, I watched his show regularly. I'm surprised he continues to hold his position at CRI.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Just so it's clear, I don't have any problem with a Pentecostal church, if by this you mean people who pray over the sick, anointing them with oil, and having lively worship.

My issues are:

1) churches or individuals that practice prophesying. Almost never are people held accountable for the words they claim to speak for God in their prophecies. It really is taking God's name in vain if someone utters words in God's name that he did not inspire, and the fact that they don't come true is a strong indication that the person is simply speaking out of their vain imagination.
2) churches or individuals that practice speaking in tongues, especially in an unbiblical manner, without an interpreter and out of order with the speaker.
3) churches or individuals that claim those who don't speak in tongues are inferior in some sort of way, ie, those who claim that there is a second experience evidenced by speaking in tongues that indicates the person is fully empowered to witness for Jesus, whereas someone else is not.
4) churches or individuals that claim individuals with health issues don't have enough faith to be healed, or denies that suffering is employed by God in transforming the believer into the image of Christ
5) churches or individuals that teach false doctrines like Oneness Pentecostals or baptismal regeneration, etcetera.
6) churches or individuals that teach that positive and negative confession creates reality.
7) churches or individuals that claim that the gift of healing is possessed by some specific individual.
8) churches or individuals that prophecy over new converts about some elevated ministry they will assume in the future, which leads to their prideful behavior toward others
9) churches or individuals who pronouce curses over others like some kind of witch doctor
10) churches or individuals who blame the sinfulness of others or themselves on generational curses or demonic possession, instead of confessing their own personal responsibility for sins.
11) churches or individuals who claimed God killed their personal enemies because their enemies challenged their claims about miracles (an obvious attempt to suppress criticism of their supernatural claims)
12) churches or individuals who claimed to resurrect the dead, without any proof and claiming this to people who do not know them or their character.
13) churches or individuals making supernatural claims yet living in blatant disobedience to God.

I think I will start creating a list of aberrant behaviors and beliefs, and focus on this list rather than on the specific groups, which just happen to be charismatics/Pentecostals/Word of Faith people who have told me these things

So, if you want me to focus on behaviors rather than groups, I'm good with that. Any group teaching the above is an unbiblical group.

You are right that there may be groups who don't do wild things like I have mentioned, but simply have a more livelier worship style...I don't have any issue with that. It's issues like the above that I have seen from many different individuals from these sorts of groups. Maybe I will keep a list of behaviors and simply refer to those, rather than generalize.