Welcome to On Doctrine, R—.
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.

When I first started reading your note, I thought that possibly you had found a factual error in the article that I wrote. I am always concerned if I state the facts incorrectly, so, in one sense I was pleased to find that the errors you mentioned were not factual, but were matters by which you define error in a much different way than a misstatement of specifics. In another sense, I was very concerned because you do define error on the part of a prophet in a much different manner than found in the Scripture.

Oral Roberts claims the gift of healing by which healings are accomplished through him. Those healings are accomplished through his prayers on behalf of the person and by other means, such as pieces of cloth over which he has prayed and through the touch of his hands. So, in spite of the fact that God heals, Oral Roberts still claims to possess the gift of healing which comes through himself, regardless of the source, and which the majority of other people do not. I am aware that most of the healers today make the statement that they do not heal but God does, and Oral Roberts is no exception. But that is a statement of convenience, a back door escape that places the responsibility on God for the failure of healings to occur in the healing meetings and television healing services. When a healing does not occur, the healer can tell the person to look at the issues in their life that prevent the healing and then take their problem to God, while they bask in the adulation of the faithful for the healings that are claimed to occur. If the healers do not believe, give the impression to others that they possess a special anointing or privilege in relation to healing that other Christians do not have, then why are they making the claims to have a healing ministry and that healings are accomplished through their ministry and meetings, which differentiate them from all other Christians and ministries?

The following is a statement on the dust jacket of his book, "Oral Roberts: An American Life" by David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Bloomington Indiana: Indiana University Press.

"A month later, Roberts said, he had his second encounter with the voice of God. He was in his church study, praying for direction to his ministry, when the voice told him to get into his car and drive home to the parsonage. On the way, the voice told him to concentrate his ministry on healing. 'You will have the power to pray for the sick and cast out devils,' Roberts says the voice told him."

As a result of his claims to a special privilege in relation to healing, there is a problem regarding the actions of God, because Oral Roberts claims that God has healed multitudes of people during his over half-century of ministry, but God only heals the invisible diseases, while the visible diseases and the multitudes in the wheelchairs that come to the meetings and the untold numbers in hospitals who cannot come to his meetings are never evident. Is God a healer of the invisible only, is He a healer only when the miracle service is in session or the miracle hour is being broadcast, or is He a healer of every disease for real? It is convenient to claim that healings do not occur because God has chosen not to heal, but why are the visible diseases always part of the non-healings? Oral Roberts has never demonstrated or provided documentation of a visible healing, such as a Down's syndrome individual (no mind or body of such an individual has ever been restored), no arms or legs have ever been restored, no missing eyes have ever been restored, no facial features destroyed by cancer or other diseases have been restored, no fingers or toes destroyed as a result of leprosy have ever been restored, and on it goes. The real test is when the children are involved, especially infants such as those who have cancer or leukemia and are rapidly approaching the end of a very brief life. Those children do not know the meaning of "fear" which it is claimed prevents a person from being healed, they do not understand the meaning of "sin" which it is claimed prevents a person from being healed and they do not know the meaning of 'faith," the use of which it is claimed brings about healing. If God works a healing ministry through Oral Roberts, then why does He not work a healing ministry for real? It does not matter if Oral Roberts claims that God does the healing, because he claims that healings have been occurring on a large scale in his meetings. What Oral Roberts does, is claim the actions of a God who is only a partial healer. So, the question still stands, why are the visible diseases not ever shown to be healed?

Like the claims of healing in which Oral Roberts reveals a God who is only a partial healer, he speaks about a God who gives revelations that disclose a God who is duplicitous, does not do what He says, does not say what He does, does not say what He means and does not mean what He says. Oral Roberts did not just make some crazy comments in relation to the visions that he claimed to have seen about Jesus Christ and the words that he claims to have heard from God and Jesus Christ. He made statements that make the words of God and Jesus Christ to be lies, in which they say one thing but the result is quite the opposite. They are words that are recorded for history and words that he knows that he said. That is the point of the criticism regarding Oral Roberts and his claims about the City of Faith, but it especially applies to his claims about a revelation from God regarding the innocence of Jim Bakker. It is a very difficult task to make Oral Roberts' statements on that subject to be acceptable, by stating they are simply mistakes. Oral Roberts has never stated that to be the fact and he has never admitted to the fact that God did not give him a revelation in relation to those incidents and his failure to do so in the case of his claimed revelation about Jim Bakker is particularly reprehensible. When faced with the reality of Jim Bakker's conduct and guilt, Oral Roberts simply danced around what he had originally said, claiming that he did not originally have complete information on the situation (meaning humanly provided information) which, apparently, would have affected the content of his claimed revelation from God. However, he had claimed that he had been given divine information that superseded the human equation, but, when the facts eventually came out, he hoped no one would see the difficulty in relation to his explanation about the error. The question is, who is going to be the authority, Oral Roberts, who claims a revelation that he did not receive, or the Scripture? Deuteronomy 18-20-22 must be dealt with in relation to any revelation that is claimed.

"In the midst of turmoil, the fear, the anxiety that's in our nation and in our world, as I was walking and meditating, I heard the voice of God. I've heard that voice many times; its familiar to me, and there's no way that I can fail to understand it's His voice because I'm familiar with it."

One of the difficulties that you must face in relation to the "God said raise $8 million dollars or He's gonna kill me" story, is that the money raised was not used for the purpose for which it was claimed that God demanded that it be raised. Oral Roberts stated that God told him to raise the money in order to send medical missionaries throughout the world, Oral Roberts quotes God as saying, "I want you to use the ORU medical school to put My medical presence in the earth." But the money was used in order to support a program that was already failing so badly from a financial standpoint, that the money raised by Oral Roberts was only a fraction of what was required in order to keep the City of Faith operational, and that did not even include the money to fulfill God's command to send out medical missionaries. Apparently God was so preoccupied with medical missionaries that He did not understand that without the success of the City of Faith, those medical missionaries had no support and no hope of being successful. Oral Roberts realized that the City of Faith needed a massive infusion of cash in order to keep it operational, and the plan could not include using funds for medical missionaries, in spite of the fact that God said that those missionaries were to be the means by which His "medical presence in the earth" was supposed to be expressed.

After the failure and closure of the City of Faith, Oral Roberts twisted the reality of what God defined as His "medical presence on earth," to be the merging of His healing streams of prayer and medicine, something that is quite different from sending out medical missionaries. Oral Roberts' explanation for the failure of the City of Faith was claimed to have been stated directly by God-.

"It is clearly in my spirit, as I have ever heard Him, the Lord gave me an impression, 'You and your partners have merged prayer and medicine for the entire world, for the church world and for all generations.' And then He said, 'It is done.'And then I asked, 'Is that why after eight years you are having us close the hospital and after eleven years the medical school?' And God said, 'Yes, the mission has been accomplished in the same way that after three years of public ministry, my Son said on the cross, ""Father, it is finished!""'".

Oral Roberts never made his claim that God was going to take him home in order to sooth Oral Roberts' wounded ego if he failed. The claim was that God was going to punish Oral Roberts if he failed, and, strangely enough, that punishment was for him to go to heaven. That was the context in which Oral Roberts presented the situation and it was the context in which everyone understood the situation to be. Both the secular media and the religious world leveled their criticism of Oral Roberts based on that understanding, and the money given was based on that understanding also. If there was any other meaning, Oral Roberts made no attempt to clarify the misunderstanding. Oral Roberts presented his appeal on the basis that donations given would keep him alive, not maintain his self- esteem. He presented a sympathy appeal, in which it was his life against 8 million dollars and a god who would be very angry with Oral Roberts if he did not come through with money that was not even his own. You simply cannot twist his statements to mean anything else. Oral Roberts should have worded things differently, because he should have admitted to the failure of the City of Faith and asked for the money in the context of that failure instead of claiming that God said what He did not and portraying God as a money grubbing ogre. But, the problem is not just the way Oral Roberts said the words, the problem was that he said the words in the first place and stated what God did not say.

Oral Roberts claims to receive the direct words of God and Jesus Christ, and he claims that those words are to be spoken by him to the church and the world. That is the definition of the role of a prophet. If you are trying to infer that Oral Roberts has not claimed to be a prophet, therefore he cannot be held responsible for false prophecies, then you are seriously in error.

In relation to Oral Roberts' attempted healing of his infant grandson and your explanation that it might not have been the will of God "maybe," here is a quote from Richard Roberts:

"So if healing is bread for God's children, that means it's not a luxury. It's a necessity. Its a basic provision God has given to all believers to sustain us in this life. In other words, healing is not a sideline of the gospel. It's the mainline! It's God's supernatural provision for all of His children!"

And here is a quote from Oral Roberts:

"I respect doctors, and one reason is that they have grasped this eternal truth and are against sickness and for health. Consciously or unconsciously, they have a pretty good theology of healing. Sometimes I wish we Christians had such a good theology of healing. Then we might be less inclined to argue about whether it's God's will to heal or not."

I have not implied that Oral Roberts makes the decision who to heal or not to heal or that he is withholding healings from certain individuals. My statement is that Oral Roberts claims healings on a massive scale that have occurred throughout the length of his ministry, but the visible diseases are not healed. Which is the more powerful manifestation of healing, a claim by someone that they have been healed of some internal and invisible disease or the reality of an instant renewal of a missing arm or eye, captured for viewing on tape or film for an unbelieving word to see? Such a healing and the film or video evidence of such has never been presented by any healing ministry, yet there are claims of untold hundreds of thousands of the invisible types. My point is obvious. Oral Roberts does not show the evidence of healings of visible diseases, because he is unable to accomplish those healings. Those healings are not seen, are not photographed or video taped and are not documented, because they do not happen. If those healings were happening, do you not think that every healing evangelist would make sure that every single instance was documented as thoroughly as possible?

The question is not about whether people have been blessed by Oral Roberts or whether they are satisfied with the results of their gifts of money. How people feel about any particular situation is a very subjective matter, so that is not the criteria. The question is, who has the authority, the preacher or the Scripture? You may not wish to accept my conclusions or assume that I have any credibility, but you must eventually face the reality that a preacher who claims revelations from God that were never received and in those revelations reveals a God who lies (who is not the God of the Bible), is a preacher without any credibility in relation to those revelations, cannot be trusted in relation to any revelation that he claims he has received, and is not qualified to be in the ministry, which is exactly what Deuteronomy 18:20-22 states.

Sincerely,

Welcome back to On Doctrine, R—.
Thank you for your reply.

The issue in relation to the City of Faith is not why it failed, but the fact that it did fail, and the discrepancy between the revelation that Oral Roberts claimed to have received from God stating that it would be successful.

Regardless of what type of situation Oral Roberts may have found himself, in relation to finances or sin or being out of the will of God, either the words of God are true or they are not. Oral Roberts' revelation made no mention of a qualifying condition attached by God, by which the conduct or spiritual condition of Oral Roberts would have an effect on the success or failure of the City of Faith. According to Oral Roberts, the City of Faith was a project by which God was establishing His healing streams in the world, and, as such, it was the work of God and was not the work of Oral Roberts. But, as it turned out, Oral Roberts claimed that it was his responsibility to find the money for its operation. Oral Roberts' claim, in his revelation about raising the $8 million, was that a shortage of money on his part would result in his death at the hand of God, not the failure of the City of Faith.

The question is still, why did God say the project would be successful, when it was a failure, and God knew, by His omniscience, that it would be a failure?

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent,- has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
Numbers 23.-19

Instead of using the money to send out medical missionaries to the world, it was used in an attempt to keep the City of Faith operational. Oral Roberts was faced with a project that was under funded from the very beginning, given the scope of its operation, and he knew the money to be raised was not enough to keep the facility operational, even from the very start of his claims to have received the revelation, and that did not include the additional money that would have been needed in order to send out the medical missionaries that God demanded. Had the money been used in order to send out medical missionaries, the City of Faith would have failed earlier than it did.

My problem in the matter is two-fold: 1. Oral Roberts claimed to have received revelations and prophecies from God which he did not, and followers still embrace him as a true prophet (reference his recently released new prophecy regarding the United States and the new book about it) and consider him to be an anointed representative of God.
2. Oral Roberts has never admitted to the fact that he spoke false revelations and false prophecies, but instead has placed the reason for the failure of the City of Faith directly on the performance of God. Oral Roberts not only gives false prophecies that make God into a liar, he makes the direct actions of God in the matter the reason for bringing about the failure of the City of Faith, instead of its success, which makes God not only a liar, but the orchestrator of the actual circumstances by which He becomes a liar. At the same time, God continues to give Oral Roberts additional revelations, even though he has failed to explain the conditions by which God was able to justify His failure to perform what He stated that He would do. So, God supports the prophet who does not state the entire prophecies as were given to him, but instead, gives only partial prophecies that indicate to the world that God cannot state the truth. In spite of his failures as a prophet, Oral Roberts still claims that position. Those are the actions of a very unusual God and the actions of a prophet that cannot be explained by any rational means.

The issue of Jim Bakker is another one of those instances where Oral Roberts claimed a revelation from God, and accompanying prophecies, by which he stated publicly that those who opposed Jim Bakker were in error because God had said that Jim Bakker was one of the anointed and was innocent. When the truth was finally presented and Jim Bakker was not only convicted but admitted to his guilt, Oral Roberts claimed that his statements were made because he did not have complete information. He claimed that he was not actually at fault in the matter, because he was ignorant of the facts, but that ignored the reality that he claimed to have received direct words from God regarding the innocence of Jim Bakker, which, if true, again made God into a liar. The true facts of the matter had to be in the words of God and not those of a secular legal system, or else the claimed prophecy was a lie from the beginning. To that specific issue, Oral Roberts has not admitted to the fact that his prophecy made God into a liar and he has never admitted to the fact that he did not receive a prophecy from God noting Jim Bakker's innocence. So, in relation to the words of Oral Roberts, God still remains a liar, and Oral Roberts explains his statements at the expense of the character and integrity of God, rather than the character and integrity of Oral Roberts, which is the same tactic he used to explain the failure of the City of Faith. The prophecy that Oral Roberts claimed to have received regarding the innocence of Jim Bakker cannot be explained by asserting that the conduct of Oral Roberts somehow influenced the outcome of the charges against Jim Bakker.

I do not know what you saw in the manner of the healing of the cancerous growth because that is an experience that only you can judge. But, in relation to that type of healing and those that I mentioned in relation to the missing arms, legs and eyes, no ministry has been able to provide the proper documentation of those miracles. By documentation, I mean, was there any verification of the name and address of the person healed, the documents supporting the medical history of the disease and the original diagnosis, such as doctor's certification, x-rays, lab reports, the medications taken, etc. Then, was there any follow-up information on the healing, such as doctor's certification, x-rays, lab reports, etc., that confirm the results that are claimed. That is what I mean by documentation and that is what is not being presented by healing ministries.

I really can't accept your explanation as to why God might not choose to heal someone by not replacing an arm or an eye, because those types of miracles are being claimed and said to happen on a massive scale, but, as I have noted, there is no documentation being presented. You even claim to have seen a visible cancer disappear. For the person who is being healed, what is the difference between the healing of an invisible but very real disease, and the replacement of a missing arm, leg or eye? The free will of a person to believe or not to believe is not the question, because a miracle does not coerce anyone to believe. Jesus Christ and the apostles did heal the visible diseases, in addition to raising the dead, so, if the visible healings were an unacceptable easing of the requirements of belief, then they were in error for accomplishing them.

The major doctrinal difficulty is that Oral Roberts is part of the Word of Faith community, which asserts that healing is part of the atonement, so every Christian has a right to expect physical healing, regardless of type or magnitude, and that miracles in every aspect of life should be expected on virtually a daily basis. Even Oral Roberts claims that he has raised the dead, which is the most spectacular of miracles:

"I can't tell you about [all] the dead people I've raised. I've had to stop a sermon, go back and raise a dead person."
Kenneth L. Woodward with Frank Gibney, Jr., 'Saving Souls-Or a Ministry?'Time (July 13, 1987), p. 52.

The major visible healings are said not to occur because it would be easier to believe and follow Jesus Christ if a person saw a major visible healing than if they simply accepted, as true, the claimed healing of the invisible diseases. So, a difficulty factor is attached to the ability to believe, and that difficulty factor applies almost exclusively to those who have the most visible and critical of diseases. Jesus Christ indicated to Thomas that those who believed in Him who had not seen Him, were blessed in relation to those who had seen Him and believed. So, if that incident is used as a foundation, then the person who believes, having not seen any miracles of any type is blessed in relation to those who have seen miracles. However, even the presence of Jesus Christ is not necessarily an incentive to believe (evidence Judas Iscariot), and the spectacular nature of a visible miracle is not necessarily an incentive to believe either, yet, if a miracle would be a help in the process, why would it be denied just because it might be easier to believe? In His teaching regarding the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31, Jesus states that a very spectacular miracle, that of a relative returning from the dead, would not be sufficient to convince a person, "But he [Abraham] said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."'

The Pharisees and Sadducees saw the miracles that Jesus Christ performed, including the visible healings and the raising of the dead, yet they did not follow Him, even though they did not deny the reality of the miracles that were performed. Jesus Christ was crucified by the very people who had followed Him, heard his teaching, eaten the miraculous food that He provided and saw the spectacular healings of every individual that came before Him and had seen the raising of Lazarus from the dead. People believe the gospel, not as a result of miracles, but as a result of being convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit.

I would not deny that ORU is an excellent university and has provided wonderful educational opportunities over the years for many people. And I would not deny that Oral Roberts Ministries provides a unique forum for the spread of the gospel. Yet, no matter how good those things look to us, they are not a justification for the conduct of the leadership.

The bottom line in relation to Oral Roberts is that he claims to be a prophet of God, yet the nature of his prophecies deny the truthfulness of that claim. Deuteronomy 18:20-22, the specifically quoted words of God, state the conditions by which a prophet is judged to be false, and Oral Roberts has met all of those conditions. As I mentioned before, In his newest revelation, he stated on the television the following:

"In the midst of the turmoil, the fear, the anxiety that's in our nation and in our world, as I was walking and meditating, I heard the voice of God. I've heard that voice many times; it's familiar to me, and there's no way that I can fail to understand it's His voice because I'm familiar with it,"
-- Oral Roberts, August 26, 2004 with Richard Roberts and Kenneth Copeland

I quite understand your position in this matter, but what I wish is that you step back and look at the situation from a different angle.

Sincerely in Christ,

Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine webmaster
contact@ondoctrine. com
www.ondoctrine.com