ON
DOCTRINE INFORMATION
The GOOD NEWS
Messages Sent To On Doctrine
2007
All Messages Reproduced As Received Without Correction Or Alteration
Names and e-mail addresses removed in accord with the On Doctrine Privacy Policy
Messages are unverified as to content or accuracy
All responses labeled ON DOCTRINE NOTE are by Gary A. Hand unless stated differently
#1
one who knows
CONTACT: is it true that many years ago Evangelist Oral Roberts was
investigated for fraud concerning people coming on stage pretending to be healed ?
[1-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I don't have specific information about investigations into Oral Roberts' healing
claims and practices, but there is an article that deals with some interesting
incidents in his past.
"The Life and Ministry of Oral Roberts"
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/oralroberts.htm
Hope this helps.
#2
To Whom corresponds: Hi, My Name is [name removed],
I want to ask for permission to
translete and print the information of Benny Hinn. I am a Christian and I Know
That Benny Hinn is false Teacher I wanted to publish this and distribute it to the
Hispanic Village please leave me Know ASAP Thankyou somuch God Bless
Sincerly [name removed] Jude 3
California, United States
[8-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.
I am happy to hear that you have found information on the On Doctrine website to
be helpful. You have my permission to use the article about Benny Hinn in any way
that you wish. I do not require that you give me credit as the author or that you provide
a link to the On Doctrine website.
#3
Appreciate your site - but please change "Doctrial" error to DOCTRINAL error.
Indiana, United States
[13-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Those pesky typing errors do show up once in a while. Sorry that I don't have
any awards, so you will have to settle for a job well done.
Come back again for a visit.
#4
Please understand I enjoy your site and have learned much from it. But I have one peeve
( probley spellt wrong). What do people insist that they are useing the 1611 king James
Bible, when there is no such thing. Yes there a King James bible and I have used one for
25 years. Most people who say they have a 1611 King James bible couln't read it. I have
photo copies of a real 1611 King James bible, and it would be so hard to read because of
the spelling they used then. I have nothing against the 1611 King James, it's just most people
don't know what they are talking about.
Please shed some light why people say its a 1611
bible when its nothing more than and updated copy to more of our modern english then it is
to the original Kings english.
I am always open to learning.
Thank you
New York, United States
[15-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
You are quite right that the Authorized King James Version, in current use today is
not quite the same as the original KJV 1611. However those differences are mainly
in the typeface used in the original and the letters used in the spelling of many words.
The current KJV uses a more modern typeface which is easier to read and uses
modern spelling. Both changes make the text appear to be more modern and legible
than the original, but also give the mistaken impression that current KJV versions
represent the actual original version.
People claim that they are using the actual 1611 KJV because they simply do not know
the difference and have not been taught otherwise. Most people are unaware of the
changes that have occurred to the English language since 1611 and have never encountered
original material from that era (i.e. Shakespeare), so they do not know how difficult it would
be to speak or read actual 1611 era English. It would be preferable if people actually knew
the realities of the heritage of current KJV versions and the differences that are represented
in modern printings, but I don't really think that is going to happen, and in some respects it
does not represent a significant problem except in the instance where a person adopts a KJV
only position. At that point the difference between the original and current versions becomes
a significant issue.
KJV only advocates state that the KJV 1611 represents the only inspired and inerrant English
translation of the original writings of the Scripture approved by God, although it was not translated
using any original document. However, KJV only advocates almost all use the current versions and
not copies of the original KJV 1611, so there are changes and corrections in the current versions to
which they do not admit. If the 1611 version is inerrant, then why do they use a modern version
that has been corrupted by changes? That is a problem and represents a contradiction in relation to
their claims. I think that most of the major leaders in the KJV only controversy know the difference,
but followers do not and probably do not care because the majority only repeat what they are taught
and never bother to do any research on their own.
I do use the Authorized Version (KJV), mainly for its literary style, but my primary version is the NAS
along with the NKJV and NIV.
#5
this is the third time I have emailed you with no response. please helpme. iknow
many young adults that say 1-2 drinks are ok. ineed proof that it is not.please hele
me defend my position.
Georgia, United States
[18-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
First, I must explain that I am not a consumer of alcohol of any type, although that
does not mean that I have not tasted the products, so I am not attempting to make a
case in order to promote the use of alcoholic beverages and I would never recommend
that a person begin the use of alcoholic beverages, and I would not affirm to any person
that it is a good idea to drink.
There is no prohibition noted in the Scripture against the consumption of an alcoholic
beverage because it is considered to be sinful or evil in itself. There are four prohibitions
in the Scripture regarding alcoholic beverages:
- Prohibited to priests while performing their duties:
Leviticus 10:9
- Prohibited to Nazarites while honoring their vow:
Numbers 6:3
- Prohibited if consumption presents an example that causes another Christian to
stumble or presume that they can also drink without consequences.
Romans 14:21
- Forbidden to drink to excess resulting in drunkenness.
Ephesians 5:18
The Scripture uses the terms wine and strong drink. Wine was a fermented product
(grapes, dates, other fruit, etc.) that was diluted with water or milk, and strong drink
was the undiluted fermented product. New wine was grape juice which had fermented
quickly, was undiluted, and was quite intoxicating, Acts 2:13.
The prohibition for priests and Nazarites does not apply to the Christian believer today,
but the prohibitions in relation to being an example to weaker believers and drunkenness
do apply. In relation to weaker believers, there are actually two issues:
- By exercising their liberty to drink, a believer may cause another believer to also drink
but they may not be able to handle the situation resulting in drunkenness or even possibly
alcoholism.
- By exercising their liberty to drink, a believer may cause another believer to be offended,
especially if that believers holds to the view that it is not proper to drink, or perhaps they have
been delivered from a life of dissipation and as a consequence find alcohol to be
offensive.
In either case, the right or liberty of the believer to participate in a particular act is considered
to be selfish and is subservient to a relationship with a weaker brother when that weaker brother
is offended by conduct that may be lawful but not expedient.
The difficulty in relation to defending drinking is the definition of just what constitutes a "drink"
and what its effects might be. Is the drink a can of beer or a shot of whiskey or a stein of beer
and a bottle of liquor? Beer, depending on how it is brewed, can have varying percentages of
alcoholic content. A shot of whiskey may have more alcohol than several cans of beer. There is
also the element of an individual's reaction to alcohol, which varies considerably. In one case, a
single shot of whiskey may result in a person looking and acting like they are totally drunk, while
another person may not appear to be drunk after consuming an entire pint, yet both people are
actually impaired after one shot, even though the one person does not appear to be affected.
I think that there is a larger issue, and that is the motive behind a person's desire to drink which is
probably more important than the consumption itself. If most people were honest with themselves,
they would have to admit that it is the alcoholic content that is more important than taste. If the
alcohol could be removed from all drinks without affecting the taste, consumption would plummet.
Even connoisseur wine drinkers would have to admit that without the alcoholic carrier, wine would
also lose much of its appeal.
I think that there are better options than to choose an alcoholic beverage to drink, however a person
is free to choose that option if they so wish unless they violate the Scriptural mandates. A person
should be very careful as they move up the scale from beer to wine to hard liquor. The farther up
the scale the person moves, they greater risk they take not only for becoming drunk or addicted,
but also for becoming impaired which can lead to injury or death on the part of the individual or
other parties.
I know that this might not be the answer that you were seeking, but I think that it is important that we
not attempt to make the Scripture say what it does not. There are Scriptures which give approval to
the consumption of alcoholic beverages, specifically wine, such as Psalm 104:14-15 in which God is
given credit for its existence, Proverbs 31:6-7 and Isaiah 55:1. Jesus Christ, by His comparison of
Himself to John the Baptist who did not drink wine and ate a restricted diet, indicated that He did
not restrict the types of food He ate and that He also drank what John the Baptist did not, which
was wine, Matthew 11:18-19. I think the key elements in the equation are moderation and balance,
and are represented by the standards imposed in 1 Timothy 3:3, 8 and Titus 1:7; 2:3. Apparently
Timothy did not drink wine, but was told by the apostle Paul to include wine in his diet, "for the sake
of your stomach and your frequent ailments," 1 Timothy 5:23. So, it is not the use that is the sin, but
the abuse and the use for the wrong reasons that brings a condemnation.
I hope this helps.
#6A
I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE ABOUT ORAL ROBERTS
BEING A FRAUD. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. WHY WOULD GOD
TELL HIM RAISE 8 MILLION OR ELSE. I HAVE BEEN HOPING THAT
SOMEONE WOULD BRING THIS CROOK DOWN BEFORE HE CAN
CAUSE ANY FURTHER HARM. I AM SURE HE IS LIVING LIKE A
KING ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY, WHILE TAKING MONEY FROM
PEOPLE WHO ARE OLDER AND CAN NOT AFFORD IT WHO TRULY
BELEIVE HIS GARBAGE ABOUT BEING CALLED HOME UNLESS HE
CAN RAISE SO MUCH MONEY.
ALSO I AGREE ABOUT HIS SO CALLED HEALING. I HAVE NEVER
HEARD OF ONE CASE OF HIM HEALING ANYONE. ORAL; ROBERTS
IS A CROOK. HE IS A FRAUD. AND HE WILL PAY SOMEDAY FOR THE
THINGS HE HAS DONE IN HIS LIFETIME. HE BETTER ENJOY HIS
MONEY NOW. WHERE HE IS GOING IT WILL NOT DO HIM ANY GOOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM JAILED BEFORE HE IS CALLED HOME.
THAN EVERYONE WILL KNOW THAT HE IS A TRUE FRAUD.
United States
[30-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I think that one of the most difficult decisions that I have made on the website was to
classify Oral Roberts in the heretical category. Oral Roberts has been around my entire
lifetime and it would certainly be more convenient to classify him simply as an off-shoot
or sect with a differing approach or idea of what Christianity should be. However, when
reviewing the claimed revelations from God that Oral Roberts says he receives, the
heretical classification becomes unavoidable. Oral Roberts claims that he unmistakably
hears the voice of God and then claims that, as a result, his revelatory statements are true.
Yet, his revelations make God and Jesus Christ to speak lies, because his revelations do
not come true in the manner that he says God told him. After a lifetime in ministry, Oral
Roberts continues to say that God has spoken revelations to him that are eventually
exposed as being untrue, so according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Oral Roberts is a false
prophet and to claim that God speaks lies as truth automatically places him in the heretical
category. That is a great tragedy, because it shows that Oral Roberts has no real concern
about how he portrays God to the secular world and also to the church.
#6B
Thank you for taking the time to read my email and write back to me. My
[relationship removed] who was
like a [relationship removed] to me was a devoted
follower of Jim Baker. When he was exposed as
a fraud, theif, adulterer and all of the other things we the public found out about him, my
[relationship removed] was so upset that [removed]
had a heart attack and passed away. [removed]
had just
sent in a large "gift" to
Baker for the Christian Theme Park in S.C. [location removed].
I am not a very religious man. I have my believes, but I am not a preacher, but I know that the
God I worship would
not tell someone who is teaching his words that he will essentially kill thenm if they do not
come up with $8,000,000.00 in a short amount of time. Not only once, but twice that I know
of. I see the homes these Televangelist live in, and the cars they drive, and then I look at our
Church's Pastor and the small home the Church provides for him, and the many hours he puts
in visiting the sick members of his church and I see that something is not right. Also Oral
Roberts claim that any money you plant as a seed gift will come back to you many times
over is just a way for those who still follow him to pay his bills and court settlements, while
also keeping his family living in a life of luxury.
Anyway, I applaud your website and I am thankful that there are people like you who keep us
informed on these Televengelist who worship the dollar more than God.
Thank You,
United States
[34-Vol 1]
#7
"I was raised a Charismatic Catholic who believed the Word of Faith movement as well the Anointment
and Gifts of healing folks. I have eschewed such nonsense and am now finally free. While I do not
agree with an of your religious based critique, because I am quite sure it is all bunk, I do appreciate
your expose of these silly and tragic characters who ply their trade on the weak-minded and
sick.
Now, I can prove that their are indeed atheists (or at least aganostics) in foxholes, and we are the
bravest of them all, because we know there is nothing but the void out there.
I hope you will eventually do as the great Thomas Jefferson urged and 'fix reason firmly on her seat.
Bring to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question boldly even the existence of god, for, if their be
one, he must surely more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.' As far as I agree
with your efforts to lift the blindfold in respect to the most egregious of such religious charlatans...
Best of luck and Semper Fi"
North Carolina, United States
[43-Vol 1]
#8
gary, greetings in the LORD'S name. trust that all is going well with you. i have appreciated your
response to
several issues i have asked you about over the last couple of years. i have another one for you, what
about
beth moore. sadly, most women do not seem to be on target if they are "free-lancing". i have heard
some
things about her. for instance, the tent of meeting in o.t. i saw her on james robinson, who himself seems
to
be all over the place thelogically. she was teaching on lazarus and seemed to me to not honor the
scriptures
in a respectful way. could you give me your take on her and her ministry
trust our SAVIOR keeps working in your life and ministry.
South Carolina, United States
[44-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Welcome back to On Doctrine. Thank you for your kind words.
I have not heard Beth Moore speak and I have not read any of her material, so I don't really know
much about
her.
#9
Gary A. Hand
CONTACT: Thank you for your article on Matthew 18:19. It was very informative and
eye-opening. On your home page in the page header banner, you have the passage "Take
my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will
find rest for your souls". You credit it to Matthew 11:20 but, as you know, it is
Matthew 11:29
Thanks.
[48-Vol 1]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I am happy to hear that you found information on the website to be helpful. Yes, you're right.
I do know the correct reference, but my fingers don't always type the correct numbers.
Sorry that I don't have any awards, so you will have to be satisfied with a job well done.
There are many resources on the On Doctrine website, so come back again for a visit.
#10
Hi. I just wanted to tell you that I am a believer, and have been raised in the church, with years of my
own direction, but am back on track. I recently went to a Jesse Duplantis meeting, and was grieved as
I sat there, and I wasn't sure why. I recieved some of his truths, while most often found myself
extremely uncomfortable. The church I was going to accepted him, and that brings me concern. I went
home and prayed and questioned The Lord about him. I believe I recieved a response, as I heard the
Lord say "Don't judge my prophets, you don't know, move on past this and leave them to me", my
mind went blank, dark, I saw nothing at that point, and he said again, "you don't know as I know". It
gave me a sense of relief and I am moving on.
A friend sent me this page, and I felt relieved to know I wasn't alone in my discernment, but it makes
me question the words I thought I recieved from The Lord. He called Jesse his prophet (oddly enough
I mis spelled that word to profit), and basically pushed me past him. Also, Joyce Meyers has been a
crucial source in my growth as I have so related to her. Albeit, as I recieve her magazines and observe
her image at each edition, and now that she has come out with a Bible with her lifes learnings as help
with each chapter and verse, I found myself feeling uneasy, concerned. I recieve so much from some of
these people, yet when I do find myself being excited and alive in Christ, I hear negatives and question
my own intelligence, or should I say, my own spirit. The Disciples complained to Jesus about others
who were proclaiming healing in Jesus name, even tho they weren't in their personal group. Jesus said
they were for Him not against Him, so leave them alone.
I guess my big question to you is,,,,,We don't know, do we? I mean we are all different parts of the
body, and as The Word says we can't say to the eye, be an arm, you know? I am uncomfortable with
prospertiy teachings, but perhaps they are the hands being used to strengthen another part of the body
weak in faith.
How can we judge anyone. Yes we need to be wise and research our sources, but I have been, and I
am trying to see clearly. I want to trust my own sense and relationship with My Lord. I have never
been more excited about Him, and In Love with Him. Words are so powerful, and sharp, and it
doesn't take much to rip open a body.
Sincerly,
California, United States
[64-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I appreciate your comments regarding your questions in relation to Jesse Duplantis. Sometimes it is
difficult to understand just what the situation might be. I think you understand the difficulty when you
assume that God must speak to you in order to give clarification or to present additional revelation,
because you are unsure if that is a real event. Did God really speak or was there some other mechanism
at work, either a deep personal desire expressing itself or even Satanic forces at work? You must be
the judge of what happened, but you can only judge in relation to the Scripture. If what Jesse Duplantis
says is different than what is found in the Scripture, then God did not speak, because He will not
confirm as being legitimate a person who contradicts His Word, Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
It is quite true that we cannot know certain things, such as whether a person is truly redeemed,
especially when they claim to have received salvation, because that is a judgment factor that can only be
administered by Jesus Christ, John 5:22. That is why I do not judge the salvation of Jesse Duplantis.
There is a very big difference between judging what a person teaches in relation to the Scripture, and
judging a person's salvation. In relation to teachers, we can know if what they teach is true, because
what they say can be compared to the Scripture, and to the extent that a teacher deviates from the
biblical imperatives, reveals the difficulty. Even the apostle Paul was not exempt from that type of
scrutiny, Acts 17:11, and it was not a problem for him. In fact, Luke considered the Bereans to be
noble for their efforts to reconcile the message of the apostle Paul with the Scripture. If what Jesse
Duplantis says is different from that which is actually found in the Scripture, then at the very best, he is a
part of the body that is in rebellion against the rest. In your studies, you must make that decision in
relation to the Scripture.
That is quite a different situation than found in the incident with the disciples and their disagreement with
the man who was healing in the name of Jesus, Mark 9:38-40, John 9:49-50. Their issue was not that
he was not healing or was not preaching correct doctrine, but that he was not one of their specific
group. The response of Jesus was that the group affiliation was not the issue, but the relationship that
the man had with Himself. If the man was teaching incorrect doctrine, then Jesus would have stated the
case, just as He did with the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
I am very sure that the majority of people in Word of Faith circles are very nice, moral and upright
people who live honorable lives. But that is not part of the issue. My Mormon friends are also moral
and honorable, but they are involved in a pervasively false belief, and yet they have very good feelings
about their church and the relationship that they believe they have with the Jesus Christ defined within
their theology. Feeling good about the fellowship does not justify accepting the teaching of the
leadership if that teaching is contrary to the Scripture. Our emotional attachment to a fellowship or
group of teachers is not the validation of truth, and many instances it will limit the ability or substitute for
the desire to discern truth from error.
The issue is also not about perfection on the part Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jerry
Savelle or any other leader. No Christian has ever been perfect or will be perfect in this life. But in the
case of those teachers, they teach what is contrary to the Scripture and attempt to twist Scripture to say
what it does not. That is not just a mistake or simple error of understanding on their part but is a
deliberate and calculated effort to circumvent the Scripture based on the reality that they do know what
Scripture says but attempt to make people believe that it says something different in order to foster their
agenda.
#11
My son was not baptized. I am worried if it is necessary when one day he dies.
Is it not important?
Denmark
[65-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
There are many groups who adopt the teaching that it is necessary to be baptized in order
to obtain salvation. However, a physical act that is presumed to merit acceptance by God
is a work, which is not the basis of salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9. Baptism follows salvation,
and is an expression or affirmation by an individual that they have accepted the gospel
message and are identifying themselves with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The issue in salvation is not whether a person has been baptized, but how they have
responded to the gospel message which is the call to repentance and their expression of faith in
Jesus Christ as the Savior and His efficacious work on the cross.
There are two articles on the On Doctrine website that I believe you will find to be
helpful:
"Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?"
"A Brief Rebuttal Of Baptismal Regeneration"
There is also a sermon series on the On Doctrine website by John MacArthur titles,
"Deliverance: The Neglected Doctrine." There are six sermons and I know that it would be a lengthy
time of reading, but the subject would be very helpful and I recommend them highly. The sermons
are all linked to each other and the first can be found at:
"Deliverance: The Neglected Doctrine."
#12
Is conduct right because God commands it or does God commands it because it is right?
Philippines
[68-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
It must be understood that God determines which conduct is right or wrong. Right or wrong
does not exist outside the specific determination of God. God does not command conduct
because it is right or wrong based on a standard that He has not created Himself.
God commands conduct that is right because He has established the standard for what is
right. God condemns what is wrong because He has established the standard for what is wrong.
That which God has established as being wrong is sin, because it violates His standard which
is established as His law:
"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness," 1 John
3:4 (NAS).
#13
Is important a funeral ritual? can't we just bury the dead?
Denmark
[69-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
There is no instruction in the Scripture regarding funeral services, so there is no particular
ceremony that can be considered right or wrong. The type of ceremony is usually determined by the
person prior to death and specified to family members, however, sometimes in the absence of
instructions, family members may determine the type of memorial service themselves.
As far as we know, because of the necessity that His body be buried by sundown, Jesus
Christ was buried without any formal service, although his body was hastily prepared in order to be
placed in the tomb, Matthew 27:59-60. It was anticipated that after the Sabbath was over, his body
would be prepared further using oil and spices, Luke 24:1.
Most cultures throughout history have chosen some type of burial as the traditional manner
to dispose of the body, but it is becoming more common to use cremation. Some families keep the
ashes in an urn in the home, others bury the ashes in an urn in the ground or a crypt and others scatter
the ashes in some particular place such as over the ocean. A person can choose which manner in which
they wish their body to be handled and whether or not a service should be held.
#14
Thank you for exposing the false teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong in such a succinct,
yet adequate, way. Listing some of his prophecies which history has proven false was an
excellent
way to culminate your brief article.
I read yesterday his booklet, "Great Britain and the United States in Prophecy", and was
surprised enough to be almost convinced. I told my wife that the information he set forth begged
further investigation.
So I searched on Google and found a site which was so evil in its declarations that my
spirit about came unglued. I mean, it really agitated me, and I prayed, "Father, this CAN'T be right!"
After a break, I searched again and found your site, read your article, and was able to breathe a sigh of
relief.
I do not want to be deceived, as Yehoshua ("Jesus" to traditional English-speaking
believers) has commanded us, "Let no man deceive you." Praises to our Heavenly Father for your
article.
Again, thank you.
[76-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I am happy to hear that you have found some of the information on the website to be
helpful.One of the measures of Herbert W. Armstrong is found in his prophecies, which were false,
but also in relation to the fact that he did not admit to those false prophecies and never
admitted to being a false prophet as a result of those false prophecies.
In reality, he knew very well that he was not a prophet and he knew very well that the
doctrines that he taught were simply his own fabrications. However, like his false prophecies, he
taught his false doctrines without remorse and without concern for the spiritual disaster that would
happen to those who would believe what he claimed to be true.
Deception happens when people hold their teachers in higher esteem than the Scripture,
and in today's religious world it happens more often than not, so it is necessary to be vigilant in
relation to the Scripture just as the apostle Paul instructed Timothy, "Be diligent to present yourself
approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of
truth," 2 Timothy 2:15 (NAS).
SEE: the article on the On Doctrine website, Herbert W.
Armstrong
#15A
I want to commend you on your artical regarding Carlton Pearson, it was well
written and well researched. It makes me sad, I will pray for him. Thanks you
Ohio, United States
[82-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Thank you for your note. I appreciate your comments.
Carlton Pearson's version of the Universalist doctrine is very subtle and also extremely
dangerous because of the manner in which he presents the Scripture. If a person is not
conversant with the Scripture and takes Carlton Pearson's teaching at face value, they
will be deceived into believing that they have salvation when they do not. That is a tragedy
beyond belief.
#15B
Thank you so much for your response and y our kind words. I agree it is a matter for great
prayer, as the word states even the very elect would be deceived if The Lord's return were
to be delayed. May God richly bless you as you continue in his work.
Ohio, United States
[86-Vol 2]
#16
keep up the struggle, your message is truth. I would suggest podcasts and youtube
broadcasts. send the truth everywhere. let me know if you need help doing this.
location unknown
[117-Vol 3]
#17
An accountability partner asked me: "Why doesn't God communicate with us?"
He stated that even the strongest forms of communication receive by him could just as easily be
explained by his imagination. The communication didn't even come close to he clarity of communication
he received from say, his dog.
I'm stumped. I don't think he expects me to solve his question but I want to discuss his question in
scriptural and rational and terms.
Thanks,
Michigan, United States
[122-Vol 3]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
In a very real sense, your friend has already answered his own question, by stating that he would reject
any communication that he might receive because he would assume that it was just his imagination. He
is not really serious regarding his question, because he has loaded the question with a predetermined
answer. He considers communication from his dog to be superior to any communication that he might
receive from God, so he presumes that his dog has greater communicative ability than God. The
problem is apparent, because he does not apply the same criteria to his dog that he does to God - Why
does he not think that communications received from his dog are also his imagination? Is his dog
actually speaking words to him as a means of communication? If he is saying that his dog speaks to him
(which he actually believes), and that if God were to speak to him he would consider that to be his
imagination, then he has a problem that is a lot more serious than his question. Of course I am being
facetious, but his attempt to circumvent his own question reveals that he is not serious. If God were to
speak audibly, He would not leave the validity of the communication to question.
In spite of your friend's response, his question is valid. Why doesn't God just speak to everyone?
The question itself is loaded with a presumption that God has not spoken and that He should speak.
Both are not true, because God has spoken and there is no particular reason why He must or should
speak to people on an individual basis. The idea that God should speak, must speak or is required to
speak is a human criteria, applied generally for selfish reasons.
Most people wish to hear the voice of God, define that communication on their terms, not necessarily
on God's terms and that eventually presents the difficulty, by which God is criticized for not speaking
directly or people claim to receive all types of communications from God based on their own sets of
desires, feelings and emotions. What most people wish to receive is not direction in their lives, but an
affirmation of what they have already chosen. When people believe that God has spoken to them and
affirmed their particular situation, then they claim that God is a loving and caring Father, but when He
does not speak to them and does not affirm their particular situation, then He is said to be unloving,
unkind or impotent. For many people, only a God who speaks directly to them is acceptable to them,
and so they become the judge of God instead of He being the judge of them.
Another issue is the fact that Christians and non-Christians alike live in a fallen world and everyone is
affected by that reality. Many Christians do not believe that the place in that world in which they find
themselves is acceptable and they expect that God will change the circumstances that affect them.
They presume that God will guide them to a better job, more power, more respectability, health,
wealth, freedom and security. It is not assumed that God will speak to their spiritual condition, but to
their circumstances and will guide them to the goals that they have already determined to be acceptable.
Given that mind set, people are very capable of imagining that they hear God speak as a confirmation,
but they also open themselves not only to their own self-deception but also to deception by satanic
forces.
When people reject the gospel or make a judgment against God because he has not audibly spoken to
them, then they are defining communication based on their terms and conditions which they have no
ability or power to implement. God speaks on His terms, not according to how we might wish.
The reality is that God has spoken in a number of ways: (1). through the prophets, Numbers 12:6, Joel
2:28, Hebrews 1, (2). through His word, the Scripture, Acts 7:38, Hebrews 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:16, (3).
in these last days through His Son, Hebrews 1:2.
For those who claim that God has spoken to them or should speak to them, the question to consider is,
have they spent the requisite amount of time to study and understand the voice of God spoken through
the Scripture prior to claiming that their particular situation is so unique or so important that it merits the
directly spoken voice of God in their life? If the time and effort has not been spent learning what God
has already spoken in the Scripture, then to claim that He should then speak in some other manner is
presumption.
#18
Mr. Hand,
At http://www.ondoctrine.com/faqs/0faqs015.htm you wrote "My
secondary translation, is the New American Standard, which is also my primary version for
every-day use. It is a more literal translation, such as the (KJV), but it also has some difficulties. Many
times words are selected which I find confusing, although alternate words are sometimes
presented in the margins or notes. I find that the alternate words are in many cases better suited than
those placed in the translation, so I wonder what the logic was in regards to their selection, but perhaps
that is just me."
No it isn't just you. I also have an NAS with translators' notes and, especially in the New
Testament, alternate words are given that are better than the word(s) in the translation. Beyond that,
often, the alternate word is the LITERAL (Designated by "Lit.") translation of the word in the
underlying Greek text and it (the literal meaning) is better than the word chosen in the
translation.
I can only guess that some wrong-headed Brother with a strong personality was in charge
of the translating team and he prevailed. But, to keep their consciences clear, the other members
of the team refused to approve the translation without the marginal notes. Who knows?
When it was first published, the NAS was highly touted for its "literalness", but as you have
rightly stated, it is less literal than the KJV and the NKJV. I believe that it got this reputation
because of publisher's hype and the fact that it brings some of the awkward Greek syntax (which I
suspect is not awkward in the Greek because of the voices, tenses, etc. that can be attached to the
base word) across into the English.
I even found a passage (I wish I could remember which one) where Paul was making a
word play where the same Greek word was used twice but with a different meaning and, translated
properly, the word play would have come across into the English (such as to use the word "see" to
indicate eyesight and then later to mean to understand, although this wasn't it - this is just an example)
making the doctrine presented much more memorable. The NAS translates this same Greek word
using two completely different English words giving a fair meaning of the text but completely
obscuring the memorable literary style of the original text. Could this have been done by accident? I can
only think that the translators thought that if it's God's word it must somehow be made into dull
reading.
As you have probably guessed, I'm not a Greek student. So when I'm preparing a Sunday
school lesson I use the Online Bible (OLB) which comes with a plethora of translations and so it is
easy to compare different translations. My last resort is the Young's Literal Translation which is
even more awkward than the NAS but sometimes gives an insight that more regular translations don't.
The OLB also has the KJV keyed to Strong's word numbers which, (when hovered over with the
mouse pointer) gives a pop-up window with concordance-like information. Very handy for trying to
discern the meaning of the underlying Greek and Hebrew by one who hasn't studied either
language.
I teach from NKJV "corrected" by what I have learned. I consider the KJV to be my primary
translation for studying and the NAS isn't even my third choice. It's just one of the rest of the
crowd.
One more thing: The OLB has the NAS95 version as well as the original NAS. The NAS95
seems to be a "gender neutral" version. So I suppose Thomas Nelson Publishers has abandoned
Principle for Profit, also. I could be wrong about this. I just seemed to notice it and didn't pursue it any
further, but I think I'm correct.
Unless I go on and on:
God bless,
Texas, United States
[130-Vol 3]
#19
I am glad someone is doing what your doing. The Bible tells us to test the spirits to see if
they are in the TRUTH.
So, many are being led away by Creflo Dollars, Paul and Jan Crouch and the list goes
on.
My husband is a doctor and I am a chemist. We have been ministers since childhood. We
bought a $65,000. dollar home so we could buy homes for the homeless and spend money taking in
mothers, children and whoever needed a place to live and teach them about the Lord Jesus
Christ.
We could have bought that million dollar home. But, instead we chose to use our money to
further the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
People these days want a Happy go Lucky Gospel where no one suffers and everyone is
happy.
Well, lets check the Master's Life. Hmmm......suffering beyond what any human could
handle yet if we are to be his follower's we are to suffer in Christ sufferings.
So, for all of the negativity you have been given on your site. I want to encourage you to
keep on.
It is sad when little old people or poor people or for that matter any person wanting to send
their hard earned money to further the gospel of Christ and help the needy may themselves be doing
without to give to these Greedy TV preachers. Chritians are to stay informed. Although we are told
to not stop them completly since the Holy Spirit is working thru teaching of the word of God, I refuse to
buy them million dollar homes, rollsroyce's and on and on. They should not live higher than their
congregation and they are more responsible because the Bible tells us minister are to be of HIGHER
REPUTE. To live their lives much more responsible to the LORD.
I want to say that the world ends due to the GREED of mankind. Wow! Aren't we a GREEDY
WORLD. Why dont we live more like the Master? Humble ourselves before God and store up our
treasures in Heaven. NOT ON this ending world.
Isn't it: sad that so many preacher's of all groups of Christians are buying into a
lie.
Oklahoma, United States
[142-Vol 3]
#20
I enjoy your website. Just wanted you to know, though, that there are many Bible-believing Christians
who believe in and have experienced the filling of the Holy Spirit and the operation of the gifts of the
Holy Spirit in the church per the New Testaments directives and examples and who shun and teach
against the following non-Biblical counterfeits (only that which is worth something is counterfeited) You
can see this is consistent with our statement of faith found on our website:
1) THE ATONEMENT WAS FOR SIN, HEALTH, WEALTH, AND MORE
The Bible's position: The atonement was for salvation, full and free. Jesus fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy in
his earth;y ministry as recorded specificallyh in Matthew. Paul had much or little in the same lifestime,
and so have many saints throughout history.
2) HEALING IS GUARANTEED IN THE ATONEMENT. IT IS OUR FAULT IF WE REMAIN
UNHEALED.
The Bible's position: God heals by his mercy, and has done so for Israel, for Gentiles, and for us. Jesus
performed miracles in his earthly ministry, and since, and James gives us instruction in what to do if we
are sick. Nonetheless, Timothy, Trophimmus, and others were not healed ( at least not right away), and
Paul does not condemn them.
3) WEALTH IS THE BREAD OF GOD'S TRUE CHILDREN AND IAT IS YOUR RIGHT.
The Bible's position: God often provides miraculously and abundantly for his people, but wealth is not
guaranteed and is not a sign of spirituality, but rather. often a competing love to that for Jesus Christ.
I would add that practically all those who teach wealth and prosperity hoard for themselves and the
poor in their churches remain. This is direct contradiction to the work of the Holy Spirit in Acts where
those who had shared with the poor rather than exploiting the poor.
4) TITHING IS REQUIRED AND GIVING TO GET IS WHAT GOD EXPECTS. GOD
DEMANDS WE PLANT FINANCIAL SEEDS.
The Bible's position: NO mention of tithing after the resurrection is made, and Paul in his poverty never
mentioned tithing or whether the church was doing that. We are not to give under compulsion but
voluntarily and generously. The New Covenant is always superior to the old, so tithing may be more of
a limitation than anything. Paul also said that a gift is acceptable by what a person has, not by what they
do not have. Seed offerings are not found in the New Testament, and since most if not all specify the
receiver, the Bible's warning to beware of those who exploit you is the operative instruction.
4) BEING SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT IS A SIGN OF SUBMISSION TO GOD
The Bible's position: While God can certainly put a person on the floor or knock him off his horse and
work with him, nowhere does the Bible present "slaying in the spirit" as a normative experience, or one
to be sought. No esperience can substitute for ongoing submission to the will of God, and in no wise
should anyone even attend a meeting by a known false prophet let alone let them touch him or her. We
should be careful to avoid those who use hypnotic gestures or whose life does not square with their
claimed experiences.
5) IT IS DESIRABLE FOR WOMEN TO BE COPASTORS OR PASTORS AND HAVE
AUTHORITY OVER MEN
.
The Bible's position: WOmen are highly valued, but spiritual authority is given only to men who meet
all scriptural qualifications. A woman must not exercise authority over a man, and the co-pastor model
presents an equality of authority which if followed in the home is disastrous. The Bible teaches that
leaders are an example of faith, hope, and doctrine, so this should be avoided. Certainly, women can
be in authority over other women, which the Bible promotes (Beth Moore comes to mind).
Will stop here, but suffice it to say, everyone who is truly blood-washed and who loves the Lord will
put the word above men, and it is a battle in every arena - whether among people who long to be
intimate with Jesus but whom are often prey for false teachers, or among those who love the Word but
have little or no passion for the Lord or for souls, who are also often prey for false teachers who have
nothing to do with the Word of Faith or other heresies. I am teaching James in our cell church, and it
really hits hard on favoritism - where ethnicity, social class, and other separators in the church are
condemned. THose who teach the homogeneity of the church are also false teachers, so no matter what
arena you are in, we must fight the devil's schemes. I teach teens in a Pakistani church, and believe that
all Christians have to clearly establish a much wider comfort zone so that the Kingdom of God will
extend over the whole earth and that the true church of Jesus Christ will be one.
Pennsylvania, United States
[223-Vol. 5]
#21
Dear ON DOCTRINE
Your article and collective information on the wolves(that disguise as sheep) that are tbn is excellent...I
have known and felt in spirit that tbn is all lies and deceit,but your article truly proves it...How shall
these modern pharisee`s escape hell?,these people are agents of the devil...However this information
must be shown to the world,you must attempt to expose this tbn on a much larger scale..The chances of
tbn supporters coming to this site is slim,and so many will still be deceived..I would love to help in
anyway to expose this lie.....We must reveal this truth on a far larger scale,,try to link to other true
christian websites and advertise on google or something...the sooner people know about the fake
gospel that is being preached on tbn the sooner people will search for the true holy gospel of god....
Praise be to God and christ yeshua(jesus)
god bless you
Johannesburg, South Africa
[228-Vol 5]
#22
You have a MISTAKE in your MORMON web pages. You show the date of the founding of the
mormon church INCORRECTLY.
THE CORRECT DATE IS APRIL 6, 1830, NOT JUNE 6, 1830.
I am an EXmormon. The WORD ALONE took me OUT, FOREVER!
I AM NOW A BELIEVER IN CHRIST, ACCORDING TO THE UNPERVERTED GOSPEL OF
CHRIST, AS BEST THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE ONLY!
Indiana, United States
[230-Vol 5]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Thank you for your visit and message on the On Doctrine Contact page.
Thanks for catching the error. I am not sure why I typed June instead of April, but I do make mistakes.
I have corrected the page.
It was great to read your testimony, which is much different than the "testimony" that you must have had
while in the Mormon church. God bless you.
#23
I just want to thank you for your comments on Oral Roberts. My wife is totally caught up in the "Word
of Faith Movement". It is like a cult. No matter what negative publicity that comes from the "Word of
Faith" Movent, even though there is documented evidence of the false representation or problems with
the ministry, my wife believes everything she hears and that they are just great people that are preaching
the Word of God and they are human and allowed to make mistakes.
I believe the "Word of Faith Movement" is what God is talking about when he says not to be misled.
That false teachers will come in his name and when he says at the day of judgement to the people that
come to him and say,I prophesied in Your Name and I did Miracles in Your Name and Jesus says, I
do not know you, these are people that actually feel that they are 100% for God and they have been
misled by these ministries and are fully believing that these ministries are led by God. What these
ministries teach are Health, Wealth, and Financial Prosperity on the Earth. God never intended or
promised that every person on the earth would be fully healed, wealthy, and 100% prosperous. What
he promised is that by believing in his Son, Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord and what he did on the
cross that we would inherit eternal life and have all of these things in heaven. God does reserve the
right to bless and do miracles on this earth, but it is according to his will.
I get very upset when I think about what my wife believes and hopefully my children will not be misled.
I also agree with your statement on speaking in tongues. I don't doubt the fact that God can allow
speaking in tongues on this earth, but if He does, it will be a recognizable language to someone else.
This jibberish that they speak is very fake, and if you have ever been in a service where people get
supposedly " baptized in the Holy Spirit", it is totally fake and I don't remember the people in the Bible
needing to be taught how to speak in tongues, it just happened. I don't remember the Bible saying to
just say whatever comes to your mind and believe it is God. I don't know why I am surprised, it is no
different than anything else I see in the Faith Movement Church. People being covinced that something
is from God when it is not. When they take the verse and twist it that says, those who speak in
tongues are speaking mysteries unto God and are edifying themselves, I find it amazing that they don't
understand this to mean that the word "edifying" is talking about them being prideful and trying to sh
[Portion of message lost during transmission - ed.]
Thanks for Reading,
United States
[23-Vol 5]
#24A
Mr Hand:
On your website page, http://www.ondoctrine.com/10mormon.htm, that begins
with:
DEFINITION OF THE MORMONS
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
and down very near the bottom of the page, is written:
THE UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY - Jared and Sandra Tanner. Considered the best
authorities on Mormon beliefs.
I believe that the first name of Dear Brother Tanner is JERALD, instead of
JARED, although Jared is a common mormon name.
You might check the spelling to be sure, but I'm remembering his name as
JERALD.
Whatever the correct spelling may be, in my personal opinion, he was a
wonderful person who tried all his life to do good things, like yourself, I
feel sure.
UTLM has sure been a blessing to me.
Thank you for your own wonderful site.
United States
[251-Vol 6]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Yes, his name is Jerald. Perhaps I had been reading about Jared in the book of Ether. I have made the
correction on the page. Keep on looking for those errors. They keep popping up here and there.
-------------------------------------------------------------
See the website: Utah Lighthouse Ministry
www.utlm.org
#24B
Thanks, Gary:
I have visited your site for several years now, and I enjoy it a lot.
Your site and the site of Jerald and Sandra Tanner are two of several favorites.
And I especially thank you for the information on your family site. All will be enjoyable, i'm sure, and I
will (for reasons I don't fully understand), be reading the things that has to do with STRONG
MORMON COMITTMENTS.
I suppose it's because that for a time, I was a converted mormon, and thought they were the one of the
most loving religious groups that I had ever met.
I still believe that, but not in the same way that I did during my first two or three years, while trying to
be a "good" Mormon.
But then, as time passed, and as they began to teach their doctrines that aren't taught to investigators
and new members, THE WORD OF GOD (ALONE), PLUS WHAT I KNOW NOW, WAS HIS
MERCIFUL HOLY SPIRIT, began to slowly take me out of MORMONISM, forever.
In later years when the internet became available, I DID DO LOTS OF READING from many
sources.
But, the WORD alone snatched me RIGHT OUT OF THERE. CONVICTIONS, SO TO SPEAK.
And it all became quite simple and clear to my old head, and it basically goes this way:
ANYTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH, AND STRONGLY OPPOSES THE WORD OF GOD,
CANNOT BE THE WORD OF GOD, AND ABSOLUTELY HAD TO COME FROM A
SOURCE THAT GOD HIMSELF MUST DESPISE.
To my thinking, Mormon Doctrine, in MANY WAYS actually opposes God. They seem to be "at
war" against God, His Son, His spirit, His Word, and for many early years of Mormonism, (and yet to
an extent) they strongly oppose the people of God, AND, in a way, those also who would yet become
HIS people.
------------------------------------------------
So, although I don't consider myself a really good man, even yet, I do believe that through faith in
Christ, that God has 'ACCOUNTED" me, and all believers, as having the Righteousness of God;
COUNTED WORTHY, although I am in reality, NOT.
I believe that is true Bible Doctrine, and so I won't be giving up that present conviction very
easily.
So, it's pretty easy for me to see these great differences between BIBLE doctrine, and MORMON
doctrine.
I don't have a "photographic memory", so to speak, of all the scriptures that prove the difference
between Bible and Mormon Doctrines, but I have studied a lot on it as a matter of ETERNAL need,
and I definitely choose Bible Doctrine, and thereby, I MUST REJECT Mormon Doctrine.
The two are "at war; most strongly opposed", to each other. Totally incompatible.
There is no Salvation in a perverted gospel.
Thank God, that HE IS merciful. VERY! Even to "dummies" like myself. I'm a little strange in my
expressions, in today's world. But I'm stickin' to it.
To me, it takes "way too much" of a "very different type of faith", to be "A Mormon".
But, I still do Love Mormons. But "it's all in the doctrines". I'm out, forever.
Best wishes, Gary, & thanks again.
United States
[252-Vol 6]
#25A
I followed the message for 30 years and could not focus on it's error. God revealed the source of it's
error and the source is rejecting the cross.
God Bless
[name removed]
Kenneth Hagin of the faith movement says the cross is defeat.
Kenneth Hagin False Prophet/Teacher
http://www.forgottenword.org/hagin.html
"The trouble with us is that we've preached a 'cross' religion, and we need to preach a 'throne' religion.
By that I mean that people have thought they were supposed to remain at the cross. Some have
received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, have backed up to the cross, and have stayed there ever
since...The cross is actually a place of defeat, whereas the Resurrection is a place of triumph. When
you preach the cross, you're preaching death, and you leave people in death." (Ken Hagin, "The
Believer's Authority," page 16. Second Edition 1986)
An discussion I had on an christian forum:
The cross is is a place where we die with Christ then we can live the resurected life daily. But without
dieing daily or as Jesus said deny ourself daily we cannot live the resurected life. Denying ourself daily
is our cross and then Jesus can live in us an we have the resurected life. Denying the cross as Kenneth
Hagin did allowed a resurcted life for Kenneth Hagin but not a Godly resurected life but a false
resurected life filled with the deception of satan.
Discussion in a Christian forum:
› › The Cross is not a Christian's focus; › ›
Not according to Jesus and Paul and many scriptures about the cross as being the power of God, being
only what Paul will hear of, being the only salvation, life, love ...Etc a chriatian will know of.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved
it is the power of God
1Co 2:2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Mt 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest
the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
› › it is not anything but a symbol for the true purpose behind it .› ›
True. When Paul talks about the cross and being crucified with Jesus he is not talking about the two
trees that make the physical cross. He is talking about the selflessness suffering Jesus done for all the life
virtues mentioned above. The true purpose of the cross.
Ga 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before
him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
› › Today, it is a metaphor for the Resurrection, › ›
The resurection is a result of the power of the cross.
› › just as Paul relates it back then. › ›
I know of no scripture that refers to this.
› › If you'd stop your worship of it for awhile, › ›
If you call worshiping the selflessness Love Jesus has for us by suffering you also better blame Paul for
doing the same.
Php 3:18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are
the enemies of the cross of Christ:
There is life in the cross. Do you know scripture that says there is life in the resurection?
2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we
also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you
Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life
which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for
me.
Paul golried only in the cross:
Ga 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
[name removed]
Thanks for your time and reviewing my thoughts with insight you have. We must all be aware of the
truth. I will say I wonder if Kenneth was teaching another gospel because of his focus.
To speak further on the concern. Apostle Peter may have had the same concern as Kenneth. The
Apostle turned from an error. The error of rejecting the cross. Jesus showed the Apostle that satan was
involved and talked to satan. This deceptive spirit can even influence one of the greatest man of God.
The way satan removes Christians from God's will is by deceptive forces and this is the major
deceptive force Paul talks about. The force of rejecting the cross. The power of the cross is the singular
means where all Christian life can be guided by the Holy spirit and of course the resurrection must also
be preached. But without the cross there will be no resurrection of Christ or Christians cannot also live
the resurrected life.br>
This is satans way of placing Christians on the sideline by removing teaching of the cross. And of course
the cross is a result of the true cross of Christ. Jesus cross was Him giving of Himself unto death. And
He ask us to give of our self. This is our cross the same in spirit as Jesus cross. Once we give of our self
then the Holy spirit can live in us.
But placing the cross as not a finished work removes the only God power mentioned in scripture. The
power of the cross. Once the cross is rejected then there is a substitute power to deceive Christians
and this is satans power.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved
it is the power of God
Php 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings,
being made conformable unto his death;
The power of his resurection is the power of the cross.
The power of the Holy Spirit is a result of the cross not the resurection as scripture shows. We must
keep focus exactly what scripture says and not place the resurection where it does not belong as
according to scripture. The resurection is only proof of the finished work of Jesus.
Louisiana, United States
[260-Vol 6]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Welcome to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.
You are right about the difficulty being a rejection of the cross. Most Word of Faith followers would
deny that they would ever reject the cross, but the reality is they worship a different Jesus Christ and he
does not have the same power as the Jesus Christ in Orthodox doctrine. Kenneth Copeland has said it
best:
"The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, 'Son, realize this. Now
follow me in this and don't let your tradition trip you up.' He said, 'Think this way - a twice-born
man whipped Satan in his own domain.' And I threw my Bible down like that. I said, 'What?' He said,
'A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.' He said, 'You are the
very image, the very copy of that one.' I said, 'Goodness, gracious sakes alive!' And I began to see
what had gone on in there, and I said, 'Well now you don't mean, you couldn't dare mean, that I could
have done the same thing?' He said, 'Oh yeah, if you'd had the knowledge of the Word of God that He
did, you could have done the same thing, 'cause you're a reborn man too.'"
Substitution and Identification, tape 00-0202, side 2
The majority of Word of Faith Teachers adopt the "Jesus died spiritually in hell" teaching,
by which He actually became a sinner like human beings, which required that He be born again just like
human beings. What they are actually teaching is that the atonement was not accomplished on the cross,
but the cross was only the means to bring about the death of Jesus Christ so He would go to hell where
the actual atonement occurred. Again, Kenneth Copeland is the spokesman:
"Jesus had to go through that same spiritual death in order to pay the
price. Now it wasn't the physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin, because if it had of been
any prophet of God that had died for the last couple of thousand years before that could have paid that
price. It wasn't physical death anybody could do that."
What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost, Kenneth Copeland, audio tape 020022
Kenneth Hagin was Kenneth Copeland's mentor and they both adopted the same beliefs. I believe that
particular message is not only heretical, it is a different gospel which will lead a person to damnation. I
do not judge the salvation of an individual because that is the prerogative of Jesus Christ only, but a
comparison of the biblical gospel and that taught be Kenneth Copeland reveals the problem.
What Word of Faith theology does is bring Jesus Christ down to the same level as man, and elevates
man to the same level as God. Virtually every deviant religious view begins with a defective view of
Jesus Christ, which leads to the presentation of a different gospel, which leads to a redefinition of God
and the elevation or deification of human beings.
Mormonism is a classic example of this process (a religion from which Kenneth Copeland borrows
heavily). Their god was once just a man who lived on a planet other than earth who followed Mormon
doctrine and became a god after he was resurrected in the next life. Mormon followers believe that they
can do the same if they follow correctly and faithfully the Mormon precepts and they can also become
gods over their own planets. Word of Faith adopts a similar theology by claiming that Christians are
"little gods," not only gods in this life but in heaven as well. Mormons accomplish their own
salvation by means of their works, and Word of Faith followers are taught that they are so exalted that
any born again Christian could have accomplished the atonement in the place of Jesus Christ. So, in
effect, any born again Christian could have accomplished his own salvation. Of course that view is
absurd because no human being could be born again prior to the atonement of Jesus Christ. But
everything is backward in Word of Faith theology so that particular distortion does not really register in
the minds of followers.
More specifically, both groups define the atonement in a much different manner than in Orthodox
theology. For Mormons, the atonement was not accomplished on the cross, but in the Garden of
Gethsemane when Jesus Christ sweat drops of blood during His prayers. Both Word of Faith and
Mormonism place the atonement at a point other than the cross - Mormons placing it before the cross
and Word of Faith placing it after the cross, in hell.
I think that Kenneth Hagin knew very well that he was teaching another gospel, because he worked so
very hard to present it as a biblical doctrine and he deliberately structured his teaching in opposition to
Orthodox theology. The same is true with Kenneth Copeland who knows what Orthodox doctrine is in
relation to the atonement on the cross but specifically denies that belief. The problem is not what they
might know, but what they both have taught.
The problem in relation to followers, is that they are not concerned with biblical doctrine, but only what
their teachers tell them about themselves. What is being taught is what they wish to hear, so whether it
conforms to what is biblical is not particularly important to them, They wish to believe that they have
spiritual power, whether or not that power can be demonstrated. They wish to believe that they can
bind the devil, although he is still active. They wish that they can become healthy wealthy and important
simply by giving their money to a ministry, and receive a hundred-fold return on the money given in the
process, so they gladly embrace Word of Faith. They form an emotional attachment to the teaching that
transcends biblical truth and that is difficult to combat. It is so amazing how accurate and current the
Scripture can be:
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled,
they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their
ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Thank you for the link to Forgotten Word. I have been in contact with Robert Wise since he first went
on-line. I have his website listed on my Links page under Cults and False Doctrine. Very fine and
helpful website.
Thank you for your note. It was very much appreciated.
#25B
Thanks for the insight. This helps me see more the error and confirms I made the right decision to
reject the WOF teachings.
God Bless
Louisiana, United States
[271-Vol 6]
#26
Outstanding site! I am at odds with my wife and her sisters regarding the Word of Faith movement. It's
a subject no longer discussed due to our opposing views. Your site just reenforces my beliefs. May
God continue to bless you and your ministry.
United States
[263-Vol 6]
#27
Hello,
Thanks for the well written articles. I found one on Billy Graham and it was very interesting because I
was born again under similar circumstances.
REF:
http://www.ondoctrine.com/unquotes/grahb001.htm
About 30 yesrs ago I was sick and went to kill myself and God came to me and said what about me. I
saw my life come in front of me and said I turn my life over to you and if I am sick at least I will be
yours. I felt a warm honey go from my head to my toes and the sickness left me. I did not know what
being born again was but I was born again. Later a Christian said I needed to confess Jesus as lord and
savior. I did and would have done this when I was born again if I knew I needed to do this.
Me being born again at that instant is 100% against scriptures mentioned in the article because I did not
know I needed Jesus as Lord and Savior. I know Jesus is in my heart and cannot explain the scriptural
conflict.
One example of many instances of guidance from God.
I am an engineer and done very well in engineering technical solutions to building industry systems. I
was happy for my capability and there was a problen I did not realize. To solve the problem God had
to do whatever was needed to get me out of my problem. I lost my Job and after a time of not getting
many jobs that was passing me by I became very depressed. In searching God came to me and spoke
to my spirit. He said I was no better than the rich one who trusted in riches. I was trusting in the
richness of my engineering capability and this was just as evil. God said I needed to trust in Him for my
engineering capability and I submitted fully. Within a few days I had a Job.
God Bless
United States
[274-Vol 6]
#28
I have just found your wewbsite this evening. I have read what was written about Richard Roberts. I
have tried to follow the news about the recent ORU scandel as I live not far from Tulsa. I figured that
you would be doing a lot of bashing and name calling when I first started to read the article about the
ministry of he and other's, but that was not what I found at all. You used facts and common sense to
make your point. I appreciate that.
I am an Evangical Christian and I have followed ministries such as Oral Roberts and many others for
years, believing every word and sending in many dollars to their "ministries". I don't mind telling you that
I am currently confused about what I now believe. My belief in Christ is still the same, but when it
comes to being taught something by people, I am afraid that I don't know who to trust. Aren't there any
preachers and teachers of the Gospel who don't seek out great wealth and high lifestyle's? Is there
anyone who I can listen to (I love Christian T.V. and I hate giving it up because of liars) that is
trustworthy?
Thank you for your time and website,
United States
[332-Vol 7]
|
|
|
COPYRIGHT © 2001, 2002 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved