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
that 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 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.
#9
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."
#10
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).
#11
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.
#12
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
#13A
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.
#13B
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]
#14
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]
#15
Mr. Hand,
At http://www.ondoctrine.com/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]
#16
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]
|
|
|
COPYRIGHT © 2001, 2002 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved