heresy

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity (Full)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

“The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved,” (The Baptist Confession, 1.10).

_______________

 

Introduction

With some relief, I have observed as one-by-one, major voices in Reformed thought have begun to voice concern over the way that the issue of ethnicity is being treated of late in the name of Evangelical and even Reformed Christianity. Individuals like James White and Phil Johnson have weighed in on the matter. We should recognize, though, that much of the Evangelical and Reformed church is behind the curve on this issue, and there is precious little unity in the addressing of it. In fact, the concern of many seems to be their own reputations and the way they are individually being addressed on social media.

Entire denominations are ending up on the wrong side of the issue on this one, bloggers and podcasters are seeking to address the issue one biblical passage at a time, and no one seems to be willing to say outright what I will seek to demonstrate in this very series of articles: the fact that many in the name of racial reconciliation are adding to, and thus denying, the gospel once and for all delivered to the saints. It is high time that we brought Scripture to bear on the matter of ethnicity in the Western church in a very clear manner. What clear passages speak to this issue, though?

In the articles to come, we will examine a few key texts that are necessary for laying the groundwork for a proper biblical understanding of pan-ethnic fellowship within the church of God. Though by no means an exhaustive list, the following passages will be instrumental in helping us to understand the proper biblical understanding of this often volatile issue:

  • Jeremiah 31:27-34
  • Galatians 3:7, 26-39
  • Ephesians 2:13-22
  • James 2:1, 8-13
  • Colossians 2-3

Critical Race Theory

Before we examine these key texts, it will be important for us to take a minute to briefly summarize the major teachings of Critical Race Theory (CRT), because it is well documented that this is the major view behind much of the narrative being pushed in Evangelical and Reformed churches today. “Christian” proponents of CRT have all but anathematized those who disagree with them and they have accused them of heinous sins. This series is not meant to be a responding in kind. However, there have been some recent statements that have made it clear that these men and women are seeking to fundamentally change the gospel as we know it.

What is CRT? CRT began in the 1960s and 70s as a political philosophy with roots in Critical Theory (from the 1910s) and its parent philosophy: Marxism. “Critical of both liberal incrementalism and conservative color-blind philosophies, critical race theorists carve out new ground that places central importance on power, economics, narrative, and social construction in coming to grips with America’s social problems,” (Critical Race Theory – Methodology – Law, Legal, University, and York – JRank Articles). There has been great push back against the notion that this approach to addressing ethnic disparity in the church is Marxist or, more appropriately, neo-Marxist in origin. However, there is no denying the paper trail that ties neo-Marxists like Derrick Bell, Saul Alinsky, and Richard Delgado to the formulation and propagation of Critical Race Theory.

Jeremiah 31:27-34

First, the sins of fathers and grandfathers has recently been brought into the discussion. Insofar as we should not desire to repeat the sins of our fathers, we must recount our familial and national histories with realism, not romanticism, as our guide. We must allow our forefathers to own their sins as well as their virtues. The question is whether or not it is biblical for us to require men, women, and children of today and tomorrow to answer for the sins of those who preceded them. Jeremiah 31 makes clear that we should not.

“27‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. 28As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord.

29‘In those days they will not say again,

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

30But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge,” (Jer. 31:17-30; NASB).

The theological term often assigned to this area of study is the term hamartiology (doctrine of sin). What must be understood about the effects of sin in the Old Testament vs. its effects in the New Testament is the fact that there was a very real sense in which the covenant people of God were expected to repent of the sins of their fathers. Lack of such repentance would lead to great cultural consequences among the people. As such, we see corporate repentance when there is a clear, divinely established covenantal union made with a national people (i.e. Daniel and Ezra praying for the nation of Israel). To say that men are responsible for their forefathers’ sins or, as has been recently suggested, responsible for the sins of people who share their skin color assumes that they are covenantally united to them and share in their actual sins.

To his credit, Pastor Anyabwile (follow the hyperlink above) has not demonstrated an ignorance of the discrepancy between his hamartiology and that of his detractors. In fact, he specifically addresses it (however deficiently) in a recent article published on The Gospel Coalition’s website. He writes:

“Finally, and this is where our disagreement is sharpest, the New Testament does indeed sweepingly speak of ethnic, national or ‘racial’ groups and their shared guilt and need due to sin. Again, we’re keeping with the New Testament, which is good because the Old Testament examples are legion. Consider Titus 1,” (Anyabwile, “Four Ways the New Testament Identifies Ethnicity in the Church,” The Gospel Coalition).

At this point, Pastor Anyabwile quotes Titus 1:12-14: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth” (NASB). What the honest reader will notice from this passage is the fact that missing from Paul’s description of the Cretans is any insistence that they must be rebuked for sins that are not individually their own. Also missing is any mention of skin color, facial features, hair texture, or any other marks that would be used by the modern Western politician or sociologist (you can apparently add pastor now) to distinguish between races.

What is being described here is a geographically unique collective, most likely with a multiplicity of ethnic backgrounds and genetic, visible differences, who share in certain culturally enshrined sinful tendencies away from which they need to be discipled through the ordained means of grace God has given the church. A modern application might be to tell a West Texas church planter today that he should prepare for an abundance of American Rugged Individualism in the thoughts and habits of many of the people (of all colors) coming out of the world and into his local assembly. He should be prepared to hold up the mirror of Scripture to the people so that they see this sinful tendency to forsake the assembly and disobey clear, biblical commands toward hospitality in their own hearts. Having demonstrated the biblical requirement, the pastor must be ready to lovingly admonish and rebuke those who willfully disobey it.

Those who have come into the fellowship of the saints in the New Covenant era are not bound together under an earthly, national covenant head like Moses. Rather, we come under the covenant Head of Christ Himself. There is no ethnic or national mandate here. I do not have a unique covenant with “white” Christians or American Christians that I do not share with Christians of other races and nationalities. The New Covenant demands that I admonish and rebuke particular sins that are clearly present in the lives of my “white” and American Christian brothers, but I do not share in their guilt merely by virtue of the fact that I too am “white” or American. At the same time, I have the liberty. . .  no, the duty to admonish and rebuke my Christian brothers of all ethnicities in the same way for the same sins. I can and should do so, because the same law that binds me binds them, regardless of ethnicity. That is the nature of the New Covenant.

“31Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord. 33‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more,’” (Jer. 31:31-34; NASB).

Any understanding of repentance and sin in the New Covenant must take this passage very seriously. The requirement for forgiveness from God and admittance into the New Covenant community is repentance of one’s own personal sins, not any committed by previous generations. Each man stands or falls in the New Covenant on the basis of his own sins. In fact, each man is fully forgiven his sins in the New Covenant and his sins are remembered no more.

Galatians 3:7, 26-29

To add to this requirement is to add to the gospel itself, just as the Judaizers Paul addressed in his letter to the Galatians added to the gospel a circumcision requirement. It is proper at this point to recall that Paul pronounces a curse upon those who add to the gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). This circumcision was a requirement brought on by the Judaizers to address a real ethnic quandary in the early church. A great enmity existed between Roman-born and Roman-conquered Jews and Gentiles at this point in Jewish history (Eph. 2:11; Phil. 3:2-3). Prior to obtaining union with ethnically Jewish Christians through Christ, the Judaizers expected Gentile converts to become one with the Jews through circumcision. Paul makes clear that no such requirement can be placed upon the Christian except that which has already been required: repentance unto life and saving faith (two sides of the same coin).

“7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. . . 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise,” (Gal. 3:7, 26-29; NASB).

Pastor Thabiti has not required anything new. His addition to the gospel requirement is an addition that has been pushed for years in other sectors of Western Evangelicalism. Yet, his addition is an addition and must be sharply condemned as such. At this point, let me clearly state what no one else seems to be willing. What is being preached in the name of racial reconciliation in many circles today is an addition to the gospel, which amounts to a fundamental denial of the true gospel. In other words, this is nothing less than heresy, which must be condemned in the strongest terms. Pastor Anyabwile and others are telling Christians that they must add to their repentance a continual, public, irremovable recognition of collective guilt and penance. It posits a sin for which Christ’s blood cannot atone, a dividing wall defiantly indestructible even in the face of Christ and His gospel.

What we see in Christ, however, is that an abolition has taken place. As Christ did not come to this earth to identify with only one specific ethnicity—but rather with mankind in general, so that He might bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2:9-11)—so too we are called to find our primary identity in Him not in our own particular ethnicities and, in so doing, we also find our primary identities as being intertwined with one another (regardless of ethnicity). As such, we identify with one another as Abraham’s descendants according to belief, not according to ethnicity.

Ephesians 2:13-22

The perpetuity of ethnic dividing walls within the church, it must be stated, is a fundamental denial of the gospel itself. To be united with Christ in communion with the saints is to accept His finished work of erasing the primary function of ethnic identity in the church. That is not to say that the sinfulness of man will not still bring about ethnic disparity even within the covenant community of God, but this occurs as a result of precisely what people like Pastor Anyabwile are pushing for: emphasizing the perpetuity of identifying in ethnicity beyond the point of union with Christ and His body.

“13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit,” (Eph. 2:13-22; NASB).

What we have, then, in Pastor Thabiti and those who agree with his narrative, is a fundamental denial of the great mystery of the gospel: the expansion of the gospel through Gentile inclusion. In their writings, it is agreed that the nations are included in the New Covenant, but the dividing walls remain. Rather than finding unity in the throne and the Lamb, the tribes, tongues, and nations worshiping God in heaven are treated as having perpetual dividing walls persisting into the eternal state. Thus, even Christ’s eschatological bride is fundamentally divided in the view of these preachers and their churches, and all in service of furthering an extra-biblical “narrative.”

James 2:1, 8-13

But it has been mentioned that Paul had a specific heart inclination toward those of his own ethnicity (Rom. 9:1-5), and that there will be a great multitude “of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” in the eternal kingdom (Rev. 7:9; NKJV). By making mention of these passages, what is being justified is a certain sense of virtue in showing partiality toward one’s own ethnicity over another in kingdom work.

Yet we are told very clearly in James’ letter that partiality is most certainly a sin (Jas. 2:1, 8-13). Clearly, Paul could not have meant in Romans 9 that he loved the ethnic Israelites more than Gentile Christians. How then could he rightly refer to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13)? Likewise Peter, though called an apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8), was rebuked by Paul for showing favor to the exclusivistic Jews (Judaizers) in corporate fellowship (Gal. 2:11-12). There is no special dispensation granted any one ethnicity or another for ethnic partiality within the body of Christ. It is to be rejected wherever it is found.

So it is improper to point to Paul’s love for and desire to see the Israelites saved as an instance of acceptable ethnic favoritism within the body of Christ. Nor could the ethnic groups mentioned in John’s vision in Revelation 7 have been engaging in any such partiality in the very presence of God. Such partiality would is a clear violation of the law of God. The overtly clear passage of James must be used as a governing factor in our interpretation of these passages. Whatever they mean, they cannot be meant to contradict the clear teaching of James. Partiality in the body of Christ is always a sin.

Instead, Romans 9, it is clear that Paul means to demonstrate that his consolation is found in understanding that ethnicity is not his primary identification. Rather, as Gentiles come to faith in Christ, a great multitude of those outside of ethnic Israel is added to true Israel, which is cause for rejoicing (Rom. 9:6ff), because that means the expansion of true Israel and the eternal family of Paul. In the same way, it is more appropriate to see as primary the unifying nature of the throne and the Lamb in bringing together people out of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues over against the notion that these are disparate people standing in separate ranks still divided from one another and showing ethnic partiality to one another in the presence of a holy God for all of eternity. The very notion is borderline blasphemous.

Colossians 2-3

Perhaps partiality is not the driving factor, though. Assuming that there is no desire to foster a sense of ethnic favoritism among ethnic groups within the church, what is the stated motivation? The stated motivation is that a collective of voices is needed in order to break the power of systemic racism and overcome the tide of white privilege that pervades our culture, including even the churches in the West. Ethnic minorities are called upon the rise up with one collective voice, and to shout down the voice of any “white” man (or minority detractor) who does not join in supporting the accepted narrative.

What is the accepted narrative, though? The accepted narrative is that there are intangible, unquantifiable sins (e.g. white privilege and systemic racism) that naturally offset the balance of power within societies, institutions and, yes, even churches, and white Christians (those in power) must all own it, confess it, and enter into a perpetual life of public penance, or we are contributing to it. It must be observed, and outright stated that the definition of these sins are worldly. There is no such notion of sins in the Bible from which the Christian cannot even potentially repent (Jas. 1:13-15; 1 Cor. 10:13). Yet, it is impossible for any ethnicity, institution, society, or church to repent of such sins as are currently being defined and redefined under the aforementioned terms.

If these terms and definitions seem foreign to the biblical texts, it is because they are. Whence do they come, though? They have been smuggled into the church from the aforementioned worldly philosophy known as Critical Race Theory developed by neo-Marxists in the 1960s and 70s.

“As an outgrowth of the critical legal studies movement—an area of legal scholarship popularized in the 1970s that privileges economic and neo-Marxist understandings of structural barriers to equality—these early CRT scholars recognized that social, legal, and juridical apparatuses work in the interest of the dominant class and, therefore, serve to maintain existing social relations along racial and class lines,” (Lopez and Warren, “Introduction,” Critical Race Theory).

Behind these terms and embedded in many even Evangelical and “Reformed” articles on ethnicity today is the idea of power struggle. Marxism has always been about power struggles, and this new movement is no different. The main difference is terminology. Instead of power, the term privilege is used. In short, what we are seeing is a smuggling in of worldly philosophies in the name of combating sin.

What has been discovered and exploited by neo-Marxists, that had not quite been as well-defined in the early days with Marx and Engels, is the fact that there is power in the promulgation of the notion of perpetual, irreconcilable victimhood. Where there are victims, there is penance. Ironically, in the name of breaking down power structures, political and societal Marxism has always only accomplished the reinforcement and enhancement of them. Here, we arrive at our final text for consideration, and I will post it in full:

“6Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. . .

18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

20If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ 22(which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
1Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory,” (Col. 2:6-8, 18-23; 3:1-4; NASB).

Paul’s argumentation throughout the book of Colossians is masterful. He begins in Chapter 1 by setting before the eyes of his readers a high view of Christ and His gospel. In Chapter 2, he addresses what commentators have entitled the Colossian heresy, a strange morph of Greek and Jewish thought that resembled both the Gnosticism that would arise later in the first and second century and the Judaizer (or “circumcision party”) movement already present by Paul’s penning of Galatians. These heretics were seeking to address some very valid sin issues within the church culture of Colossae, and other “sins” that were really only violations of their manmade laws and philosophies.

Paul does not agree with the narrative of the Colossian heretics. He sees that they have used their special-knowledge religion to push forth a narrative that was binding the hearts and the minds of the Colossian church to laws that God had never given. He rightly roots the error in worldly philosophies and the traditions of men. He then offers the only real solution to sin within the body of Christ. He points to the throne and to the Lamb, not to the tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations. Having instructed them not to allow themselves to be taken captive by worldly philosophies and the traditions of men, he tells them in chapter three to set their minds of the things above where Christ is.

Conclusion

Do we still battle residual sin in our members? Certainly. However, we are not to be bound by the decrees of men in our definition of that sin. Nor are we to subsequently seek to adopt their extra-biblical solutions to sin, be they real or artificial sins. Paul gives us the final answer in Colossians 2-3: look to Christ! When men seek to define sin for us, we must require them to take us to the Bible and show it to us there. When men seek to show us the solution to sin, let them take us to Christ and to His cross. Everything else, everything we have been seeing from this heretical movement, is an adding to the cross. It must be recognized as the false gospel it is. It must be decried, rejected, rebuked, and declared accursed. Otherwise, it will continue to bring destruction upon the household of God in our day. I recognize that such a stand will not be easy for those who hold communion together with people and churches who preach this false gospel, but it is the stand that is demanded of us in God’s word. If we are to guard the sheep against the wolves, we must be willing to call out the wolves in our midst.

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity – Colossians 2-3

/ William F. Leonhart III / 3 Comments

Perhaps partiality is not the driving factor, though. Assuming that there is no desire to foster a sense of ethnic favoritism among ethnic groups within the church, what is the stated motivation? The stated motivation is that a collective of voices is needed in order to break the power of systemic racism and overcome the tide of white privilege that pervades our culture, including even the churches in the West. Ethnic minorities are called upon the rise up with one collective voice, and to shout down the voice of any “white” man (or minority detractor) who does not join in supporting the accepted narrative.

What is the accepted narrative, though? The accepted narrative is that there are intangible, unquantifiable sins (e.g. white privilege and systemic racism) that naturally offset the balance of power within societies, institutions and, yes, even churches, and white Christians (those in power) must all own it, confess it, and enter into a perpetual life of public penance, or we are contributing to it. It must be observed, and outright stated that the definition of these sins are worldly. There is no such notion of sins in the Bible from which the Christian cannot even potentially repent (Jas. 1:13-15; 1 Cor. 10:13). Yet, it is impossible for any ethnicity, institution, society, or church to repent of such sins as are currently being defined and redefined under the aforementioned terms.

If these terms and definitions seem foreign to the biblical texts, it is because they are. Whence do they come, though? They have been smuggled into the church from the aforementioned worldly philosophy known as Critical Race Theory developed by neo-Marxists in the 1960s and 70s.

“As an outgrowth of the critical legal studies movement—an area of legal scholarship popularized in the 1970s that privileges economic and neo-Marxist understandings of structural barriers to equality—these early CRT scholars recognized that social, legal, and juridical apparatuses work in the interest of the dominant class and, therefore, serve to maintain existing social relations along racial and class lines,” (Lopez and Warren, “Introduction,” Critical Race Theory).

Behind these terms and embedded in many even Evangelical and “Reformed” articles on ethnicity today is the idea of power struggle. Marxism has always been about power struggles, and this new movement is no different. The main difference is terminology. Instead of power, the term privilege is used. In short, what we are seeing is a smuggling in of worldly philosophies in the name of combating sin.

What has been discovered and exploited by neo-Marxists, that had not quite been as well-defined in the early days with Marx and Engels, is the fact that there is power in the promulgation of the notion of perpetual, irreconcilable victimhood. Where there are victims, there is penance. Ironically, in the name of breaking down power structures, political and societal Marxism has always only accomplished the reinforcement and enhancement of them. Here, we arrive at our final text for consideration, and I will post it in full:

“6Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. . .

18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

20If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ 22(which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
1Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory,” (Col. 2:6-8, 18-23; 3:1-4; NASB).

Paul’s argumentation throughout the book of Colossians is masterful. He begins in Chapter 1 by setting before the eyes of his readers a high view of Christ and His gospel. In Chapter 2, he addresses what commentators have entitled the Colossian heresy, a strange morph of Greek and Jewish thought that resembled both the Gnosticism that would arise later in the first and second century and the Judaizer (or “circumcision party”) movement already present by Paul’s penning of Galatians. These heretics were seeking to address some very valid sin issues within the church culture of Colossae, and other “sins” that were really only violations of their manmade laws and philosophies.

Paul does not agree with the narrative of the Colossian heretics. He sees that they have used their special-knowledge religion to push forth a narrative that was binding the hearts and the minds of the Colossian church to laws that God had never given. He rightly roots the error in worldly philosophies and the traditions of men. He then offers the only real solution to sin within the body of Christ. He points to the throne and to the Lamb, not to the tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations. Having instructed them not to allow themselves to be taken captive by worldly philosophies and the traditions of men, he tells them in chapter three to set their minds of the things above where Christ is.

Conclusion

Do we still battle residual sin in our members? Certainly. However, we are not to be bound by the decrees of men in our definition of that sin. Nor are we to subsequently seek to adopt their extra-biblical solutions to sin, be they real or artificial sins. Paul gives us the final answer in Colossians 2-3: look to Christ! When men seek to define sin for us, we must require them to take us to the Bible and show it to us there. When men seek to show us the solution to sin, let them take us to Christ and to His cross. Everything else, everything we have been seeing from this heretical movement, is an adding to the cross. It must be recognized as the false gospel it is. It must be decried, rejected, rebuked, and declared accursed. Otherwise, it will continue to bring destruction upon the household of God in our day. I recognize that such a stand will not be easy for those who hold communion together with people and churches who preach this false gospel, but it is the stand that is demanded of us in God’s word. If we are to guard the sheep against the wolves, we must be willing to call out the wolves in our midst.

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity – James 2:1, 8-13

/ William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

But it has been mentioned that Paul had a specific heart inclination toward those of his own ethnicity (Rom. 9:1-5), and that there will be a great multitude “of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” in the eternal kingdom (Rev. 7:9; NKJV). By making mention of these passages, what is being justified is a certain sense of virtue in showing partiality toward one’s own ethnicity over another in kingdom work.

Yet we are told very clearly in James’ letter that partiality is most certainly a sin (Jas. 2:1, 8-13). Clearly, Paul could not have meant in Romans 9 that he loved the ethnic Israelites more than Gentile Christians. How then could he rightly refer to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13)? Likewise Peter, though called an apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8), was rebuked by Paul for showing favor to the exclusivistic Jews (Judaizers) in corporate fellowship (Gal. 2:11-12). There is no special dispensation granted any one ethnicity or another for ethnic partiality within the body of Christ. It is to be rejected wherever it is found.

So it is improper to point to Paul’s love for and desire to see the Israelites saved as an instance of acceptable ethnic favoritism within the body of Christ. Nor could the ethnic groups mentioned in John’s vision in Revelation 7 have been engaging in any such partiality in the very presence of God. Such partiality would is a clear violation of the law of God. The overtly clear passage of James must be used as a governing factor in our interpretation of these passages. Whatever they mean, they cannot be meant to contradict the clear teaching of James. Partiality in the body of Christ is always a sin.

Instead, Romans 9, it is clear that Paul means to demonstrate that his consolation is found in understanding that ethnicity is not his primary identification. Rather, as Gentiles come to faith in Christ, a great multitude of those outside of ethnic Israel is added to true Israel, which is cause for rejoicing (Rom. 9:6ff), because that means the expansion of true Israel and the eternal family of Paul. In the same way, it is more appropriate to see as primary the unifying nature of the throne and the Lamb in bringing together people out of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues over against the notion that these are disparate people standing in separate ranks still divided from one another and showing ethnic partiality to one another in the presence of a holy God for all of eternity. The very notion is borderline blasphemous.

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity – Ephesians 2:13-22

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

The perpetuity of ethnic dividing walls within the church, it must be stated, is a fundamental denial of the gospel itself. To be united with Christ in communion with the saints is to accept His finished work of erasing the primary function of ethnic identity in the church. That is not to say that the sinfulness of man will not still bring about ethnic disparity even within the covenant community of God, but this occurs as a result of precisely what people like Pastor Anyabwile are pushing for: emphasizing the perpetuity of identifying in ethnicity beyond the point of union with Christ and His body.

“13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit,” (Eph. 2:13-22; NASB).

What we have, then, in Pastor Thabiti and those who agree with his narrative, is a fundamental denial of the great mystery of the gospel: the expansion of the gospel through Gentile inclusion. In their writings, it is agreed that the nations are included in the New Covenant, but the dividing walls remain. Rather than finding unity in the throne and the Lamb, the tribes, tongues, and nations worshiping God in heaven are treated as having perpetual dividing walls persisting into the eternal state. Thus, even Christ’s eschatological bride is fundamentally divided in the view of these preachers and their churches, and all in service of furthering an extra-biblical “narrative.”

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity – Galatians 3:7, 26-29

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

To add to this requirement is to add to the gospel itself, just as the Judaizers Paul addressed in his letter to the Galatians added to the gospel a circumcision requirement. It is proper at this point to recall that Paul pronounces a curse upon those who add to the gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). This circumcision was a requirement brought on by the Judaizers to address a real ethnic quandary in the early church. A great enmity existed between Roman-born and Roman-conquered Jews and Gentiles at this point in Jewish history (Eph. 2:11; Phil. 3:2-3). Prior to obtaining union with ethnically Jewish Christians through Christ, the Judaizers expected Gentile converts to become one with the Jews through circumcision. Paul makes clear that no such requirement can be placed upon the Christian except that which has already been required: repentance unto life and saving faith (two sides of the same coin).

“7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. . . 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise,” (Gal. 3:7, 26-29; NASB).

Pastor Thabiti has not required anything new. His addition to the gospel requirement is an addition that has been pushed for years in other sectors of Western Evangelicalism. Yet, his addition is an addition and must be sharply condemned as such. At this point, let me clearly state what no one else seems to be willing. What is being preached in the name of racial reconciliation in many circles today is an addition to the gospel, which amounts to a fundamental denial of the true gospel. In other words, this is nothing less than heresy, which must be condemned in the strongest terms. Pastor Anyabwile and others are telling Christians that they must add to their repentance a continual, public, irremovable recognition of collective guilt and penance. It posits a sin for which Christ’s blood cannot atone, a dividing wall defiantly indestructible even in the face of Christ and His gospel.

What we see in Christ, however, is that an abolition has taken place. As Christ did not come to this earth to identify with only one specific ethnicity—but rather with mankind in general, so that He might bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2:9-11)—so too we are called to find our primary identity in Him not in our own particular ethnicities and, in so doing, we also find our primary identities as being intertwined with one another (regardless of ethnicity). As such, we identify with one another as Abraham’s descendants according to belief, not according to ethnicity.

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity – Jeremiah 31:27-34

/ William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

First, the sins of fathers and grandfathers has recently been brought into the discussion. Insofar as we should not desire to repeat the sins of our fathers, we must recount our familial and national histories with realism, not romanticism, as our guide. We must allow our forefathers to own their sins as well as their virtues. The question is whether or not it is biblical for us to require men, women, and children of today and tomorrow to answer for the sins of those who preceded them. Jeremiah 31 makes clear that we should not.

“27‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. 28As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord.

29‘In those days they will not say again,

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

30But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge,” (Jer. 31:17-30; NASB).

The theological term often assigned to this area of study is the term hamartiology (doctrine of sin). What must be understood about the effects of sin in the Old Testament vs. its effects in the New Testament is the fact that there was a very real sense in which the covenant people of God were expected to repent of the sins of their fathers. Lack of such repentance would lead to great cultural consequences among the people. As such, we see corporate repentance when there is a clear, divinely established covenantal union made with a national people (i.e. Daniel and Ezra praying for the nation of Israel). To say that men are responsible for their forefathers’ sins or, as has been recently suggested, responsible for the sins of people who share their skin color assumes that they are covenantally united to them and share in their actual sins.

To his credit, Pastor Anyabwile (follow the hyperlink above) has not demonstrated an ignorance of the discrepancy between his hamartiology and that of his detractors. In fact, he specifically addresses it (however deficiently) in a recent article published on The Gospel Coalition’s website. He writes:

“Finally, and this is where our disagreement is sharpest, the New Testament does indeed sweepingly speak of ethnic, national or ‘racial’ groups and their shared guilt and need due to sin. Again, we’re keeping with the New Testament, which is good because the Old Testament examples are legion. Consider Titus 1,” (Anyabwile, “Four Ways the New Testament Identifies Ethnicity in the Church,” The Gospel Coalition).

At this point, Pastor Anyabwile quotes Titus 1:12-14: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth” (NASB). What the honest reader will notice from this passage is the fact that missing from Paul’s description of the Cretans is any insistence that they must be rebuked for sins that are not individually their own. Also missing is any mention of skin color, facial features, hair texture, or any other marks that would be used by the modern Western politician or sociologist (you can apparently add pastor now) to distinguish between races.

What is being described here is a geographically unique collective, most likely with a multiplicity of ethnic backgrounds and genetic, visible differences, who share in certain culturally enshrined sinful tendencies away from which they need to be discipled through the ordained means of grace God has given the church. A modern application might be to tell a West Texas church planter today that he should prepare for an abundance of American Rugged Individualism in the thoughts and habits of many of the people (of all colors) coming out of the world and into his local assembly. He should be prepared to hold up the mirror of Scripture to the people so that they see this sinful tendency to forsake the assembly and disobey clear, biblical commands toward hospitality in their own hearts. Having demonstrated the biblical requirement, the pastor must be ready to lovingly admonish and rebuke those who willfully disobey it.

Those who have come into the fellowship of the saints in the New Covenant era are not bound together under an earthly, national covenant head like Moses. Rather, we come under the covenant Head of Christ Himself. There is no ethnic or national mandate here. I do not have a unique covenant with “white” Christians or American Christians that I do not share with Christians of other races and nationalities. The New Covenant demands that I admonish and rebuke particular sins that are clearly present in the lives of my “white” and American Christian brothers, but I do not share in their guilt merely by virtue of the fact that I too am “white” or American. At the same time, I have the liberty. . .  no, the duty to admonish and rebuke my Christian brothers of all ethnicities in the same way for the same sins. I can and should do so, because the same law that binds me binds them, regardless of ethnicity. That is the nature of the New Covenant.

“31Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord. 33‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more,’” (Jer. 31:31-34; NASB).

Any understanding of repentance and sin in the New Covenant must take this passage very seriously. The requirement for forgiveness from God and admittance into the New Covenant community is repentance of one’s own personal sins, not any committed by previous generations. Each man stands or falls in the New Covenant on the basis of his own sins. In fact, each man is fully forgiven his sins in the New Covenant and his sins are remembered no more.

Christ, His Gospel, and Ethnicity (Introduction)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

“The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved,” (The Baptist Confession, 1.10).

_______________

With some relief, I have observed as one-by-one, major voices in Reformed thought have begun to voice concern over the way that the issue of ethnicity is being treated of late in the name of Evangelical and even Reformed Christianity. Individuals like James White and Phil Johnson have weighed in on the matter. We should recognize, though, that much of the Evangelical and Reformed church is behind the curve on this issue, and there is precious little unity in the addressing of it. In fact, the primary concern of some seems to be their own reputations and the way they are being personally addressed on social media. The stakes are much larger than personal reputation, though.

Entire denominations are ending up on the wrong side of the issue on this one, bloggers and podcasters are seeking to address the issue one biblical passage at a time, and no one seems to be willing to say outright what I will seek to demonstrate in this very series of articles: the fact that many in the name of racial reconciliation are adding to, and thus denying, the gospel once and for all delivered to the saints. It is high time that we brought Scripture to bear on the matter of ethnicity in the Western church in a very clear manner. What clear passages speak to this issue, though?

In the articles to come, we will examine a few key texts that are necessary for laying the groundwork for a proper biblical understanding of pan-ethnic fellowship within the church of God. Though by no means an exhaustive list, the following passages will be instrumental in helping us to understand the proper biblical understanding of this often volatile issue:

  • Jeremiah 31:27-34
  • Galatians 3:7, 26-39
  • Ephesians 2:13-22
  • James 2:1, 8-13
  • Colossians 2-3

 

Critical Race Theory

Before we examine these key texts, it will be important for us to take a minute to briefly summarize the major teachings of Critical Race Theory (CRT), because it is well documented that this is the major view behind much of the narrative being pushed in Evangelical and Reformed churches today. “Christian” proponents of CRT have all but anathematized those who disagree with them and they have accused them of heinous sins. This series is not meant to be a responding in kind. However, there have been some recent statements that have made it clear that these men and women are seeking to fundamentally change the gospel as we know it.

What is CRT? CRT began in the 1960s and 70s as a political philosophy with roots in Critical Theory (from the 1910s) and its parent philosophy: Marxism. “Critical of both liberal incrementalism and conservative color-blind philosophies, critical race theorists carve out new ground that places central importance on power, economics, narrative, and social construction in coming to grips with America’s social problems,” (Critical Race Theory – Methodology – Law, Legal, University, and York – JRank Articles). There has been great push back against the notion that this approach to addressing ethnic disparity in the church is Marxist or, more appropriately, neo-Marxist in origin. However, there is no denying the paper trail that ties neo-Marxists like Derrick Bell, Saul Alinsky, and Richard Delgado to the formulation and propagation of Critical Race Theory.

With this as the backdrop for the discussion, the remaining articles are soon to follow.

Positive Confession in the Word of Faith Movement

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

This paper was initially submitted in April of 2012 to Justin Peters in partial fulfillment of the requirements for his Winter 2012 course on The Theology of the Word of Faith Movement, which he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX.

From the beginning, the essence of false religion has been false worship. When Satan tempted Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, he did so by enticing them to give into the temptation to worship themselves. He told them, “You will be like God” (Genesis 3:5b; NASB).[1] Likewise, when Jesus told the rich, young ruler to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and follow Christ, “he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property” (Mark 10:22). This young man had fashioned the idol of riches in his heart and made it the object of his worship. Thus, it was “impossible” (vs. 27) for him to turn from his sin and follow Christ. The enemy has not changed from the beginning. Even today, there is a movement that teaches men to worship self, wealth, and even health. The Word of Faith movement teaches that Christians can have whatever they desire if they employ a method called positive confession. This doctrine is nothing more than a doctored version of Satan’s first lie. The church must employ a working knowledge of both the Word of Faith movement and the Scriptures in demonstrating to Word / Faith adherents the error of their doctrine of positive confession.

What is Positive Confession?

One observation that ought to be made in the analysis of the doctrine of positive confession is that it does not find its origins in the Word of Faith Movement itself. Positive confession actually finds its roots in the writings of Essek W. Kenyon (1867-1948).[2]  Notably, many of the 21st century proponents of the Word of Faith Movement develop their theologies largely off of Kenyon’s writings.[3] Kenyon, influenced by the New Thought writings of Phineas P. Quimby and Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science, laid the foundation for much of what would become Word of Faith theology. Though not as extreme as his predecessors, his approach to theology paved the way for the direction Word / Faith pillars such as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and Jesse Duplantis would go.

So, what is positive confession? Well, the phrase itself can be a bit misleading. Positive confession is the belief that, whether positive or negative, your words (or confession) determine your destiny. If you speak words of faith, God’s promises will be granted to you but, if you speak words of doubt or fear, you bring upon yourself hardship and suffering. Word of Faith teachers exhort their followers, “Speak life into your life, not death.”[4] They teach that this method of getting what one wants is effective because the words of men have power. Not only do men’s words have power, but men themselves have the power to influence and direct the supernatural by their very wills. Kenneth Copeland once wrote, “The key to this is your will. Your will has everything to do with it. What you will to happen is going to happen.”[5]

Often, much of this thinking gets passively overlooked, because these types of sentences are neatly tucked away in volumes that do not major on this type of thought. However, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal. 5:9). Christians ought to have nothing to do with any teachers that espouse such heresy, no matter how marginally. In this family known as the church, Christians owe a debt of love to one another, which includes the recognition that one’s own ability to overlook such doctrines in such writings might give way to a weaker brother’s plunge into full acceptance of it. Such blind indulgence by those who know these teachings to be error is nothing short of irresponsible and unloving.

Proof Texting Positive Confession

Positive confession as a Word / Faith doctrine does not exist in a vacuum. As in biblical Christianity, the doctrines of the Word of Faith movement all touch and influence one another. It is important that Christians understand this concept before they jump headlong into a theological debate with a proponent of Word / Faith theology. One should not simply study positive confession and assume that one can then dismantle the entire erroneous paradigm of the Word / Faith worldview. There are other doctrines that more foundationally anchor Word / Faith proponents in their adherence to positive confession.

The first of these foundational doctrines is the Word / Faith doctrine of faith as a substance. They cite Hebrews 11:3 in support of this view: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Word / Faith adherents argue that this passage teaches that God used words of faith to create the world and, apart from faith, the creation of all things would not have been possible.[6] This faith is a force, a substance of which every believer has been apportioned a certain measure (Rom. 12:3).[7] According to Word / Faith theology, faith is not merely the desire and ability given by God to the elect whereby they know, believe, and trust in Him.

In the hands of the Word of Faith movement, faith becomes a substance that eternally existed apart from God enabling Him to act and accomplish His will. Furthermore, man having been created in the God’s image is entitled a measure of this same faith. God’s will in this whole matter is nowhere taken into consideration. Rather, if you use your measure of faith to accomplish good, you are doing God’s will. If you use it to bring about calamity, you have somehow subverted His will. Passages like Isaiah 46:10 cause great difficulty for such a theology:

“Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’”

The question arises naturally, “If both God and man use words of faith to accomplish their individual wills, whose will is accomplished if they are in disagreement?” This question is answered by the Word / Faith teachers. If a man desires to do that which is against God’s will, he desires to do evil. However, in every instance that his desire, though evil, goes against the desire of God, the man’s will is the one that prevails. Such a view undermines the sovereignty and authority of God.

Another foundational though perhaps lesser known doctrine used to support the doctrine of positive confession is the “little gods” doctrine. Word / Faith teachers do not merely teach that Christians have the power to effect their present state because they are made in the image of God and have access to the same “faith” He used to create the world. They further teach that Christians have authority to do the works of God on earth because they themselves are gods.[8]

As men who have been created as “little gods” living in a world created by a God utilizing the same faith “substance” that man has at his disposal, this type of positive confession is simply to be expected. If a man is a god, like God, he should be able to call things into existence with his words, like God. If faith is the substance by which all things come into existence, it only makes sense that such creative power would be summoned up by the power of such a substance. So it is that other doctrines within the Word of Faith movement help to support the doctrine of positive confession in the minds of its adherents.

Therefore, in order for Christians to properly respond to the doctrine of positive confession, they need to know more about the Word of Faith movement than just what is taught in the positive confession doctrine. Christians must understand that the doctrine of positive confession is intrinsically intertwined with the other doctrines of the movement. Thus, there are multiple doctrinal knots constructed of multiple theological ropes that must be unraveled in order to undo the damage done by this heretical movement. The Christian must have more than a surface level understanding of the theology of the Word of Faith movement.

Answering Positive Confession

Surely, many Christians engaging Word of Faith adherence will be better served to have a more comprehensive knowledge of the movement. However, a comprehensive answer to the theology of the Word of Faith movement is not possible in the space allotted in the present article. Thus, this article will seek to answer only the one doctrine of positive confession with some reference to the peripheral doctrines where necessary.

There are many elements of the doctrine of positive confession that must be addressed in order to properly correct the error that it teaches. First, positive confession assumes that the goal of the Christian life is for the Christian to have what the Christian wants. Second, positive confession teaches that the Christian can always expect what he wants as long as he has enough faith and uses the proper words. Third, positive confession teaches that God is always in agreement with the Christian when the Christian channels his faith in order to receive what he desires. Each one of these assertions is fundamentally flawed and straightly denied within the pages of Scripture.

First, the goal of the Christian life is not for the Christian to have what the Christian wants. Though the Christian has been redeemed out of the world, and though the Christian has been set free from sin, the Christian will still struggle with idolatrous desires that go against his new nature (Rom. 7:14-25).[9] He will still want things that are ungodly for him to want. These desires by no means justify the Christian when he goes against the will of God. The will of God must always be primary in all of a Christian’s motives and actions. The questions must be asked, “What if God wants me sick? What if God wants me to be content with a small bank account? What if God doesn’t want me to move to such and such a city for a year and work for such and such employer and build my life savings? What if God has other plans?”

The Word of Faith movement teaches that these questions ought to be suppressed, because they get in the way of one’s faith. The moment you start to ask such questions, you have started doubting God’s will for your life. After all, God always wants you to be healthy. God always wants you to be wealthy. God always wants you to exercise your faith, as He exercised His, to call into being the situations you desire for yourself.

The second issue, then, is crucial: that a Christian can obtain whatever he desires if he simply has enough faith. The Word of Faith movement essentially teaches that Christians can use the same substance that God used to create the world (faith) to call into existence whatever he desires, and God will be on board. The Christian simply needs to have faith in faith and use the proper words.

The problem is that the Bible always points to God, not faith, as the object of faith (Rom. 11:36). The Christian does not simply need to wrangle up enough of some ethereal substance called faith in order to accomplish supernatural occurrences in his life. The Christian is called to call upon his Father in heaven and trust that He will not only do His own good pleasure, but that He will work all things out for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28). If this means that the Christian will suffer trials and hardships, such circumstances are what is best for the believer at that time, and God will give His children everything they need in order to come through on the other side the better for it (1Cor. 10:13).

The third issue, at this junction, ought to be anticipated. The Word / Faith adherent will interject that God always wants him to have what he wants. James, the brother of our Lord, strongly disagrees when he writes:

“Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you out to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.’ But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil” (Jas. 4:14-16).

Such notions that the Christian ought to expect whatever he speaks with faith, in the words of James, is “arrogant” and “evil.” Such notions flatly deny the teachings of Scripture. Such notions presume upon the will of God and bring the judgment of Deuteronomy 18 upon those who teach them: “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die” (vs. 20).

In short, the person who lays claim to any such doctrine and roots it in the teachings of the Word of Faith movement must have the full weight of the Scripture brought to bear upon them. The church has the testimony of Scripture on her side. She ought to employ the Scriptures wherever they can in their evangelistic encounters and especially with those who would use the Word in an incorrect and ungodly fashion to justify their erroneous doctrines. “The Protestant apologist cannot be concerned to prove the existence of any other God than the one who has spoken to man authoritatively and finally through Scripture.”[10]

Conclusion

The church must be prepared to answer Word / Faith proponents in their error. They will not have the ability to answer them if they do not at least have some prior knowledge of the teachings of the Word of Faith movement. They must also know how to properly handle the Word of God with precision. Employing these two skills, Christians will be well equipped to demonstrate the error of the Word of Faith movement’s teachings. They will be able to demonstrate the idolatry that underlies such doctrines as positive confession and call Word / Faith adherents to repent and place true faith in the God and Savior who can redeem them from such idolatry.

 

 

[1]All citations from the Bible taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB), except where otherwise noted.

[2]Geir Lie, “The Theology of E.W. Kenyon: Plain Heresy or within the Boundaries of Pentecostal-Charismatic “Orthodoxy”?,” Pneuma 22, no. 1 (2000): 20-21.

[3]Charles Farah, “A Critical Analysis: The “Roots and Fruits” of Faith-Formula Theology,” Pneuma 3, no. 1 (1981): 4.

[4]Joyce Meyer, Me and My Big Mouth: Your Answer Is Right under Your Nose (Tulsa, OK.: Harrison House, 1997), 59.

[5]Kenneth Copeland, Walking in the Realm of the Miraculous (Fort Worth: KCP, 1979), 80.

[6]Kenneth E. Hagin, Exceedingly Growing Faith, 2nd ed. (Tulsa, OK.: K. Hagin Ministries, 1983), 96-97.

[7]Ibid., 97.

[8]Hank Hanegraaff, “Little Gods: Are We Little Gods?” available from http://www.equip.org/perspectives/little-gods (accessed April 15 2012). Internet

[9]William Hendriksen, Romans, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).

[10]Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2008).