Everything That's On My Mind

Friday, September 15, 2006

I finally got around to reading Time Magazine’s current cover story, “Does God want you to be rich?” All things considered, it’s a pretty balanced article…and that’s the problem. It accurately describes a dominant strain of current Christian thought. Dominant in bookstores and on TV and radio, at least. The Word/Faith “Prosperity Lite” teaching isn’t anything new, I’ve heard it all my life. As a child, I slept on folding chairs while my grandparents listened to the Kenneths (Hagin and Copeland) preach tent meetings. It just seems like it used to be more marginalized than it is today. I hope this is just a passing fad.

I’m not going to go so far as to condemn all these ministries. God uses imperfect vessels all the time, including every Sunday at our church. However, I will list a few problems I have with the name it/claim it folks.

Creating promises ex nihlo: Not every statement in the bible is a promise. I’ve seen Word/Faith people use Psalm 90:10 as a promise we can claim for long life. To borrow an eloquent phrase from Rick Warren: “Baloney!” It isn’t a promise, it’s an observation David is making about the nature of human life. You don’t need a PhD to recognize that.
Misappropriation of promises: Many promises in scripture are directed to a specific person or group of people. We can’t just “claim” every promise in the bible because we like the sound of it. Old Testament prophecies directed toward Israel are not automatically ours. Just because God gave the Promised Land to His people doesn’t mean I should just head over to the Holy Land and claim my share.
Over-individualization of promises: The rampant individualism of modern society has infected the church, and it’s not a good thing. Many promises in scripture are to the faithful as a group, not as individuals. For example, Exodus 20:12 is a corporate promise to the Israelites, not a promise to every individual. Some might say that Paul applies this promise to individuals in Ephesians 6:1-3, but I don’t see it that way.
Using an Americanized definition of “blessings”: Since when did the word blessings refer primarily to material things? Material things are a blessing from God, but that is not the sole definition of the word. It’s not even the primary definition. There are many ways God blesses us, but it is not our place to mandate how he will do so.
Ignoring church history: Joyce Meyer is quoted in the article as saying “Who would want something where you’re miserable, broke and ugly and you have to muddle through until you get to heaven?” Ummm, let’s see…all of the apostles and most other Christians for the first few centuries. Except the miserable part, of course. Meyer seems to think that being broke and ugly makes you miserable. How shallow is that?
Pandering to the audience: See Meyer’s quote above. Did Jesus sugar-coat his message to get a bigger audience? If you’re not sure how to answer that question, go read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and then come back. I’ll wait…

I could go on, but I’ll stop here. Does God want you to be rich? Maybe, maybe not. Does he want us to make the most of the talents and opportunities He gives us? Yup. Some will acquire wealth in doing that, some won’t. Those who do are required by God to use that wealth for the benefit of others and for His kingdom. I don’t think designer suits and alligator shoes qualify. They wouldn’t for me, at least.

Theology

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 10:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [10]

Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:24:53 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Excellent post. I don't think anyone could read the Bible in context and come to a "prosperity" theology. You have to bring it in from the outside.

The core philosophical problem with such a theology is that it bypasses God entirely. ("Theology" without the "theos," if you like.) Faith, we are told, is what God used to create the universe (based on a misreading of Hebrews 11:3), and You Too can tap into that same faith to make whatever you speak come to pass. Since we're tapping into Faith Itself, God is no longer necessary.

Ugh. I'm deeply grateful that I have a Heavenly Father who can wisely veto my more foolish requests. I'll take Him over the Heavenly Gumball Machine any day.

Keith Schooley

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:32:36 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Equal time for rebuttals provided to responsible parties:

http://mac-ramblings.blogspot.com/2006/09/every-promise-in-book-is-mine.html

Terry Smelker

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:01:56 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Terry,

Your entire argument stands (or falls) on the identification of the "promise" of Galatians 3:29, and it is there that your argument is fundamentally flawed. You're taking a verse and ignoring its context. What is the topic of Galatians 3? Righteousness by faith. Galatians 3:6-7 makes this clear. In verses 8-9, Paul makes it clear that the "blessing" of Abraham is the availability of salvation through Abraham's seed; namely, Christ. In Paul's view, the "promise" is justification through faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit. He says this explicitly in verse 14. See how Paul uses the word "promise" in verses 15-18 and you'll see again that the topic Paul has in mind is justification, no longer through the Law but now through Christ as the fulfillment of the law. Continue on to verses 21-25 and you'll see again, the "promise" Paul is talking about is clearly justification through faith and nothing else.

Paul does not have any sort of material blessing in view as he is writing Galatians. His sole concern is salvation through faith in Christ, that is the "promise" and the "blessing". Once again, the WoF folks read into this passage their own (uniquely American) definition of "blessing" rather that using the definition that Paul very clearly has in mind.

Context is everything, my friend.

(Cross-posted on the iMuse blog)

Pastor Bob

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:43:09 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Bob, thanks for your comments. Let's take a look at Galations 3:29 in the NLT- "And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and now all the promises God gave to him belong to you." Or how about the New Life Version: "If you belong to Christ, then you have become the true children of Abraham. What God promised to him is now yours." Or how about Galations 3:21 in the NIV, where Paul talks about the 'Promises' (plural) of God being negated or opposed by the law? Obviously, Paul is talking about more than just justification, or the 'blessing' of salvation through Christ here. Besides which, Abraham was not concerned with salvation at that point, since the Law had not been established to clarify man's sin. Abraham wasn't justified by faith 'in Christ', per se; rather he was justified by faith in God's promise to do just as He said he would- i.e., His Covenant.

It's also interesting to note that Paul mentions in Galations 3:14 in the NLT: "Because of the price Christ Jesus paid, the good things that came to Abraham might come to the people who are not Jews. And by putting our trust in Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit He has promised." First note that it refers to the "good things", which are obviously the blessings promised to Abraham. Also, if, as you state, the 'promise' that Paul is referring to is only the 'justification by faith', then why would we need these "good things" that come to us from Abraham through Jesus- if salvation were all that God wanted to give us from Abraham through Jesus? Wouldn't Jesus be all we need?

The fact that "all the nations will be blessed though you" (meaning Jesus) was not the only promise that God made to Abraham, which Abraham believed in and was credited as righteousness because of his faith. God also told Abraham that he was going to give him a new land (another form of wealth in that day) as well as many offspring (still another visible form of God's blessing).

And Paul, above all, would be mindful of the Abrahamic covenant and its blessings (material or otherwise)- given his background as a former Pharisee.

Still, you haven't refuted the most fundamental principle here- that of inheritance and heirship. What sort of blessing do you think Esau (or Jacob) were expecting to receive from their father? Was it only a spiritual blessing, or was it material in nature (as in wealth) as well? Your assertion that only Americans think of the term "blessing" as a material thing is erroneous. The whole idea of 'blessings' originated in the Old Testament, whereby they were both spritual and material in nature. Only the concept of what constitutes material wealth (blessing) has changed. Not that Americans (or any person in the world, for that matter) couldn't stand to gain by expanding their concept of the spiritual aspect of blessings a bit. :D

Terry Smelker

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:47:43 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I respectfully disagree, it is not "obvious" that Paul is discussing "more" that justification by faith. That is PRECISELY what he is talking about. Once again, you're taking verses out of context without recognizing the basic subject of Paul's discourse. Yes, God gave Abraham other promises, but Paul is clearly focusing his attention here in Galations specifically on justification by faith. Besides, if Paul was truly trying to argue that we all will be rich land owners because of the Covenant, he was doing a very, very bad job of living out that example. Paul said "follow me as I follow Christ" but he did not lead down the path to material prosperity. Are you really arguing that Paul is saying, in effect, "do what I say, not what I do"?

On the subject of the material blessings of Abraham (and Isaac, Jacob, etc.), God granted them for a specific purpose; to firmly establish a people (Israel) that would eventually bring to humanity the culmination of the Covenant: Christ. The material prosperity of Abraham was a means to an end, not an end unto itself. No New Testament writer, least of all Jesus, ever explicitly taught that Jesus died on the cross so we could be wealthy and comfortable. Study church history, my friend. Prosperity doctrine is a uniquely 20th century American invention, beginning with E.W. Kenyon.

BTW, you still haven't addressed any of the points I made in my original post, either. :-)

Pastor Bob

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:40:51 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Yes, you’re absolutely right- my whole argument stands or falls on the identification of the word “Promise” as used in Galatians 3:29. However, I’ve looked at the entire third chapter of Galatians, and I still stand on my assertion that the “promise” that Paul talks about is, in fact, the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, if you look at Gal 3:17 and 18, Paul talks about the Covenant, Inheritance and Promise together- I maintain that he is actually referring to the same thing with all three words- which is, the Covenant.

But, let’s go back to 3:29, and ask four questions about this verse, since this is the foundation of my claim:

I. Who is the Promise made to? – Obviously, Paul is talking about the Promise(s) made to Abraham, since Abraham figures prominently in the entire third chapter. Done.

II. v3:29- “.. and heirs according to the promise.” According to WHAT Promise? What IS the Promise? Well, we can answer this by determining what the Promise is NOT. The Promise is NOT:
A. Salvation- if the promise is made to Abraham, then Abraham was not promised salvation, since the law was not yet established. I like to sum it up in this flow chart: No Law> no realization of Sin> no need for atonement yet. God only references this future need by declaring that “all the world will be blessed through” Abraham’s seed.
B. Jesus- The promise to Abraham is not Jesus, for the same reason as A: No Law> no realization of Sin> no need for atonement yet.
C. Justification by Faith- Although “Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness”, Abraham was NOT justified by faith in Christ, for the same reason as A above, but by faith in God’s promise to do just what He said He’d do (i.e. the Covenant). He couldn’t be ‘justified’ yet, since there was no law yet to give condemnation. Abraham’s righteousness was not a promise, rather a result of his Faith in God’s promise directly to him (that he would have many descendents).
D. The Holy Spirit- Paul’s comments of “receiving the promise of the Spirit” in v 14 was regarding Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit after His ascension. Abraham was not promised the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit could not come before Jesus arrived.

Having concluded all this, the obvious answer to the question, “What is the Promise?” is that God would give descendents/heirs to Abraham, and that He would also give great material and spiritual blessing. Abraham currently had no children, but God promised that He would give him a son, and that “through him all the nations would be blessed.”

Now, on to question III- “…If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Can we be heirs without Jesus? Absolutely not. As it is today, an heir is a blood descendent of the one who leaves an inheritance; God promised it to Abraham by grace (3:18) and to Abraham’s descendents, who were also promised by God. Jesus gives us in ‘in’ to the lineage of Abraham- by “belonging” to Christ, we are now adopted into God’s family, and also into Abraham’s direct lineage, both spiritually (because of Jesus’ part in the Covenant) and physically (because of Jesus’ earthly lineage to Abraham). And because we are “heirs” (even adopted heirs receive the inheritance), we receive a share in the inheritance just as blood relatives.

IV. If we are indeed heirs, what are we heirs to?
A. NOT to salvation- Jesus brings us salvation, because we are saved by faith, not by inheritance- otherwise, how could we receive it? First we accept Jesus, receiving our salvation by faith, then we become heirs. Salvation wasn’t promised to Abraham (see I-A), therefore our heirship cannot bring salvation; our confession of Christ as Lord and Savior is what brings salvation.
B. NOT to Justification by Faith- for the same reasons as IV-A. Abraham’s promise was not of Justification by faith, to therefore we cannot inherit justification.

It is concluded, then, that we are heirs to the only thing left- God’s Covenant to Abraham of prosperity, healing, protection and long life. These were the things that God promised by grace to Abraham through His Covenant- and not only to Abraham, but to his descendents as well. Just as Abraham’s physical heirs received their share in the ever-growing inheritance (both spiritual and material in nature), so the adopted sons/daughters (us) can receive our share of the same inheritance.

Paul even bears this out in Galatians 3:17 and 18- the Law, which came 430 years after the Promise, did not nullify the Promise- this is where Paul refers to Covenant, Promise and inheritance- all three meaning the same thing- namely, God’s Covenant to Abraham.

Terry Smelker

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:14:05 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

“I. Who is the Promise made to? – Obviously, Paul is talking about the Promise(s) made to Abraham, since Abraham figures prominently in the entire third chapter. Done.”

Wrong. If you read the whole chapter, then you somehow missed verse 16. The promise was given "to Abraham and to his Seed." Paul explicitly states in this verse that the promise was NOT given to “many people” but to “one person, meaning Christ.”

“II. The Promise is NOT: Justification by Faith- Although “Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness”, Abraham was NOT justified by faith in Christ, for the same reason as A above, but by faith in God’s promise to do just what He said He’d do (i.e. the Covenant). He couldn’t be ‘justified’ yet, since there was no law yet to give condemnation. Abraham’s righteousness was not a promise, rather a result of his Faith in God’s promise directly to him (that he would have many descendents).”

Wrong again. It’s a logical impossibility to have faith in a promise. You have faith in the person making the promise. Abraham was justified by faith in God, not faith in a promise. Christ is God, and was God from the beginning (John 1:1-2), therefore Abraham’s faith was in Christ, even if he didn’t realize it. The fact that Christ had not yet (from Abraham’s viewpoint) been crucified and resurrected is irrelevant. In God’s eyes, the redemption plan was already in effect, Christ was (and is) “slain from the creation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8) Timelines are a limitation of man, they are irrelevant to God.

BTW, the fact that the Law had not yet been given does not mean there was no condemnation yet. Condemnation comes from sin, the Law merely revealed man’s sin. All are guilty of sin and condemned, whether they have the Law or not. (Romans 2:12-15)

Pastor Bob

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:33:43 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

"BTW, the fact that the Law had not yet been given does not mean there was no condemnation yet. Condemnation comes from sin, the Law merely revealed man’s sin. All are guilty of sin and condemned, whether they have the Law or not. (Romans 2:12-15)".

My friend, I suggest you read Romans 4:13-25, particulaly where it says in 4:15- "for the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

Bottom line in this whole debate is this- does God want to bless you- spritually AND materially? Yes. Does God want you to be rich? Depends on your definition of 'rich'. Even a person of average income is rich compared with the vast majority of people in the entire world- NOT just America. Does God want you to be filthy rich? No. He wants you to be content with your circumstances. However, if you show yourself a good steward of what God has entrusted to you, then He can bless you with more (Mt 25:14-30). God blesses us to be a blessing, and as we show our good stewardship by giving out of the blessing God gives us, He will bless us with even more (Luke 6:38). God even challenges us to be generous and faithful in our giving, and see if He won't "open up the floodgates of heaven, and pour out so much blessing upon you that you won't be able to contain it" (Mal 3:10). Is this referring only to spiritual blessing? I don't think so.

Terry Smelker

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:10:55 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

What Paul is talking about in Romans 4:15 is the perception or awarness of sin, not the reality of it. Look at Romans 5:13 where Paul says "before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." Paul is not saying there was no sin before the Law, only that man was made aware of his sin through the Law.

When it comes to Luke 6:38, you're reading your own biases into the text. Jesus is not talking about material things at all. He's talking about mercy and forgiveness. See the parallel account of this teaching in Matthew 7:1-2. Material things are not in view in any way.

Does God want to bless us? Yes, we can agree on that. The manner in which He chooses to bless us, however, is entirely within the sovereignty of God. Scripture does not teach that there is an automatic formula in place. If obedience and good stewardship automatically brought material blessing, the Apostles would have been millionaires. It just doesn't work that way.

Pastor Bob

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:46:32 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Terry--

Much of your argument lies on the foundation of "No Law> no realization of Sin> no need for atonement yet." Can you possibly really believe that? Are you arguing that everyone who died before the Mosaic Law came was saved (even those who were destroyed in the Flood because of their own wickedness)?

The key verse that Paul cites in relationship to Abraham is Gen 15:6 (cf. Gal 3:6, Rom 4). What does "Abraam believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" mean, other than justification by faith? ("Righteousness" and "Justification" are the same word in Greek, BTW.) Why would he need righteousness "credited" to him, if he had no unrighteousness, since there was no Law to be broken? Why would Paul apply that verse to us, if it doesn't refer to justification by faith? Paul uses Abraham as the poster child of justification by faith; he has completely misapplied Genesis, on your reading.

I'm not too concerned about what you believe regarding prosperity. I'm deeply concerned about what scripture has to say about how we are reconciled (justified) to God.

Keith Schooley

Name
E-mail	(will show your gravatar icon)
Home page

	Remember Me
Comment (Some html is allowed: `a@href@title, b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, sup, u`) where the @ means "attribute." For example, you can use <a href="" title=""> or <blockquote cite="Scott">.
Enter the code shown (prevents robots):
Live Comment Preview

On this page...

September 2006

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Everything That's On My Mind

On this page...

Categories