Oral Roberts lived and believed in the American dream. He was also a devoted Christian. The tension between the two is a good predictor of the successes and failures of an important American and Christian life. Roberts was a complex man who lived a long time and it would be unfortunate if he only receives hagiography or dismissal.
Roberts did much that was good, but it came at a very high theological and intellectual price. Roberts was born in the lower middle class, never graduated from college, but founded a fully accredited university. With little training, he launched a highly successful television franchise and changed the reputation of Pentecostalism in America and helped bring “Spirit-led” worship to a new generation. Sadly, Roberts also introduced some very bad theological ideas into the bloodstream of that same movement.
Roberts was born in 1918 in rural Oklahoma and died in 2009 in Newport Beach, California. He tracked the movement of many American in his generation from relative poverty to comfort in the Golden West. His American populism was his most attractive feature, but an inherent disdain for elites led to his problems. Roberts understood the changes that were going on in the culture and was able to negotiate the relationship between his faith and those changes, but often the integration was overly shallow.
Oral Roberts had a vision for education that has served thousands of students and will serve thousands more. However, Roberts failed to learn from the responsible scholarship of people he helped educate as his ministry grew and demanded more resources. Ironically, the good works of Roberts in educating Pentecostals undercut support for his less responsible theological pronouncements within mainstream Pentecostalism.
There is no justification for the “seed faith” theology that Roberts helped mainstream. It is bad theology, bad philosophy, and does not work in the real world. Seed faith theology is based on the proper idea that giving is better than receiving. As the Catholic Church discovered to its shame in the late Middle Ages, people eager to make a buck easily can twist this truth. If you work for a charity, there is a fine line between urging people to give to good works and urging them to give to you.
Seed faith theology pushed past historic warnings about these problems. It also went further and began to treat the blessings of God as a mechanism. God, in good American fashion, was reduced to a slot machine dispensing blessings after the proper input.
Roberts knew that the God of the Bible did not hate prosperity or pleasure. He desired good things for His children and Roberts rightly saw that some forms of American Christianity had forgotten this truth. Roberts was correct in preaching that in Christ “something good was going to happen to you” and that God was a God of second chances.
Sadly, this idea too can suffer abuse when it is not matched by the counterbalancing truth that God wants us to grow up and to learn. Our ultimate reward is not, after all, in this life. While God is not opposed to prosperity, not all good things are good for us. It is also all too easy (as many of us know) to slide from a proper condemnation of puritanical killjoys to a lax love of money.
Many ministries that followed Roberts’ had even less checks and balances in their teaching than he did. Globally the “seed faith” theology has done significant harm. Roberts bears some responsibility for not recognizing these dangers.
Like many Americans, Roberts wanted the benefits of modernity, but failed to see the downsides. He should be credited for recognizing the possible educational and religious benefits of the new media of his day. His life is a warning that uncritical use of that media can change a ministry more than the ministry changes the media.
Roberts’ television programming, recordings, and music gave hope and comfort to millions of Americans. They encouraged millions to develop the habits and personal characteristics that made them better citizens and Christians. Thousands gave up destructive habits such as drug use and thousands more salvaged marriages and relationships.
If Roberts raised money, he did not do so from unwilling people, but from millions of folks who enjoyed his programming and benefited from his ministry. We insult them if we stereotype all of them as “exploited” or “conned.” Roberts gave more than he got to most of his audience.
Oral Roberts took Pentecostalism from poverty to lower-middle-class almost respectability, but he could never cross the last barriers to social acceptance. Partly that was the result of the class and intellectual prejudices of the world in which he ministered. Mostly, it was because Roberts moved away from the “cutting edge” of change and growth. The Oral Robert’s style evolved rapidly from the fifties to the seventies, but then stopped changing. By the now risible standards of the seventies, Roberts made fairly mainstream television and was effective, but the standards changed and Roberts did not.
His theology and philosophy did not adapt well to a new age and he left his ministries in incapable hands. Shallow theology and an overemphasis on the charismatic leader leave a ministry too pliable where it should be strong and not adaptable where it should change.
Fortunately, it appears his University will be saved to continue the best part of Roberts’ work. I know people who teach at Oral Roberts University and it is a fine school that continues to improve and build on the best part of Roberts’ legacy.
Roberts early recognized the need to minister to the whole person. Roberts wanted to bring healing to the masses and I personally have known people who found God, comfort, and healing through his ministry. In a time when Christianity had become too glum, his cheerful proclamation that Christians could be happy was a needed balance for many.
The ORU singers cheered up many an overly grim Christian by reminding them that they “were more than conquerors.”
Oral Roberts insightfully rejected a low view of the body. His failed medical school was part of a noble vision to minister to the whole person. This integrative educational approach continues as a hallmark of Oral Roberts University and is a good legacy for Oral Roberts. As heterodox as “seed faith” theology was, there is much to be learned from the holism of Oral Roberts in caring for body, soul, and mind.
I suspect that it is the good idea, enshrined at ORU, that will live and that the heresies that cluster around “giving to get” will die.
Money and how to deal with it in a booming nation was the problem for the Roberts’ legacy from the beginning and right to the end. Money is easy to get in America if you have the right talents, and Oral Roberts would have grown rich in many fields with his abundances of raw intellect, charm, and work ethic, but it is a great danger.
America teaches that you can never be too rich and Christianity teaches that a rich man will find it difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a tension for anyone who lives in the United States. Free markets are, on the whole, the best for most people, but they are not the greatest good for Christians.
Roberts had a deep and persistent interest in helping the poor in his ministry and personally. He was committed to making college, private college, affordable to many of them, but his own lifestyle often undercut his ideals or caused many to question his integrity. He never solved this contradiction, but then the nation that birthed him has never solved its own contradictions with money.
We are the most generous and charitable nation in human history, but we squander billions on self-indulgent behaviors. We resent the rich, but ape their lifestyles using credit cards. We are populist would be plutocrats.
Jesus never let Oral Roberts down and inspired good works that will live on in Oral Roberts University and in lives he personally aided, but America and American Christianity did let him down. We did not give Roberts an adequate vision of the relationship between technology and personhood or between freedom and personal responsibility.
Like so many Americans, Roberts lived a wonderful life, but like so many American Christians, it is also a cautionary tale.
December 16th, 2009 | 12:50 pm | #1
Thank you for the balanced assessment; many, on both sides, would not have been so circumspect.
May Rev. Roberts rest in peace.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:05 pm | #2
I’m sorry, but, as respectfully as I can, I feel a need to state that Oral Roberts and his heirs in the “word faith” movement were, and are, religious hucksters who have parted millions, from millions, and teach a false gospel that leads many into utter despair when the “give and get” promises they are given, fail them. Of course, whatever good Robert did do, we can be grateful for, but to give him this kind of eulogistic review is a disservice to the Gospel and a denial of the false and misleading hope that he held out to so many.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:11 pm | #3
What Rev. McCain said.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #4
That is easy to say . . . that Roberts was wrong . . . and I hope I said it, but Roberts said many things . . . and I know people who heard the gospel clearly preached by Roberts, came to Christ, and grew to be good and noble people.
We may wish that were not so, but it is.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #5
I think JMR was very insightful. And put OR in proper religious and cultural context. Hey, no one’s excusing heresy but let the dead RIP. Kudos, Dr. Reynolds. Let not the detractors dissuade you.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:36 pm | #6
The Holy Spirit can do what He wants, however He wants, and for any who were brought to faith by the Holy Spirit after hearing Roberts, I am grateful; however, we can not excuse the horrendous false doctrine and false Gospel proclaimed by Roberts and those who follow in his footsteps. That God worked faith in spite of Roberts’ errors is no reason to celebrate, condone or rejoice in Roberts’ ministry and life. I regard him as a tragic example of everything wrong with American Pentecostalism.
December 16th, 2009 | 2:13 pm | #7
I’ve been thinking about something for a while, and this post helped me see it even more. First, I come from Pentecostalism, so I know a lot of the good and bad found therein. I left it around age 20 because my church became infested with Word of Faith theology. Second, I abhor Calvinism. With those in mind I have come to believe that while one’s beliefs are a good indication of a person’s character, one’s beliefs are not necessarily equivalent to one’s character. That’s especially true of Christians. I know Calvinists who are good Christians. I know Pentecostals who love God more than I do. My former Pentecostal church had a woman who if she were Catholic or Orthodox would have been recognized as a Saint.
People are complex. More complex is God. I’ve never been a fan of OR, and I’ve seen how destructive Word of Faith theology can be. Nevertheless, sometimes Christians believe ridiculous things. Heresy is easy to see. Some Christians have all their theological ducks in a row but their heart is consumed with self. That’s much harder to see. Patience and grace go a long way.
December 16th, 2009 | 2:55 pm | #8
It is bigotry to write off the WOF movement as hucksterism. Yes, there are abuses. And, yes, there are who some on the extremes who have tried to work it as a form of self-aggrandizement, but I know of no denomination that is immune to abuse by people who are in it for self-promotion.
I know many people in the WOF, where there heart is and what they are about, and it is not at all about hucksterism. To lay such a pejorative on them would be very much a false witness.
Over the past dozen years or so, I have been greatly helped in understanding the operation of faith. Though I do not call myself WOF, there is a good bit of it imprinted on my DNA.
I am thankful for Oral Roberts, his life, his faith, his ministry and his legacy. God has used him at many points in my life.
December 16th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #9
Bigotry? That’s an odd word to use. This is not how the Church speaks. The Scriptures are clear that where and when there is doctrine being taught that is contrary to that which has been revealed, it is to be rejected and avoided. It is not “bigotry” to reject and condemn the errors of WOF, it is a Biblical imperative to do so. Trying to excuse WOF error by appealing to weakness and error elsewhere is inappropriate. That many sincere Christians are duped into believing WOF nonsense is tragic. The teachers of this stuff bear the greater burden here. WOF is not a Biblical teaching.
December 16th, 2009 | 3:08 pm | #10
Father Paul,
I hope it was clear that I also do not think WOF is a Biblical teaching.
John Mark
December 16th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #11
I do not condone WOF at all. It’s destructive. My bigger point is that sometimes good people believe terrible things. That doesn’t validate their beliefs. It just demonstrates that Christ is working in a broken, mixed-up world.
December 16th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #12
Right orthodoxdj.
I totally agree with you.
December 16th, 2009 | 3:45 pm | #13
John Mark, I did not gather from your post that I thought you did, and am happy to clarify that as well. You’ll see I added another perspective on Roberts as a separate post.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #14
Rev. McCain, you have slandered a whole movement of Christians as hucksters. I have no doubt that there are some who deserve that label. But most do not.
There are aspects of Lutheran theology with which I do not agree, both in the general movement of Lutheranism as well as in some particular Lutheran affiliations. And there have been some bad actors among the Lutheran clergy. But if I were to lay pejoratives on all Lutherans based on the theology of some or the bad actions of a few, that would be bearing a false witness.
Likewise, I think it is a false witness to label Roberts and his heirs as hucksters. I know about Rev. Roberts, his flaws as well as his faith. And I know about many of his heirs, ministers of the Gospel who have been influence by his ministry. Though there are a few bad actors and people who I would indeed consider hucksters, the great majority of them are not but are quite the opposite. So when you call them hucksters, you are saying something I know to be untrue. And that is not how the Church speaks.
There are some points of doctrine that different WOF preachers teach. I do not try to excuse them at all. I am merely pointing out that it is wrong to tar all of them with the same brush and dismiss them as hucksters.
WOF is not a denomination or formal association. It is a movement. It has no pope, no magisterium, no formal creed or confession, no membership. Ministers with this point of view can be found in a variety of denominations. They may also differ from one another on a number of points. I do not believe every doctrine that every minister with WOF views teaches. But there are a number of things I do agree with, because I believe them to be biblical.
Now, you and I may disagree about whether or not they are biblical, just as you and I will certainly disagree over whether some points of Lutheran theology are biblical.
But someday, in the distant future when you go to your reward, shall I use that as an occasion to berate your Lutheran errors and how unbiblical they are, and call you and your religious heirs hucksters? No.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:18 pm | #15
If, at my death, you believe I have misled millions, caused millions to send me money on the basis of a false promise: that in so doing they would be blessed with prosperity or healing, and if you believe that I have not pointed people always and only to Christ Jesus, Crucified and Risen for our salvation and that He alone is our hope and that He has promised us that in this world we will have trouble, but He will be with us, then, yes, I would not only hope you would call me a “huckster” but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a false teacher, and somebody whose ministry should be rejected and condemned. Indeed, if I or even an angel in heaven should preach a Gospel, which is not the Gospel, then, reject and condemn me.
The WOF movement, message and theology, advanced by Roberts and those who have followed him, is a false gospel.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #16
Well, Rev. McCain, I simply disagree with you. I think that neither Roberts nor the WOF movement, message and theology constitutes a false gospel.
Peace be with you.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #17
Understood, thanks Jeff. I’m sure if you believed, as I do, that WOF is a false gospel you would be as concerned as I am about it. But I understand we don’t agree on that issue.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:51 pm | #18
FWIW, there was an earlier Evangel blog post about whether a moratorium on discussions originating from the term/concept of “gospel-centered” or variants thereof might be helpful.
Genuine Christians quarreling over the Gospel, what’s a true Gospel, what’s a false Gospel, who preaches and teaches a true Gospel, who preaches and teaches a false Gospel, how should the Gospel be presented, who’s a Judaizer, what undermines the Gospel, what constitutes Gospel Clarity, what constitutes Gospel Unity, what constitutes Gospel Purity, who’s blurring and obscuring the Gospel (and can anyone say that they’ve never blurred and obscured the Gospel themselves (they might not even have been aware of it)), etc….
Now all these things should be contended for. And I guess the division between Rev. Paul T. McCain and Jeff Doles is simply the price that must be paid in quarreling over the Gospel.
Imagine that: Quarreling for the Glory of God.
December 16th, 2009 | 5:27 pm | #19
What is ironic is that the gospel that WOF preachers teach is the gospel that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. It is the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. That is central to everything.
It would be dismaying to think that any minister would find that to be a false gospel. But I recognize that what has happened here is that a secondary issue — whether God wants His people to prosper and all things and be in health — has been mistaken for the main issue of the gospel, and on that basis pronounced false.
(BTW, in WOF teaching, prosperity is about much more than financial well-being; it is about well-being in all aspects of life: soul prosperity, family, relationships, ministry, etc.)
Back when I was in Bible college, and later in seminary, I was taught the old saw, “In primary things, unity; in secondary things, liberty; in all things, charity.” But I’ve learned many times over the years the reality that that ideal is not held by all Christians.
December 16th, 2009 | 5:58 pm | #20
Jeff, you are choosing simply to ignore the problem inherent in WOF theology: in spite of all the fine talk about the Gospel as you have described it above, the message of WOF and the prosperity-Gospel/healing false teachers obscures the Gospel to the point it is distorted, twisted and, in practice, even denied. Dr. Mohler hit the nail on the head with this nonsense. Roberts and his ilk preaching “healings” which were no healings, were publishing and promulgating lies.
December 16th, 2009 | 6:06 pm | #21
Jeff,
I think concern most have with WOF theology is that the larger framework is often very different from anything “mere Christian”. the concept of faith, sin, judgment, salvation, prayer, etc. all gets mixed up into a view of reality that is simply not Biblical. For examples, many WOF proponents teach that God literally lives on another planet, that being made in god’s image is an extension of what I just said, that faith is a force that makes things happen, that man can have nearly all he wants if he simply wills it by faith. Some concepts are dangerously close to new age beliefs, and some are just outright ridiculous. Just like the Gospel should not be co-opted to push a political agenda or party, neither should it be co-opted to teach “prosperity” and “healing”. An overwhelming majority of Christians believe God can-and often does-heal. They believe also that He cares about our material well-being. Thankfully, most reject the notion that prosperity and healing are His main objectives, that God is a butler or magic genie, that if I die of cancer it’s my fault for not having enough faith.
I take this issue very seriously because a pastor of mine died because He was “standing on the Word” and was convinced he didn’t need to go to the doctor because “Dr. Jesus” was going to heal him.
December 16th, 2009 | 6:44 pm | #22
Paul, I have been around many WOF people and have observed a number of WOF ministers and ministries over an extended period of time. I know what they teach, what they do and what they mean by what they teach and do.
Yes, I have seem some that abuse the teaching very egregiously. No doubt, these obscure the gospel.
But I have also seen many who practice it in a very biblical, loving way that has been a blessing to many people in need, even those in the direst of need. They do not obscure the gospel but promote it, living it out in a way that manifests the testimony of Jesus and the glory of God.
And there have been many people who have come into a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, been healed of bodily and emotional afflictions, and experienced deliverance from demonic spirits through their ministries.
So, respectfully, I do not believe what you or Al Mohler say about Roberts and WOF because I have seen for myself that the truth is significantly different from that.
December 16th, 2009 | 9:53 pm | #23
Jeff,
If I may…try living in it. Grow up in a house of Robert’s fans. See what that does to the faith of someone who doesn’t get why God apparently only does “those things” for everybody else.
Nothing, I don’t think, damaged me more or directed me into despair and certainty that God had rejected me because He wouldn’t do what I wanted, than the WOF teaching and it’s many and varied offspring.
I can’t give Roberts any credit for good things simply because, if anyone who’d never heard of him were to look into it, they would only see the WOF and it’s attendant craziness. And, because we all like a good get rich (or healed or “set free”) quick scheme, they may bite the hook.
I’ve seen much of it from the inside, not from watching friends, and I’ve seen way too many walk away completely because God apparently deliver the goods.
He may have done good, almost any Christian has (who knows? Even Benny Hinn may have…once), but the harm so badly outweighs the good as to make it irrelevant.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:03 pm | #24
My grandmother, who was one of the first major spiritual influences in my life was a big fan of Oral Roberts. I am not an outsider to WOF; I’ve been involved with it for a dozen or so years.
Now, maybe you were under the impression that it was all a “get rich quick” scheme and that God was your own personal step-and-fetch-it, but that is not what the WOF is, nor what Oral Roberts taught.
I’ve seen people walk away from all kinds of Christian denominations or groups, even Reformed ones, because they thought God let them down one way or another. But that doesn’t prove anything. Nor does it prove anything that people leave WOF behind for similar reasons.
December 17th, 2009 | 5:09 am | #25
This is an obituary for someone who claimed in 1987 that God would end his life if he didn’t meet a fundraising target.
If I predecease you, would you write mine too?
December 17th, 2009 | 9:04 am | #26
[...] Some remarks at the passing of Oral Roberts. [...]
December 17th, 2009 | 9:09 am | #27
[...] Some remarks at the passing of Oral Roberts. [...]
December 17th, 2009 | 9:24 am | #28
Well, let me track something else into the house.
Rev. Roberts and Word of Faith ministers often state (or stated) that they are (or were) proclaiming the “uncompromised” and “uncompromising” Word of God. In other words, they are, believing in Scripture Only, proclaiming the “True Gospel” and it is THE REST OF YOU, the “mainline” church (you have to imagine the scornful tone behind that phrase), who have neglected and even twisted the Gospel, the true Word of God.
I have a basis by which to judge that claim. And you?
In other words, your Sola Scriptura reading of the Bible is better than their Sola Scriptura reading of the Bible because…..?
December 17th, 2009 | 11:07 am | #29
And your tradition and magesterium is better than someone elses tradition and magesterium because…..?
It’s not like there’s only one claim to both of those things.
The Bible has some difficult things, but on the whole, it’s not rocket science. WOF is easily debunked, but once someone has a source of cash, or a source of a “better life” in their sights…it’s hard to dissuade them.
In one sense, who can blame them? Who likes pain, who wouldn’t want to have their bills paid a little more easily, who wants to have to trust God, with no attendant guarantees as to what He will do?
December 17th, 2009 | 11:35 am | #30
That’s your answer?
December 17th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #31
One more point about this: where is WOF theology in Church history? It’s very new, and new is always suspect. Generally speaking, theology and novelty don’t mix.
December 17th, 2009 | 1:48 pm | #32
The essence of WOF theology is the exercise of faith in the Word of God. That is, believing, affirming and asserting what the Word of God says regardless of circumstances that may appear to be contrary to it. Either the circumstances must change, or the Word of God must change. WOF is the confidence that the Word of God does not, will not, cannot change, and that therefore the circumstances must change to conform to the Word.
Is there a time in Church history that was devoid of that conviction, that faith in the Word?
As is true of every Christian theology, WOF theology is a stage of development. It builds largely on the the revival movements, divine healing movements, Pentecostal and charismatic movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
As a relatively new movement, the theology of WOF is still being shaped and adjusted. There are some strange and unbiblical beliefs held by some, but by no means believed by all or required of all. Whether they last or how much traction they will find in the future is questionable.
I am not altogether in it, nor am I altogether outside of it. My purpose is neither to defend not attack it. Rather, I have been studying, pretty regularly, the Scriptures that WOF has pointed me to, first, to get to the truth of those passages and, second, see how various teachings and teachers of WOF compare with them.
Many of the ideas I do find supported in various churches, denominations, generally respected commentaries, and non-WOF preachings. I find some of it in my own heritage (Christian and Missionary Alliance, and Foursquare Church). But these are individual strands. What is new in regard to WOF is how it brings these strands together into one place. How well it all integrates remains to be seen.
So WOF theology is not altogether new, nor is it altogether historical. Like every other theology, it is a blend in development.
December 17th, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #33
Craig,
My point is that the very thing you claim Sola Scriptura can’t do, a claim to tradition or a magesterium can’t do either.
December 17th, 2009 | 2:06 pm | #34
Sure it can. It begins with Jesus committing His authority into the hands of His apostles, thus beginning an apostolic tradition. This tradition encompasses biblical interpretation: “No scripture is of private interpretation.”
December 17th, 2009 | 2:06 pm | #35
There is a different thread on Oral Roberts above this one. I think I’ll reserve comments for over there, so I don’t have to bounce back and forth. Thanks!
December 17th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #36
“As a relatively new movement, the theology of WOF is still being shaped and adjusted.”
That’s my point. If it’s been a regular part of Church history, then why is something new needed? If it hasn’t been a regular part, then it is highly suspect.
I know very few-if any-Christians who would say that believe God’s Word is not an essential element of the Christian life. What, then, makes WOF theology different? I’ll tell you: that faith is an ACTUAL substance than can be used analogously to money. The more I have, the more I can get what i want. It puts my desires in the driver’s seat. Want a new car? Faith it. Want a big house? Faith it.
It uses Christian terminology but rearranges meanings. For example: the Bible says of Christ, “By His stripes we were healed”. According to WOF, that means all Christians OUGHT be healed physically and financially just as much as means all Christians ought to be healed of sin. I have no problem with that line of reasoning if the general resurrection is kept in mind. To argue it means that all should experience that on earth is not found in Scripture. Think about Hebrews 11…the FAITH CHAPTER. Those who lived by faith suffered, waited, hoped, and ultimately many never saw fulfilled promises in this life. Nevertheless, they are our great examples.
John Mark said it well when he said that Roberts allowed people to believe that God is not opposed to wealth and pleasure. Such a notion, too, would be unbiblical. Heresies are often extremes of something true. Simply because God is not opposed to something is no reason to believe He want everyone, everywhere, in this mode of existence (post-fall, pre-resurrection) to have it without limit. Likewise, simply because God does not wish to make everyone wealthy or healthy is no reason to suppose God is opposed to health and wealth.
If God granted everything I wanted, I would be a spoiled brat. So would every sinner. The only way for that to be any different is for people to grow in Christ to the point that their desires are for the good. In Heaven we will all be like that, and I believe the saints are like that now.
BTW, this thinking isn’t unique to WOF theology. Some who believe in Saints believe that praying to a Saint is more efficacious solely on the basis that said Saint is closer to God. Therefore, I can ask Mary or Paul for something because they’re more likely to get a yes. I believe in Saints, but if they are who I think they are, they cannot be manipulated, and even if they could, given the state of existence in which they live, the last thing they would want to do is manipulate our Lord.
It seems to me that sinners want control. That’s what much of religion and self-help programs boil down to: control. God wants to give us one kind of control: self-control. That’s a tough pill to swallow. I want to control everything and everyone but me. God has it the other way.
December 17th, 2009 | 4:11 pm | #37
Christian theology never arrived on the scene fully formed. It took the Church centuries to come to an understanding about what the apostolic witness teaches us about the nature of Jesus Christ and the nature of the Godhead. What it came to concerning this was an outworking of what was inherent in that witness. The Church also debated for centuries a number of different doctrinal issues, trying to determine what Scriptures teach us about them — debates such as monergism/synergism, or the ways the doctrine of the atonement developed in the East and the West. It was not a matter of creating doctrine ex nihilo but of what was inherent or nascent in the Scriptures and the apostolic tradition.
Should we think that we have exhausted the Scriptures and what they have to teach us about God? I don’t think so. If there are more depths to plumb in the Scriptures, then insofar as that is so, that is how much room we have for development in our theology (of course, I am putting it that way as a Protestant).
At its best, I think WOF theology is a drawing out of some things that are inherent in the Scriptures. In that respect is it not a new theology, but an outworking of what has already been present in the Scriptures and Christian theology.
December 17th, 2009 | 4:38 pm | #38
Any good proponent of WOF will tell you that it not about how much faith you have but what you do with the faith you have been given that makes the difference.
They will also tell you that faith must have a basis in the Word of God. Faith is not about believing your desires but about believing the promises of God. Nor is faith about spending it on our pleasures but about pleasing God. It is about laying hold of God’s will as revealed in His Word.
Regarding Isaiah 53:5, “By His stripes we are healed.” That context of that verse includes physical healing. “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (v. 4). The Hebrew words there mean “sicknesses” and “pains.” Matthew certainly seems to have been under the impression that this was about, or at least included, physical healing, because he applied it to the healing ministry of Jesus (Matthew 8:16-17). Seeing that Isaiah 53:4 is about, or at least includes, bodily healing, I think bodily healing is then also included in verse 5: “By His stripes we are healed.” Given the context of verse 4, there is no reason to think that is not so.
The reason WOF believe God wants His people to be in health and have prosperity, even financial prosperity, is because they find these things expressed in many places throughout the Scriptures.
WOF is not about manipulating God, it is about believing the promises of God. It is not about trying to work God but about expecting Him to keep His Word.
If a fathers tells his children that he will take them to the zoo on Saturday at 9 a.m., and 9 a.m. Saturday morning comes around and the children go to their faith and say, “Okay, Dad, you promised you would take us and we’re ready to go,” — are those children trying to manipulate their father? Or are they not rather taking him at his word? And does not taking him at his word actually honor him?
WOF believes that taking God at His Word honors God. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). That being so, then surely the opposite must be true and God is greatly pleased when we believe Him, taking Him at His Word.
December 17th, 2009 | 6:11 pm | #39
I’ll take God at His word: “In this life you will have tribulation.”
Perhaps Paul didn’t have enough faith because three times he pleaded with the Lord yet his thorn was not removed.
December 17th, 2009 | 10:21 pm | #40
No, no Ortho, he had enough faith, he just needed someone to teach him how to USE it.
It must’ve come without a starter kit…or the solenoid was missing…or something.
I’ve heard all that over and over, always with the implication (or just plain statement) that when you reach MY level of maturity, you’ll understand…
December 18th, 2009 | 10:51 am | #41
orthodoxdj,
Once again, in addition to last night, I have posted a response to your comment. But once again, as last, I have come back to find that it has disappeared.
When it disappeared the first time, I thought perhaps it might just have been a glitch in the system. But when it has happened again only to my post, I must conclude that somebody has pulled it off. That somebody does not want my answer to be read.
Moderator,
If I have commented some infraction by those posts, please inform me of what that is so that I may avoid it in future. You have access to my email address and I would appreciate if you would explain the reason for pulling my posts.
If you wish me to go away and quit interacting with First Things Evangel, then you can email that to me as well and I will move on.
I do take time and thought to articulate on some things that have been spoken against in these recents threads. But if my posts are just going to be pulled, I will quit wasting my time discussing them, with the realization that the particular viewpoint I represent regarding Oral Roberts et al is not welcome here.
Thanks.
Jeff Doles
December 18th, 2009 | 11:35 am | #42
Jeff,
I’m not a moderator, but glitches like that really are a fairly common thing from time to time around here.
Unless you hear otherwise, I wouldn’t take it personally. Perhaps try and redo your comments.
December 18th, 2009 | 11:47 am | #43
Okay, I’ll give it another try. My response to orthodoxdj can essentially be found in the other thread, “The Tragedy of Oral Roberts” in post #14, where I respond to the same comment that was made by someone else.
December 21st, 2009 | 12:15 pm | #44
What drives people to criticize others when they die? I mean, like right after they kick the bucket? Is there something in the reformed tradition that says, you know, friends and family are mourning, now is the right time to crap on someone?
December 28th, 2009 | 6:33 am | #45
[...] Read the rest here. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact