Teddy picked this up from ‘Theology Today’:
It’s a Salutation Silly!Sometimes the things people fall for amaze me….particularly the folks who adhere to the “prosperity gospel. I’ve been what I generously consider “debating” the merits of the “prosperity gospel” with a severally deluded dude who honestly believes that 3John 2 is “God’s master plan for our lives”……
3 John 1:1-4 (ESV)
The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.
We must remember that this is a letter from the Apostle John to a Christian named Gaius. He greets Gaius the way someone would write to a dear friend and most likely someone he has led to Christ…..John probably spent much time with Gaius and by the way he refers to Gaius and the other followers as “my children” indicates that John probably discipled these wonderful Christians as well.
Verse two is obviously part of the salutation. How many of you would write to a dear brother or sister and say something like “Dear__________; I hope you are broke busted and disgusted”? Of course you wouldn’t….at least I hope you wouldn’t
. John is hoping and praying his dear brother is doing well…just as all of us would….yet the prosperity crowd has turned a salutation into a doctrine of devils and disguising it as God’s master plan for your lives.
As ludicrous as it sounds people eat this up like watermelon at a family reunion. It appeals to their flesh and their itching ears. It fills their bellies and makes them feel good….so good in fact they refuse to hear the truth and stay stuck in their feel good euphoria until they really are broke busted and disgusted…..and unless God steps in they will die in their sin and spend eternity in hell….eternally separated from a God who truly had a “Master Plan” for their lives.
This is how they do “theology” today people. They pluck verses out of thin air and put them in a neat little package and call it doctrine. John 3 has nothing to do with financial prosperity other then a friend wishing a beloved brother success in all aspects of his life….as any friend would do…..yet prosperity preachers like Joseph Prince, Paula White, Joyce Meyer and the rest of their ilk have convinced people that it means God wants you to financially prosper as well.
God’s greatest wish isn’t for His children to have financial prosperity…if this were true then the Apostles and the early church fathers would have taught this….yet for some reason they didn’t. Why didn’t Peter tell the folks in Acts 2 to “repent and be baptized and you will all be wealthy and healthy? Or how about Paul and Silas….why didn’t they tell the jailor in Philippi to “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be wealthy and healthy”? I’m fairly certain that if being wealthy and healthy was really God’s master plan then one of the Apostles would have taught this…..wouldn’t they?
Read entire article here at Theology Today
We haven’t had a prosperity doctrine debate for a while. My view is that the whole thing is waaay overdone, and can lead people to feel that they haven’t worked hard enough or given enough to God if they are experiencing ongoing financial hardship. What a burden to bear – in addition to the financial hardship itself.
June 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
Teddy, if you send me the link to ‘Theology Preacher’, I’ll add it to the quote.
June 5, 2008 at 11:30 am
Hi,
My site is called Theology Today at http://phillyflash.wordpress.com…..
June 5, 2008 at 11:54 am
Thanks Phil. I also enjoyed your other prosperity doctrine related posts currently on your front page.
June 5, 2008 at 12:36 pm
ravingpente,
Thanks and keep up the good work you are doing in the Lords Name!
Phil
June 5, 2008 at 9:35 pm
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html#PatRobertson
June 5, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Please see “A Call for Discernment” by going to http://www.justinpeters.org. Justin is an evangelist and in addition to expository preaching, also holds seminars on the “Word of Faith” movement. He has cerebral palsy and concurs with the apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee.”
You can view his brief overview of the misleading Word of Faith movement given at Southwestern Theological Seminary here:
http://www.justinpeters.org/demo.htm
There is much to be said for his study of the “Health and Wealth” people in this demo.
To God be the glory!
Caron
Los Angeles
June 6, 2008 at 2:38 am
Hey Phil, I think youre really cool; great work on all fronts!-
[-& isnt it ironic we need to help save people from our own 'religion!']
-Of course its just a greeting!-ludicrous to consider it any other way, unless you “Pray for the Saints to pray for us” eh! [a Catholic thing], even though addressed to Gaius-hm.
Yes dear Teddy, sickening to hear what goes on ‘In the name of Jesus’…-great site above; Im sure people have been creaming-off money since it all began, though some of these Ministries have helped alot of people to overcome monstrous evil in their lives, or else they wouldnt ’subscribe’; God turns up at their meetings, and people get saved, which may be the bottom-line of things.
I wonder, in the relative scale of things, how these people compare to any other ‘Corporate Giants’ involved in colossal organizations—
They play a game, evolving upwards from the ‘needs’ of the ‘Mob’; [thousands or millions of tiny individual people], and ending up developing what John Maxwell calls ‘The Big Mo!”[momentum]
, with gigantic cashflow, to dispense, wherever–(Dresden China, ‘malachite’ Tables eh?…)
Its may not be very wise to indulge in ‘gutter-prudery’ over the sums of money that change hands; (smacks a bit of jealousy), but it may be a a bit smarter to understand the meaning of what we’re trying to do in Christ, toward our own destiny; or even the cosmical meaning of phrases like “-behold, the Earth is passing away”…
Ive been a victim of ‘Prosperity doctrine’ myself, but have been so hammered by loss and relative difficulty that Ive come to view the prosperity of our people in a very different way;
I remember recently being totally broke as a family, taking a shower, and suddenly realizing that ‘my capacity for pleasure & happiness is no less than the most wealthy man’, because he may have a more fancy tap, or more expensive soap, but its exactly his ability to enjoy it, that is exactly Gods point, and so I accept where Derek Prince is coming from [he operates in an ultra-tight society of endless aspiration in Singapore].
At 43 years of age, I find myself now preoccupied with thoughts of ‘Happiness & Romance’, and have prayed to God that “I want to be happy for the rest of my life”…and, what do you know- happiness has been coming in increasing measure!-
Proverbs 15:15
All the days of the oppressed are wretched, but the cheerful heart has a continual feast.
The abundant promises made to Abraham ARE scripturally ours in Christ, though they may not necessarily compare with today’s ‘worldly’ values as we know them; simply place yourself in Father Abrahams sandals and take a look around…
The Ancient Greeks have been taking a bit of a ‘christian-hammering’ recently, though its wise to remember that they considered themselves ‘the wealthiest people of their Age’, although most Greeks only owned about two garments and lived in a dirt-floored dwelling!
Z.
June 6, 2008 at 3:02 am
It’s very convenient to use the ESV to demonstrate scripture. Unfortunately some modern translations are oversimplified in some areas to help people with English as a second language, but lose some of the original meaning of sentences and phrases.
The passage literally says, “Beloved, in regard to all things, I pray for you to do well, and to be in health, as your soul does well” (LToB), or “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth” (AV). “My loved one, it is my prayer that you may do well in all things, and be healthy in body, even as your soul does well” (BBE).
The important thing to understand here is the Greek ‘peri panton’ – ‘concerning all things’, or ‘above all things’, or ‘in regard to all things’, which qualifies what John is about to say – that he prays for well-being and health, as their soul is in health.
Clearly, John’s pastoral desire is for his charges to be whole, body, mind and spirit.
Now. doing well in all things is a generalisation of sorts, and shouldn’t be taken as evidence of financial gain alone, but neither should it exclude material well-being. Being healthy is obviously a desirable thing for one’s family and friends.
You limit this to the kind of greeting which is flippant, but I don;t think John was being flippant at al. he is obviously serious about his concerns for his friend. He said he prays for well-being and health. Does he pray and not expect God to answer his prayers? That would be a vain assumption.
Perhaps Phil doesn’t mean it when he says ‘Shalom’ to his friends. Perhaps he is flippant about his prayers, or even greetings.
Here’s another thing. Why would John, who suffered much at the hands of persecutors, bother to say to his friend he prays for their well being, and at the same time lie to them by not meaning what he says?
You see, Phil, how you’ve used the word ’salutation’, and added ’silly’ and, in turn, lost the truth of what John is actually saying, taking the understanding of the passage to the other extreme of the group your criticising. Bad theology.
By saying ’salutation silly’ you’ve had to somehow show that a salutation isn’t the truth to make your point, that someone is silly to think this is actually doctrine. So is John telling the truth or not?
You could say John is giving a salutation, but if it is a salutation he is revealing his heart and heart-felt prayer for his friends. He is telling the truth. He is saying he is praying for their health, well-being and protection.
However, the phrase ‘above all things’, actually makes it more than a salutation. It brings emphasis to John’s heart towards his friend.
June 6, 2008 at 3:11 am
Perfectly thorough, well-spotted Facelift! (My smiley face too, was a glitch),
Z
June 6, 2008 at 4:22 am
What I see Phil objecting to is the use of this scripture to support prosperity doctrine. He does not seem to be objecting to someone praying for the well being of their friends in all things.
Of course it is correct to pray for well being in all things. In fact, I know of people who needed prayer for financial issues, who were put down when they asked for the prayer by someone saying that those things weren’t important enough to pray about. Of course they are important enough to pray about, and this verse is a good example of that generally.
But it is not an example to be used to justify the extreme teachings of the health and wealth movement, where wealth is seen as God’s blessing earnt in response to a righteous life; where giving to an offering will see your prayer answered with an implied lack of answer if you don’t. It has been said to me personally by one person who teaches this stuff that if someone has an ongoing financial problem in their life, that if God hasn’t fixed it after a while, that they MUST be doing something wrong – something wrong in God. This teaching brings condemnation upon people, which demonstrates its inaccuracy, for there is NO condemnation for us in Christ.
We may have financial problems to work through, and we can certainly pray and expect that God will answer our prayers in one way or another, but we can’t use this scripture to imply that all Christians should experience financial wealth, or that the extent of His blessing to us in that area is a sign of how well we have served Him. We are to be content in all things in Him, in good times and difficult times.
Philippians 4:11
Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.
# 1 Timothy 6:8
If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.
Hebrews 13:5-6
5Make sure that your character is (C)free from the love of money, (D)being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, “(E)I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,”
6so that we confidently say,
“(F)THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID.
WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?”
June 6, 2008 at 4:59 am
No, Phil is scathing of people who consider this section of scripture points to what it actually says, that it is worthy to pray that others are prospered and in good health, even as their soul prospers.
He relegates it to a salutation of no noteworthy significance.
He misses the point of many other scripture passages which confirm God’s will to bless his people. He majors on suffering and denigrates prosperity.
The truth is that we will have times of plenty and times of lack, and we are to be content in either situation, whether abounding – in abundance – or abased – in lack. But nowhere does it say we are consider lack to be more holy than plenty, or vice versa.
As you say, there is no condemnation to those who are not presently prospering, but, equally, there is no condemnation to those who presently live abundant lives, because holiness isn’t measured on whether we are abounding or abased, but on the way we handle either situation.
The hope is that those who have more than enough with help meet the needs of those who are struggling. This act is called giving. Jesus said, “it is more blessed to give than it is to receive”. But if you have nothing to give how can you bless others? So abundance is the ability to meet the needs of others and meet the needs of your own.
The covetously rich are those who store up wealth for themselves at the expense of others, not those who prosper and assist others.
So let’s put what Phil says in context with what he beleives. He is scathing of peopl who cosider prosperity a part of god’s blessing for his people. He uses words like ’silly’ and ’severely deluded’.
Here’s what he says about people who minister on God’s plan for the whole man to be well:
‘John is hoping and praying his dear brother is doing well…just as all of us would….yet the prosperity crowd has turned a salutation into a doctrine of devils and disguising it as God’s master plan for your lives.
As ludicrous as it sounds people eat this up like watermelon at a family reunion. It appeals to their flesh and their itching ears. It fills their bellies and makes them feel good….so good in fact they refuse to hear the truth and stay stuck in their feel good euphoria until they really are broke busted and disgusted…..and unless God steps in they will die in their sin and spend eternity in hell….eternally separated from a God who truly had a “Master Plan” for their lives.
This is how they do “theology” today people. They pluck verses out of thin air and put them in a neat little package and call it doctrine.’
Very nice!
I believe it is God’s will to prosper us. I believe John as speaking generally when he prayed his prayer. It is consistent with other scripture. We don’t ever build doctrine on a single passage of scripture. We take things in context, and examine God’s will and Word to see his general attitude towards his children for this time. We look to he Spirit of the Word, not the letter.
Phil uses insults instead of even the basics of reason to state his case. he gets his theology wrong on this passage and slates people for accepting John on face value. No, he is being more than critical of prosperity preachers. he attacking those who believe what is being said. he is attacking John’s own teaching.
June 6, 2008 at 6:32 am
Didn’t Jesus tells us in the last days that there would be false prophets and even the elect would be deceived? Here she is!!! And deceiving millions, hook, line and sinker!!!
June 6, 2008 at 8:57 am
Dear Facelift,
Thank you for your comments and concern….
I use the ESV on the blog because the majority of my readers can’t read Greek…..this is how it would look if I used the original language;
αγαπητε περι παντων ευχομαι σε ευοδουσθαι και υγιαινειν καθως ευοδουται σου η ψυχη
εχαρην γαρ λιαν ερχομενων αδελφων και μαρτυρουντων σου τη αληθεια καθως συ εν αληθεια περιπατεις
I understand how this verse is used as I can actually read Greek….BTW I live in Greece…did you know that already?
The term “silly” was actually directed to the person who thinks 3John 2 is doctrine….it isn’t. This is where the whole “silly” thing started;
http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/the-silly-sheeple-syndrome/
For you to even think that I scathe people who pray for others wellbeing is ludicrous….
My use of riposte is necessary in this case as I am dealing with a severally deluded man who mocks God with every word he writes…..please see;
http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/the-cluelessness-of-chee/
The prosperity Gospel is flesh based….I know I used to preach this mess….but I suppose you knew that about me as well…
I’m not attacking the teachings of John….I’m trying to prevent his words from be miscontrued and manipulated into a get rich quick scheme…
I won’t be back here….if you want to further discuss this you are welcome to do this on my site….
Shalom!
June 6, 2008 at 9:31 am
Well I didn’t know that stuff about Phil! Very interesting. I’m going to have another look at his blogs.
Prosperity doctrine, when it involves people effectively ‘buying blessing’, is indeed a delusion. It’s victims are frequently financially vulnerable people. The people who demand that Christians give them money so that God is more likely to answer their prayers, and who preach that God’s word says you’ll definitely receive back 100 times more in actual $$$ than you put in this week are preaching that you can pay for God to bless you. Simon the sorcerer was reprimanded for trying to buy God’s blessing. These people hold themselves up as teachers of the Word and will one day be held to account for their falsehoods.
I agree with Phil that some people do believe this stuff because it appeals to their flesh, in much the same way that a lottery does. However, others believe it for a variety of reasons – they trust the teachers more than themselves or they want to be obedient and absorb it as part of their ’submission’ to authority.
So I agree with you Facelift that insults don’t help – they don’t help bring the victims out of delusion, though they may make those of us who are not victim to it any longer feel superior.
Nonetheless, prosperity doctrine is a lie. So is the doctrine that we should all be poor. We can still believe that God blesses us in all sorts of ways including financial, and that we should pray when we are in financial difficulty as any other difficulty. That in itself is not prosperity doctrine. Prosperity doctrine teaches people to expect or claim material wealth in response to giving or service. In reality, some will only receive it when they pass on. Others will receive it now. We can’t judge people by it.
I really don’t understand the point of view that says if you reject prosperity doctrine you must believe in poverty doctrine. That’s just a distortion to remove credibility from those of us who oppose this lie.
June 6, 2008 at 10:22 am
Thanks Phil. Can you explain περι παντων for us, please? Why did the translators of the ESV leave it out? or simplify it to ‘all’? Surely it can mean much more than this, so scripture translation should show it, and nearly all authentic versions do.
Your language is scathing.
It doesn’t come across as a conversation between you and a severely deluded person, but anyone who takes this phrase and uses it in a doctrinal setting.
I think we can take any greeting, if it is a greeting, and use it to confirm or qualify doctrine. Paul used many greetings and gave a depth of information in them. He also used blessings at the end of his letters which church leaders still use today. Are these not doctrinally useful also? Some of Peter’s greeting are so profound that it is hard to distinguish between his greeting and his letter.
You didn’t comment on my suggestion that you regard a salutation as a flippant remark with no substance or meaning, which, by your reasoning, makes John less than truthful. Did he mean what he said or not?
RP, I don’t have any quarrel with targeting those who teach prosperity wrongly, pr for their own gain, but I do take exception to throwing the baby out with the bath-water by claiming all teaching on prosperity is wrong or, as Phil puts, doctrine of devils. It isn’t. There is ample scripture to back up prosperity doctrine as sound.
Saying prosperity doctrine is a lie, is a lie. Prosperity doctrine isn’t necessarily telling people they can expect reward in return for works. That is your interpretation. Some prosperity teaching teaches what you claim, but not all.
June 6, 2008 at 10:58 am
For your interest, here is Barnes’, not a prosperity teacher, but an evangelical, rendering of this passage, which would comply perfectly with the understanding that I have received from prosperity teaching on what John is saying to his friend. Note the acknowledgement of the phrase ‘above all things’ as crucial to the understanding of the verse:
‘Verse 2. Beloved, I wish above all things. Marg., pray.
The word used here commonly means in the New Testament to pray; but it is also employed to express a strong and earnest desire for anything, #Ac 27:29 Ro 9:3 2Co 13:9. This is probably all that is implied here. The phrase rendered “above all things”—*Greek —would be more correctly rendered here “concerning, or in respect to all things;” and the idea is, that John wished earnestly that in all respects he might have the same kind of prosperity which his soul had.
The common translation “above all things” would seem to mean that John valued health and outward prosperity more than he did anything else; that he wished that more than his usefulness or salvation. This cannot be the meaning, and is not demanded by the proper interpretation of the original. See this shown by Locke, in loc. The sense is, “In every respect, I wish that it may go as well with you as it does with your soul; that in your worldly prosperity, your comfort, and your bodily health, you may be as prosperous as you are in your religion.” This is the reverse of the wish which we are commonly constrained to express for our friends; for such is usually the comparative want of prosperity and advancement in their spiritual interests, that it is an expression of benevolence to desire that they might prosper in that respect as much as they do in others.
That thou mayest prosper, Greek. This word occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: #Ro 1:10, rendered have a prosperous journey; #1Co 16:2, rendered hath prospered; and in the passage before us. It means, properly, to lead in a good way; to prosper one’s journey; and then to make prosperous; to give success to; to be prospered. It would apply here to any plan or purpose entertained. It would include success in business, happiness in domestic relations, or prosperity in any of the engagements and transactions in which a Christian might lawfully engage. It shows that it is right to wish that our friends may have success in the works of their hands and their plans of life.
And be in health. To enjoy bodily health. It is not necessary to suppose, in order to a correct interpretation of this, that Gaius was at that time suffering from bodily indisposition, though perhaps it is most natural to suppose that, as John makes the wish for his health so prominent. But it is common, in all circumstances, to wish for the health and prosperity of our friends; and it is as proper as it is common, if we do not give that a degree of prominence above the welfare of the soul.
Even as thy soul prospereth. John had learned, it would seem, from the “brethren” who had come to him, (#3Jo 1:3,) that Gaius was living as became a Christian; that he was advancing in the knowledge of the truth, and was exemplary in the duties of the Christian life; and he prays that in all other respects he might be prospered as much as he was in that. It is not very common that a man is more prospered in his spiritual interests than he is in his other interests, or that we can, in our wishes for the welfare of our friends, make the prosperity of the soul, and the practice and enjoyment of religion, the standard of our wishes in regard to other things. It argues a high state of piety when we can, as the expression of our highest desire for the welfare of our friends, express the hope that they may be in all respects as much prospered as they are in their spiritual concerns.’
June 6, 2008 at 11:35 am
Facelift, perhaps you should say some of this on Phil’s blog, if it is addressed to him, as he said he is not coming back here.
June 6, 2008 at 12:13 pm
http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/the-cluelessness-of-chee/
While you make a fine conservative case Facelift, please do re-check the link above- this sort of material is what I understand Phil is highlighting, and it is a distressing abuse of scripture, and thus, people;
[-Ive seen much good scripture-interpretation come out of Joseph Prince, so its of concern to see 'bad' repute, and from his own people in Singapore]
I almost hesitate to mention this, but there is a tendency to ‘Anglicise’ the Greek; if you found yourself some Greek friends, you may well see what I mean; for very simple example, if you were to invite a Greek for Lunch, he/she may well turn up at 2pm, or ….not at all!, (at some risk of generalisation, of course.)
You see, the Bible takes its form properly when we ‘clothe it in flesh & blood’…
I find it strange that I dont find Phils language scathing or confrontational; I catch its drift, which leads to direct false-teaching on Biblical prosperity.
περι παντων-means “above all things” or ( I wish above all things), doesnt it?
yet the NASB, a very conservative rendering in English also says:
“2Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”- is the ESV therefore so bad?
I must say, Im pretty good in English, yet I find the above paragraphs almost unintelligible, brother; I hope you may be able to simplify things for us better in future, so we may all stick to the objectives of the article!
Z
June 6, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Whether we anglicise the Greek or not isn’t really the issue. John wasn’t a Greek. He was an Aramaic speaking Hebrew, a fisherman. I’m not sure who wrote the Greek for him, or if he learned Greek, but he would have dictated the letter from a Jewish Christian perspective.
He wasn’t a theologian, but a simple ex-fisherman and disciple of Jesus. He used plain speech. He was called the Apostle of love because of the way he conducted himself. This passage would demonstrate that fact, if we would only take it at face value!
June 6, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Im simply trying to describe the pace and style of the Mediterranean people; warm, generous and very easy-going; and yes, he spoke & wrote the common-language, as the world had been Hellenised for a long time; Aramaic is only mentioned in the NT where absolutely specific Aramaic statements are made.
And yes, while I feel I perfectly understand the passage at face value, I really dont understand why you didnt seem particularly interested in the false teaching that was construed from his simple greeting by others, and seemed to get sidelined into the Evangelical commentary above.
That dangers of the False teaching to our Christian people seems the point of real interest & importance to us all here, my friend.
Z.
Ps: Globalwarning; um, WHO, is the ’she’ you’re speaking of?
June 6, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Phil Pringle speaks with Benny Hinn about his book “Keys To Financial Excellence” on Friday 6th June programme.
http://www.bennyhinn.org/default.cfm
June 7, 2008 at 1:25 am
The evangelical commentary more adequately refutes what Phil was saying, confirms what I said in regard to the qualifying phrase ‘regarding all things’, and wasn’t written by a ‘prosperity teacher’. There are other evangelical commentaries which also support what I have said.
In fact John is saying he prays above all things his friends will enjoy material and emotional prosperity and good health in the same way their soul is prospering, being the benefits of the heavenly prosperity of future promise. It is our relationship with Christ which causes our soul to prosper. The signifiance is that John reveals that it is just as acceptable to desire earthly prosperity and health for friends as it is to celebrate the promise of heavenly well-being, which we know to be guarranteed, since sin, sickness and lack are not present in heaven.
He is remarking on the possibility of enjoying the benefits of our heavenly citizenship while we are yet in the earth, despite the corruption which surrounds us. Our covenant with God brings us into position to enjoy benefits despite the challenges ad suffering which are also present in this world.
June 7, 2008 at 3:01 am
I do entreat you to try studying some James Thwaites if you get the opportunity, dear Facelift!
June 7, 2008 at 4:14 am
Z – Facelift agrees with much of what we know as prosperity doctrine, while most of the rest of us here strongly disagree. Yet when pushed, we often find that Facelift doesn’t necessarily agree with the extremes of the teaching. He will always defend the teachers however.
He tends to either push a milder prosperity doctrine, that we can all expect to receive financial and material blessing in our lives as a result of following Jesus, or deny that the false teachers actually preach the extremes of giving in order to ‘earn’ or receive God’s gifts. Facelift also believes that tithing is for modern Christians as he believes it is an Abrahamic principle, although he does not agree with the Malachi verses being used to teach people that they should tithe under law with corresponding blessing and curses.
Sorry for paraphrasing you Facelift, but this is the impression I have after reading your comments for months.
So Z, while Facelift knows his scripture extremely well, and can be illuminating at times, when it comes to prosperity doctrine discussions you will find major disagreement between him and others on this blog. It does create debate although it can get frustrating.
June 7, 2008 at 4:24 am
http://www.bennyhinn.org/default.cfm
Phil’s message on Cain and Abel is disgusting! You do realise in that quick message, he associated himself AS God.
[Note from RP - I think S&P is referring to Phil Pringle, not Phil Naessens]
In the parable of feeding the five thousand, it too took a distortion.
“That’s the most selfish kind of Christianity I can think of…”
If people see us giving they think ‘that’s a Christian’.
NO! Being a Christian is someone who has a relationship with God. That is a lie. When people see miraculously healing and we declare ‘your healing came from God’, that’s a Christian. People will know that you walk in a relationship with God as he shares His glory with you.
“The Cornerstone of financial excellence, in our lives, is the tithe”.
That couldn’t be anymore unbiblical! He then gives an example of the corrupt world to prove this case. And then Hinn comes in making himself look stupid by saying “This is really solid material you have given”. Yeah right.
“The word religion means ‘to bind’.” Didn’t know that.
Phil uses 3John 1:2.
Hah! And trust him to use Elijah and the cake. He purposely lied in that! That oil did run out. It wasn’t something that lasted forever. That is a complete and utter lie!
1Kings 17:13-14
Elijah said to her, Fear not; go and do as you have said. But make me a little cake of [it] first and bring it to me, and afterward prepare some for yourself and your son. For thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: The jar of meal shall not waste away or the bottle of oil fail until the day that the Lord sends rain on the earth.
So it stopped providing after the three and a half year famine ended. Once again, Phil (and Hinn asks to repeat) emphasised that he is ‘the prophet’ that will be sent by God into our lives so that he can unlock our miracle. And ‘THAT’S THE TRUTH’ and ‘that’s the purpose of the Man of God, he’s not their for him but there for us. And he comes into our world and unlocks the miracle has in destiny for us’. These are ‘false prophets’ in action. Can anyone else not assume that through this message that they are elevating themselves, yet not afraid to exploit the poor?
I’ve browsed his book. It’s a waste of time and a waste of money and a waste of brain room.
June 7, 2008 at 4:27 am
Oops! Said it wrong…
““That’s the most selfish kind of Christianity I can think of…”
If people see us giving they think ‘that’s a Christian’. NO! That is a lie.
Being a Christian is someone who has a relationship with God. When people see miraculously healing and we declare ‘your healing came from God’, that’s a Christian. People will know that you walk in a relationship with God as he shares His glory with you.”
… Thats better.
June 7, 2008 at 4:43 am
I would like to address certain scriptures we have all have (perhaps) used incorrectly and that is “where two or more are gathered in My name….” Matthew 18:20
Take a look at this -
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/text-taken-out-of-context-is-pretext.html
June 7, 2008 at 4:47 am
A review of James Thwaites
http://9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID775980%7CCIID1562434,00.html
June 7, 2008 at 4:55 am
I wish James Thwaites would publish his response to that criticism somewhere. He has responded to it very capably in person at a recent seminar, and I look forward to finding a published refutation on the internet at some time down the track in the future. On the whole, in England, Mr Thwaites’ teaching was received by theological scholars very well, I believe.
June 7, 2008 at 4:56 am
“The Cornerstone of financial excellence, in our lives, is the tithe”.
An evil and opressive teaching of scripture.
June 7, 2008 at 4:57 am
There’s probably a response out there somewhere!
June 7, 2008 at 4:58 am
RP, I’ve posted a good article twice but it seems not to come up, any problems?
June 7, 2008 at 5:04 am
Teddy, sometimes if you include a URL, the comment goes into the spam queue or moderation. And other times, it doesn’t.
June 7, 2008 at 5:58 am
Teddy & friends,
I wonder about the “2 or 3 together -there I am” thing; its quite wicked, but I have seen this very practice abused by evil and ignorant men in Christian context.
-What are we to say to this? [beautifully spotted btw. fluffyT. though-ah, my life has changed!]
Thanks for enlightening me on Facelifts mind; Hey Facelift; you seem excellent in your detailed Bible study;’ encourage you to get back in there and check your stuff; I was there too, but I was financially destroyed, and forced to look this issue in the eye in detail. I now concur with that below:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/tithingstudy/
http://www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com/
Godspeed on your journey,
Z
June 7, 2008 at 7:31 am
Yes, well I began a discussion with Russell Kelly, but he chose to back out in the middle of it. He resorted to personal remarks rather tan reason or scripture, and still hasn’t answered some of my questions, which were posted on Signposts2, and have now been lost forever because Lance chose not to archive anything, which sadly means a massive debate was quashed.
RP, your summary is close, but not absolutely correct, but at least you remembered more than Russell, but I put it to you that tithing was God’s idea, so I think you’re pushing to call it evil and oppressive teaching! The fact is that much of what is taught about tithing under the New Covenant is wrong, but some is right, and there are also anomalies which critics like Russell can’t answer, or have to resort to non-scriptural, speculative evidence to support their theories.
However you look at it, giving is giving, and according to Jesus, giving is godly, giving is a blessing, so people who choose to tithe, and purpose to give that way are neither in sin, in error, or deceived f they decide to make a tenth their way of contributing, or worshipping. Those who do so to fulfil some kind of legal requirement or necessity are.
June 7, 2008 at 8:13 am
Fewer churchgoers tithe -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-05-31-tithing-church_N.htm
June 7, 2008 at 8:22 am
For Facelift -
http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/facelifts-horrible-hermenuetic/#more-157
June 7, 2008 at 8:27 am
To clarify:
If someone freely chooses to tithe, fine, that’s not evil. It wasn’t my intent to imply that.
Calling the tithe the “cornerstone of financial excellence in our lives” gives a place to tithing that is not scripturally justified in the NT context. It applies the tithe to everyone, regardless of circumstance.
If he had said, “Giving is a cornerstone of financial excellence in our lives”, I would have agreed with him.
Some people may tithe. Some people may give 1% and it may seem like a tithe to them in their circumstances. Others may give 100%. It is not our place to apply one rule to everyone in this socially unjust fashion. The NT does not.
To apply a tithe requirement to all is evil because it both limits giving for the rich and places an onerous burden on the poor. Giving in the NT is about what we purpose in our hearts to do, cheerfully. When we give all we are to Christ, our personal stewardship over what that involves for us, in money and other things, is far deeper than this simplistic false doctrine.
June 7, 2008 at 8:50 am
There ya go, teddy, Phil is exposed for who he really is. To use his own terms of argument, if he in turn had taken the trouble he could have known what gender FaceLift is. He only needed to ask after all! Bloke, Philly, bloke!
Phil can’t come over here and argue his point because he knows he’s in a corner over this issue, so he takes liberties with what I say. Lance used to do this when he used my comments as posts. He’d put up the ost and make comments out of cntext o prove some obscure point.
No matter. I have demonstrated the soundness of my hermeneutics by first of all quoting Barnes, who completely agrees with what I said. In fact, it’s the other way round, since I completely agree with Barnes, he being the pre-eminent commentator. I haven’t used up all my chips yet, though, Phil. I’m waiting for you to come back and make a few sensible refutations of what I say.
I could throw in other commentaries which also support the thrust of my argument, but let Phil go there for himself and check their hermeneutics.
Phil claims to be an ex-prosperity teacher, but he must have come from a different school to the one I know. There is more than one school of thought on this, which is why I comment here on it. It brings another dimension, since not all critics actually get their arguments right, the basis of criticism being to have an opposing view and to prove it by all means possible, even scurrilous means, it seems, for some.
I’m glad Phil can lock himself down in the safety of his own blog and preach to his followers, have a go at FaceLift, whom they’ve never heard of, make up things about his arguments to suit Phil’s ego, and fail to bring Phil’s arguments to this forum, which had the grace to publish the above post for him.
I challenge Phil to come here and publish those comments on this site so I can have the opportunity to refute or agree with them. Come on Phil, come and debate on a blog where someone might actually prove you wrong!
June 7, 2008 at 9:31 am
Facelift, aren’t you also locking yourself to the “safety” of this blog. The internet being what it is should cause no problem for any of us to join in dialogue with one another across the web.
June 7, 2008 at 9:52 am
Facelift, ‘Pastor’ RavingPente releases you to discuss these things at Phil’s blog as well if you wish. Bear in mind that comments there are moderated. Perhaps for some of the reasons I’ve been pondering myself lately. You have our blessing.
June 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Let me spell out my point please: 2-3 guys turn up at your door to ‘discipline’ you- Jesus ‘guarantees’ to be there- but he’s not, for these men are doing something bad, to bully or manipulate something.-Surely the 3 ‘in-agreement’ does not mean it has Christs blessing?
Facelift, you are starting to look like a slightly unsound person-if this is a game to you, let me assure you, it looks very dull to someone like myself; -who indeed has the ‘ego’ problem, friend?- Why do you insist on splitting-hairs to fabricate yet ‘finer’ forms of abuse- what?-from someone like Phil?
Do you have a better forum of ‘debate’ to take your ‘Barnesian hermeneutics’ to?
My understanding is that we are here to constructively identify abusive behaviours in modern Christianity, with a view that abused people can begin to deal with the problems while retaining and advancing their faith, even possibly helping direct them to new avenues and centres of Free Christianity, I wonder.
As a young Christian, I was trained in ’sectarian conflict’- are any of you stuck in this paradigm?-or are we trying to cast ‘Phil’ as a ‘hypocrite’- a Pharisee?; simply ludicrous!
Z.
June 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hello Facelift,
Perhaps reading for understanding isn’t your forte….
My article that someone from here stumbled upon was intended for someone else….and for my readers who have been attempting to instruct this man that his use of 3John 2 was horribly interpreted….he has created doctrine out of a greeting….which was explained in the article……
What part of this don’t you get?
I’m hardly in a corner Facelift…….I happen to agree with you that this greeting was done in love for a Christian brother and I said as much in my posting….
My latest posting isn’t a slam against you….it’s an object lesson. Did you know who I was referring to or what I was referring to in my article. No you didn’t. You misread it which is exactly what my contention is with the name it claim it blab it grab it prosperity crowd……and you proved my point….
I have much on my plate and don’t have time to squabble with you over greetings….if you truly believe 3John 2 means that God wants us all healthy and wealthy then I would disagree with you….and you are more then welcome to debate this issue on my blog if you’d like…..not out of fear but out of time constraints….
BTW: If I really wanted to have a “go” at you I never would have provided a link on my site to this one now would I? I think the one afraid to venture out of their safety zone is you.
Thanks,
Phil
June 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Well, everyone I did go over there earlier and respond, but went immediately into moderation.
Z,
The title of Phil’s blog post was ‘Facelift’s Horrible Hermaneutics”. I have responded. my hermeneutics were not horrible but sound, and backed up by others, meaning there is general agreement that it is acceptable for people to assume that, even if this is a greeting by John, it still has doctrinally sound to say John was praying for his friends and pastorate to enjoy prosperity and health, which Phil considered to be ’silly’.
So, in effect, he calls Barnes, a respected Bible Commentator and scholar, Robinson, ditto, and a number of other respected scholars ’silly’.
I think it’s OK to say we don’t agree with certain doctrine, or to call someone wrong, but it’s rather egocentric to all them silly, which isn’t so far removed from ‘fool’, which Jesus frowned upon somewhat.
You right in that I don’t have to labour the point really, but I feel Phil has been refuted enough for it to be safe for prosperity teachers to quote Barnes, Robinson, etc, as references for their argument.
You don’t have to agree, but there you go, heaps of people don’t agree with what I say. I wn;t cry over it though. But where am I splitting hairs?
June 7, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Oh, an object lesson. In what, Phil?
You put up a post on your blog, and expect everyone who reads it to understand it was part of a series and an on-going saga, an in-house conversation with your clique, and if we don’t grasp that then we have to be part of an ‘object lesson’ which somehow proves that people who disagree with you are a) part of something they’re not (name it, grab it, blab it, claim it (very original)) b) people who don;t understand what is being said, even though it’s not clear that waht is being said is actually being said.
Why don’t you indicate that each post is a part of an on-going series, i.e. Part one, section one, etc, so we can all tell where you’re coming from? Why don’t you carry a warning about this in your home page? How does anyone join in with your clique if a) you don’t let anyone know it’s a series we should all catch up on, b) we’re all silly if we don’t immediately grasp this, c) you’re so rude to people who think differently to you?
It’s not very nice being spoken to like this is it?
June 7, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Facelift,
You don’t get it do you????
I’m arguing that this verse is NOT God’s master plan for our lives but a warm greeting…which I stated in the article I wrote. This is what Chee Seng believes it to be…..henceforth the “silly” statement directed to HIM….not barnes….russell or whoever else you traipse out here to shoot down your assumptions regarding my article…which BTW makes you look silly….
Phil
June 7, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Facelift,
It wasn’t a series….
Where is your blog? Obviously you believe you can do a better job then I can so why don’t you do so?
June 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm
But you were the one who used sarcasm and said it was considered a ‘master plan’. Did Chee call it a master plan? I can’t find it on his blog. I agree with you that he was wrong to say the Apostles must have been rich or the Bible is a lie, but you generalised, my friend, and called all prosperity teachers people who consider one verse a master plan.
I don’t know anyone who thinks one scripture alone makes up a master plan.
In fact the master plan is for people to enter eternal life, not be rich in this world. You can’t take it with you. I don’t know any prosperity teachers worth their salt who don’t believe and teach this. What they say is that it’s not wrong to live an abundant life on earth. However, earthly goods are temporal. We are to focus on the eternal.
It’s the context of the whole Bible which lends weight to what Barnes and Robinson, who are not prosperity teachers, confirm, not just one verse. You insult all prosperity teachers with this banal remark.
June 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm
By the way, Phil, I do blog on this blog. My recent posts are ‘Can a child really have two mums’, and ‘Surprise, Surprise, God was right on circumcision’.
June 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“I don’t know anyone who thinks one scripture alone makes up a master plan.”
FaceLift. Do you know what cherry picking is? This is how a “master plan” is made. The tithe is one of many “Master Plans” that are heretical as it cherry picks convenient scriptures to prove it’s claim. In fact, it’s very weak as pastors choose which ones support their views rather then look at things in context of the time and topic. 3John 2 is a classic example.
Phil came on here as a guest to help point out some facts that you don’t obviously get. His reasoning and research is very spot on. Generally, bible commentaries aren’t that strong to stand on to say to others ‘I have done my homework’. You defend yourself with something that you fail to understand properly. You’re holding onto foolsgold while Phil is trying to show you the real gold. It makes sense you’d be offended and refuse to believe him after you’ve held onto something that has convinced you is the real deal.
June 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Giving is a cornerstone of financial excellence in our lives”. Let me pull this apart to explain why this statement is so dangerous.
First of all, the word cornerstone should Cornerstone as it is related to being Christ. Christ is our Rock, Stumbling Stone, Smitten Rock, the Rock of our Salvation, Rock of Ages, Millennial Stone, Cornerstone and Capstone. Each title and variety of descriptions of the stone that He is is essential to our Christian walk with him. When Jesus alludes to himself being the Cornerstone, He is implying that he is foundational and that He has to be the first to be laid down in ones life so that our life may be built on Him.
Anything that is based on works should NEVER be a cornerstone. This includes tithe, givings and even love itself. It must be Christ. To say any work is foundational in our lives is not the gospel message. Christ is our only foundation. Through Him, out of His Spirit, we choose to give. This isn’t foundational but as a result of our foundation in Him.
June 7, 2008 at 11:06 pm
s&p, how does 3 John 2 relate to tithing? It doesn’t.
You’re fairly new to what I believe on these issues, so you probably don’t know that I don’t accept the tithe as law, but understand it as a principle, and that giving is a matter purpose not necessity, so to say I’m offended by a doctrine which denies Mosaic tithing is wrong. I’m not offended at all. I’m pointing out Phil’s error in assuming 3 John 2 is merely a greeting and can’t be used doctrinally, that’s all.
Why should it be such a problem to you for me to point out to Phil that, in my opinion, he needs to rethink his position?
I agree that scholars don;t always get things right, but it is useful to use their theology as a background to what we beleive. It demonstrates that there are others of the same opinion on a particular precept.
Phil considered those who think 3 John 2 is more than a greeting are silly. He claimed we build a master plan out of a single verse. He is wrong.
‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.’ 2 Tim. 3:16
June 8, 2008 at 10:46 am
Phew, your ‘hermeneutics’ of plain written English is smelling very poor, and this chain is making you look like a dullard Facelift.
Time to burn your corset I think!- Who in heavens name trained you into such an oppressive, manipulative lifestyle of religious nitpicking?
‘Not Gemaliel’ I think!
Please do review your work here; you appear to be acquiring a very poor reputation. If you wandered into a forest, I wonder whether you would see the Woods for the Trees.
Why don’t you ask the missus to stop boiling the brussel-sprouts and preparing the chocolate-pudding, come over and read this thread to see whether her husband ought to recant his presently idiotic-looking position, or not?
Z.
June 8, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Facelift,
Again the purpose of my article was the egregious use of 3John 2 as a universal promise that God wants us all to financially prosper…this verse doesn’t imply this and Barnes backs this up….what part of this don’t you get?
You’ve built a great strawman my friend…and anyone with any reading comprehension can see this….and I see you’re taking great pleasure in knocking this strawman down….
I NEVER said 3John 2 was “God’s master plan for our lives”….Chee Seng Heap did. The fact that you couldn’t find it doesn’t surprise me as you’ve proven on this thread that reading comprehension isn’t your forte. Here’s the link again;
Stop Sinning Or Something Even Worse May Happen To You « Yeap Chee Seng Weblog
Hermeneutics aren’t restricted to interpreting the bible….it’s used to interpret all literature in some form or another…..and you’re interpretation of my article is flawed BIG TIME….which is what I pointed out….and you got your knickers in a twist…..sorry but the truth hurts sometimes.
You are an object lesson and a very good one….you read into something and created this me verses Phil scenario and now you believe you are the victor….attributing words and meanings to my article that I never said or implied…..which is EXACTLY what happens when people wrongly interpret the bible….
You accuse me of insulting others but you have insulted me in every post you’ve directed my way…cleverly disguised of course….which made me laugh….some of my students do the same as you….only they’re better at it….Greeks have a way with words that you wouldn’t understand and your lexicon ain’t gonna help ya mate
Your assumptions about me make you look foolish….I wonder if you’d be so bold if you signed your real name to your opinions and comments regarding others….like I do….hiding behind a screen name is easy and certainly within your rights but its difficult to take you seriously with your tagline….know what I mean?
For the last time….3John 2 as Chee Seng Heap and the majority of the prosperity crowds use of this Scripture to formulate a doctrine of wealth and health being “God’s Master Plan” is an egregious error and a doctrine of demons…..of course it is still Scripture but WRONGLY INTERPRETED SCRIPTURE JUST THE SAME!
June 9, 2008 at 1:13 am
Of course, that was the missing ingredient in this discussion, Phil. You are vastly superior, know exactly what others are thinking, and therefore qualified to knock people down at will, ad make your own assumptions on your site about them.
I guess Mr Chee, whose site was quite friendly towards others in general, and seemed to be exhorting people to trust God in a greater way, rather than claim to be a great theological discussion, was right to stay away from your site.
You know, I think it’s better to invite discussion and open debate with people, even if you disagree profoundly with them, than to use course insults against them, as it just doesn’t leave an opening for change in their lives, the very change you claim they should undergo.
Yes, I was deliberately strong with you, to show up the fact that ‘discernment’ ministers like you are ever ready to criticise others for missing the cross in the ‘t’, or the dot on the ‘i’, but are aggressively defensive when challenged, and more interested in cutting their targets down for having a different opinion than exhorting them with truth.
By the way, what you call insults, I consider home truths.
Probably not for the last time… No ‘prosperity teachers’ use a single scriptural phrase to formulate a doctrine of health and wealth, or a ‘master plan’. 3 John 2 is still scripture, and it is part of a pattern which demonstrates God’s attitude towards his children and Church.
June 9, 2008 at 6:09 am
Facelift:
“You know, I think it’s better to invite discussion and open debate with people, even if you disagree profoundly with them, than to use course insults against them,”
Facelift in the same post:
“By the way, what you call insults, I consider home truths.”
So does whether it is an insult or a home truth depend upon whether you are on the giving or the receiving end?
June 9, 2008 at 7:54 am
FaceLift says:
“Of course, that was the missing ingredient in this discussion, Phil. You are vastly superior, know exactly what others are thinking, and therefore qualified to knock people down at will, ad make your own assumptions on your site about them.”
Case closed. FaceLift wins. Phil loses. Go back to studying something you already know Phil and let FaceLift live in his ignorance. >:D
“I guess Mr Chee, whose site was quite friendly towards others in general, and seemed to be exhorting people to trust God in a greater way, rather than claim to be a great theological discussion, was right to stay away from your site.”
Anyone can love enough to make themselves look good. That’s what makes cults and false religions so false! Love goes much deeper and intends to help people when people choose to bring out their weapons against you.
What’s more loving? To allow your friend to smoke himself to death without yourself ever making a comment? Or taking a stand against his actions so that you may see him live a life free of cancer, yet still know when to back off so your relationship is not put in jeopardy? I would prefer to be the latter. At least they’d no in the long run, I cared more for them then to how a common person would treat them.
This is what Phil Naessen is doing. He is addressing a symptom that you have and you’re quite happily stuck in your drug of choice. I have no idea now what you are taking a stand for now, except maybe your ‘integrity’. Which I must say is getting smaller and smaller as you try to defend yourself against others.
June 9, 2008 at 7:56 am
Except that there were no insults, even Phil called them ‘cleverly disguised’.
June 9, 2008 at 8:03 am
So let Phil make comments and be friendly about and open rather than so abrasive and exclusive.
S&p,
‘What’s more loving? To allow your friend to smoke himself to death without yourself ever making a comment? Or taking a stand against his actions so that you may see him live a life free of cancer, yet still know when to back off so your relationship is not put in jeopardy? I would prefer to be the latter. At least they’d no in the long run, I cared more for them then to how a common person would treat them.
This is what Phil Naessen is doing.’
Yes, an it’s what I’m doing for Phil also. He’s rude to people, and reactive. Maybe he could just put up his arguments without trying to show how awful people are for being different?
June 9, 2008 at 9:04 am
Facelift,
You said
“Except that there were no insults, even Phil said they were “cleverly disguised”….
Manipulative as well facelift? I just love how you twist and turn to prove your point….or in your case win an argument….or to save face…..everytime you post you corrupt yourself further…..
The sad bit here is you don’t even realize how foolish you look…
Thanks for the laughs….and the discussion….no hard feelings on this end…
June 9, 2008 at 10:23 am
…and thanks for your kind remarks, Phil.
I’ll survive.
July 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The verse you are contorting from John is a Roman salutation like, “Berak a leg,” “Good luck,” “Hope you do well.” Please don’t tell me you believe in “Now” Faith based on a twisted misreading of Heb 11.
Bryan
http://www.SheepTrax.com