This whole thing about giving away houses and cars to lure people into showing up for church has really got me thinking…
A couple of months ago the Western Recorder, the state newspaper of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, carried a front page story by Ken Camp of the Texas Baptist Standard entitled, “Baptist Leaders Voice Concern About Prosperity Gospel’s Influence.”
Camp’s article provides a brief critique of the so-called, “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel,” otherwise known as the “name-it-and-claim-it” gospel, and its apparent growing popularity in North America. This theology, in summary form, states that God wants us all to be healthy financially blessed. Indeed, some would teach that where there is not health and wealth, there must be a lack of faith. All one needs to do to have this health and wealth is to “name it and claim it” in faith, then God is obligated to oblige.
The article includes the view of the oft-maligned Pastor Joel Osteen, who wrote in his best-selling book, Your Best Life Now, “The Bible says, ‘God takes pleasure in prospering His children.’ As his children prosper spiritually, physically and materially, their increase brings pleasure to God.”
His view is countered by Suzii Paynter, director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, who said, “…the prosperity doctrine…limits God. it makes Him into a behavioral psychologist who resorts to external rewards to manipulate rat-race human beings.”
The possible impact of this “prosperity gospel” is something that I have decided to investigate. I’ve mentioned before that a church from a nearby community has recently sought to plant a satellite congregation in my community. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a huge fan of the “franchising of the church” and multiple locations, though I do recognize that such is a valid strategy for planting new churches in some instances. But I am a huge advocate of church planting. There are plenty of unreached people in our community. A new church is welcome. I received a mailer from the new satellite church that promoted its first sermon series. The series was entitled, “King Solomon’s Secrets of Success.” A message series designed to unveil the secrets of a successful (and obviously wealthy) king sounded hauntingly like a “prosperity gospel” approach. But, since I didn’t attend, I can’t be sure. But I an quite sure that something resembling this theology can be found in most of our communities.
Of course, this “health and wealth” phenomenon is nothing new. We all remember the “glory days” of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. So-called “evangelists” have been broadcasting their emotionally manipulative programs and convincining the poor and working people to “call in” or “mail in” their hard-earned money (and also affecting their local churches) so that they can “receive a blesing” for the past thirty years or so.
But what is the current impact of this theology? What are the implications of this approach to sharing the message of Christ? Is it truly a message of Christ? Is it, indeed, the true Gospel? Who actually responds to this kind of message? Is it just a sick reflection of the spoiled, selfish, self-indulging, comsumer state of our culture? Or does God really want us to have riches beyond our wildest dreams?
January 10, 2007 at 12:09 am
Geoff,
Being that I go to a church that believes in the “prosperity message” to a moderate degree (we’re not ALL into that, we stress a lot of other things, too), I wish to comment on this.
I don’t think the prosperity message limits God to “into a behavioral psychologist who resorts to external rewards to manipulate rat-race human beings,” as Ms. Painter articulates. I think her statement is full of assumptions… God does not manipulate people. Human beings are not in a rat-race. Etc. Etc. Etc.
As for the sermon series, there is a book out there, by a non-WOF author, by a similar title. I don’t know anything about the church that is promoting the sermon series, but I’d reserve my judgment until I heard more.
I do have an issue with the way you treat the Bakkers, saying that “so-called “evangelists” have been broadcasting their hokey programs and manipulating working people (and their local churches) out of their hard-earned money and charitable gifts for the past thirty years.” I was saved by watching Christian TV. Not by the Bakkers, but while watching TBN. To criticize Christian TV like that is not a Christian attitude, in my opinion. So, I really disagree on the approach you’re taking.
I am going to be addressing this in my own blog in a few weeks as part of a new series, but for now, I’ll respond to your comments and questions here.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 10, 2007 at 7:00 am
Geoff-
Isn’t it odd that Jesus did not give away “stuff” during His ministry on earth? He fed 5,000 people one day, but He walked among beggers all the time. He healed those who came to him, but He did not set up a tent and advertise “healing services”. He raised a few people from the dead, but people He knew died every day. He seemed more intent in building relationships with people and showing them how to have a relationship with His Father than He was in building monuments on earth. It seems that He really came to give away Himself. Without gimmicks. No strings attached. No stuff to leave here on earth.
Isn’t it odd how people see only the stuff and miss the Gift?
January 10, 2007 at 9:20 am
geoff,
on the dark side, the health and wealth boys and gals cause great confusion, and even depression, for those who arent healthy and wealthy. i have talked to people who were very down about the fact that their faith must not be big enough for God to heal them, or make them wealthy. and, i have known some who have even doubted thier salvation and were in great disillusionment over the fact that they were sick, or thier child was sick.
its a harmful teaching, and i would dare say that most who are into this health and wealth preaching are in it to gain our money! anytime i hear a preacher tickling people’s ears with health and wealth and psychological self help messages….then i am leery…very leery of that person. i start looking at why he or she is doing what they are doing.
volfan007
January 10, 2007 at 11:05 am
Jonathan-
I didn’t jump to any assumptions on the sermon series … I made sure to include a caveat. I merely sounded suspicious to me.
I didn’t criticize all Christian TV (though, indeed, I do not care for the vast majority of it). It’s just the ones that want you to “mail in your money and receive a special blessing” that I truly despise … and believe are absolutely non-biblical in their actions. So much of it sounds like attempts to extort God out of some blessings. But I’m glad that your life was changed by Christian media.
Kat-
Awesome insights.
Volfan-
I, too have dealt with similar heartbreak and doubt. We even had a teacher in our Christian school spewing this stuff a few years ago. I little girl in my daughter’s class was devastated because she became convinced that it was her fault that her grandmother was sick … she didn’t have enough faith. Such sad, selfish theology.
January 10, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I might be thinking too simplistically, but didn’t Jesus say that you should give up all your possessions to follow him? If a person is a Christian that implies that they believe and follow Christ, no? So how would an increase in material wealth show true faith? The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me, but again, maybe I’m just making it too simple.
January 10, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Geoff,
Its wrong to be suspicious of a sermon series.
I also think its wrong for you to crticize Christian TV where they ask you to “mail in money for a blessing.” First of all, that is a crass, unsophisticated, and most of all inaccurate description of what goes on. I am a partner with Daystar (Marcus & Joni Lamb’s Christian TV network). I send in $20.20 a month. I pledged this during their last telethon. They view their telethons similar to the way you probably view offerings in your church… you do NOT want to rob people of an opportunity to GIVE and receive a blessing from God for that. The Bible DOES teach that it is more of a blessing to give than to receive.
The point here is I think it is wrong to criticize these practices. You’re dealing with fellow Christians, your brothers and sisters in the Lord. These people are doing what they believe is right, and God holds them accountable. Its not our place to do that. So long as these people are ministering the gospel, and sinners are getting saved, the sick are healed and made well, marriages are being restored, and lives are being transformed, I do not see any harm these kinds of ministries can do. I challenge y’all to show why this teaching is so dangerous, doing more harm than good.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 10, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mary,
Not too simple. Just sensible.
Jonathan,
I commend you on your generosity in giving. Absolutely it is more blessed to give than to receive. That is exactly my point. I would never think of giving in order to “receive” anything from God. I give as an act of worship. I would just simply give differently from the way you have, that’s all. I would much rather give that money to my local church, where I have accountability through our polity and cognregation, rather than sending it off to someone who has no such accountability. It is a system ripe for dishonesty and fraud.
I remember back in the early 80’s (before I was a Christian), watching the Bakkers give a tour of their home and showing off their works of art and talking about the financial blessings of God. Or, can anyone say, “Heritage USA Resort?” The 165,000 people who forked out $1000 for their “blessing” (complete with a free 4-day vacation) got about 6 bucks back when the theing went belly-up and the company was looted. Some estimate that Bakker took about 3.7 million for himself.
Even though I was “lost as a dog in the woods,” way back then, I could spot a racket when I saw one. I believe I still can.
Yes, God holds them accountable. But when it comes to financial fidlity, those of us who give must hold churches and entities accountable, as well.
January 10, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The prosperity gospel is about as non-biblical as you can get. Ask the Christians in China who are being persecuted for their faith what is their view of the prosperity gospel? Someone tell them they just need to have more faith. The same goes for Christians in Indonesia, North Korea, Middle Eastern countries, etc., etc., etc.
Les
January 10, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Geoff, et al…
In Papua New Guinea (and other parts of Oceana and Asia) the prosperity gospel is called “cargo cult”. I got an email from a missionary friend today in PNG who has been battling the inroads of cargo cult among the Siawi people in the Sepik Region. She and her partners have faithfully taught the Bible chronologically, laying out an understanding of who God is and of man’s condition before Him. They have presented the life, death and resurrection of Christ as God’s solution to the problem of sin and separation from Him. The Holy Spirit has brought a number of Siawi to trust Christ as their only hope for eternity, as well as for this life. The missionaries have seen the people able to take leadership positions and begin to teach others in their own church.
Neighboring tribes, however, have been the target of cargo cult teachers. They entice people to join them so that they can get “stuff” from God. In fact, they’ve even stolen stuff from the missionaries so they can give it in God’s name! They’ve changed the Gospel of Grace into one of payback and loot. Follow the right formula in worship and God will bless you. Even some of the believers have succumbed to the temptation to “go for the stuff”.
The good news is that God hasn’t given up on His people. Today Linda wrote that 3 Siawi men and one woman hiked a very long distance to attend a Bible leader training workshop in another town. They recognized the difference between truth and error…and they were willing to sacrifice in the interest of truth. Truth was more important than stuff, even if they were looked down on by others.
If these relatively new believers can discern that fact, why can’t we?
January 10, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Les-
Exactly! I have worked alongside believers all over this world who had, according to our standards, absolutely nothing. Yet they were, indeed, blessed.
Kat-
“Cargo cult…” Sounds right. Good testimony and insight.
January 10, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Geoff,
Yes, I do give as an act of worship. But the Bible also teaches that we should expect to receive a blessing when we give. The very fact the Bible it is more blessed to give than to receive implies that when you give, you WILL be blessed as a result. Further, when God gave the greatest gift, which was His Son Jesus, God expected to receive a harvest of souls. Likewise, we should expect to receive blessings from God for being a cheerful giver.
I do believe in giving, in the form of tithes and offerings to the local church. What I give to Daystar is over and above that. You will never hear me say, “Do not give your tithes.” I believe tithing is still for today.
I understand your concern, e.g. the Bakkers. But I think we in the church need to get over what happened with the scandals in the 1980’s. Marcus & Joni Lamb come out every telethon, and they inform their viewers that they do not NEED to have a telethon, but they do not want to rob the viewers the opportunity to give and be blessed as a result. I am positive they would be open and honest with their finances if someone wanted to know. I can’t say the same for other Christian TV networks (e.g. TBN). I just trust Daystar enough that they have discernment on how to spend my $20.20/month.
I still have not heard a valid, biblical argument from anyone here on why the prosperity message is unbiblical. I keep on hearing experiential evidence (persecuted Christians in China, Papua New Guinea stories, etc.) — but does anyone have any Scripture verses to prove their point this is a “dangerous teaching” – ?
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 11, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hey Jonathon,
We have a heavy prosperity cult here in Australia called Daystar International. They have the offering in the middle of the service with a fifteen minute message about giving (as a prelude to the offering) and say.. “hold up your money! If you give God $10 He must give you $100 back! If you give Him $100 He must give you $1000 back!”
Do your pastors do and say that there?
Steve
January 11, 2007 at 4:44 pm
steve,
are you kidding? he really does that? does he do it every sunday?
they seem to be making God thier errand boy….obeying their commands. how sad.
volfan007
January 11, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Steve,
The only “Daystar” I’ve heard of is the Daystar TV network, so I’m sure that’s not the same thing.
We do have an offering at my church. There is no offering teaching (for 15 minutes or shorter length) given on that offering. I do know of other churches in my theological community (such as Eagle Mountain Int’l Church in Dallas, Texas) who DO give an offering teaching. But, nevertheless, no church that I am aware of here in America tells the people to hold up their money and that if they give God a certain amount, that God is bound to give 10 times that amount back. I understand where this teaching COULD come from… but this Daystar group you refer to takes it too far.
I hope that answers your question.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 11, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Volfan,

Haven’t you figured yet, In Australia we don’t do anything by halves. If a fella’s a dimwit, he’s an out and out dimwit here
mmm pentecostalism here is at its most brazen.
And you blokes reckon California is the land of fruit and nuts!
Steve
January 11, 2007 at 4:50 pm
ok thanks there Jonathon,
they have a few churches in Sydney.
Steve
January 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I give some teaching on the offering each week. I make sure I tell all of our guests that we don’t want their money … just their information card. I tell the people in our worship that it is the responsibility of our church members to support the ministries of our church with their tithes and offerings. I encourage them that God will make it clear to them when they should give to support the ministries of our church.
I believe that’s biblical … a church supporting its work through its people … not “dunning” people from the world to do it for them.
BTW … I just received an outrageous mailer from the “cargo cult” today. I’ll post on it later.
January 11, 2007 at 8:06 pm
mmmm
I see that SBCers are joining with Oneness Pentecostals now.
http://www2.hillsong.com/conferences/hillsong/default.asp?pid=1013&hidetitle=yes
Who would have thought, TD Jakes, Ed Young Jr. and Louie Giglio preaching the same gospel on the same programme.
TD Jakes comes from a United Pentecostal background. He pastors The Potter’s House (Dallas, Texas) one of America’s fastest-growing megachurches. He is also a leader and elected bishop of the “Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies,” a network of Oneness Pentecostal churches – though not identified as such at the T.D. Jakes Ministries web site:
Who’d have thought that the Trinity has become one of those third tier doctrines in the SBC?
Steve
January 11, 2007 at 10:10 pm
steve,
i wonder if the tent is supposed to be wide enough to include people who deny the trinity?
also, steve, we have enough nuts and fruitcakes in the usa. please dont send any from australia to us. thanks.
i have told my people from time to time that God loves a cheerful giver.
volfan007
January 11, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Geoff,
I think what you do at your church is fine and good.
Steve,
Hillsongs is not Oneness Pentecostal, and Ed Young, Jr. is not exactly Southern Baptist. And Bishop TD Jakes (who I’ve met personally) is not the Oneness Pentecostal he used to be (his church in Dallas is non-denominational, truly). Ed Young, Jr. is also preaching in March at Casey Treat’s church in Seattle (its their annual conference), along with some people that I’m sure all of you will object to: Creflo Dollar, Dr. Frederick KC Price, Brian Houston (of Hillsongs), and Pastor Rick Godwin. Further, Ed Young Jr. is also friends with Pastor Jentezen Franklin of Free Chapel Worship Center in Gainesville, Ga., which is a Holiness/Pentecostal church. So, Ed Young, Jr. is not exactly a Southern Baptist — he’s friends with everybody, and speaks in a lot of different people’s churches.
Anyways, those are my thoughts for now.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 12, 2007 at 2:40 am
Jonathon,
Thank you for your comment.
I would be deeply concerned if folks like Jakes or Phillips Craig and Dean were still antitrinitarian, and SBCers or evangelicals I respected were embracing them.
And yes, I know Hillsong is AOG.
Do you have direct evidence that TD Jakes has given up his Sabellianism (modalism) and embraced trinitarianism?
If this is so, I would like to read it.
Many thanks.
Steve
January 12, 2007 at 11:35 am
Steve,
No, unfortunately I do not have direct evidence. I have read interviews, though, that have been written up, where the interviewer asked him about his beliefs, and where he downplayed his modalism, and came close to embracing a more conservative stance. I do know, for certain, that many trinitarians attend his church in Dallas, which is not affiliated with a oneness pentecostal group, to my knowledge. Apparently, although he was ordained under a oneness pentecostal denomination, when he left West Virginia and moved to Dallas, he left that denomination that ordained him and went “independent” or non-denomination, if you will.
Funny you mention Phillips Craig & Dean. Its really only Randy Phillips you should be concerned about. Shawn Craig and Dan Dean are both trinitarian pastors, and always have been. Shawn Craig pastors in St. Louis, where I am originally from, and Dan Dean in the Dallas area. Randy Phillips I believe has embraced a more non-denominational stance, although he still has ties to the oneness denomination of his father, under which he is ordained. Randy Phillips still has a program on Daystar TV, and the presentation is a lot more like Ed Young Jr.’s show, rather than something that would be overtly modalist and objectionable by probably everyone here, including me.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Thank you for your help Jonathon.
I genuinely apprciate the trouble you have taken here, and so I gather by your comments you too would object to antitrinitarianism? How do you regard these folks? saved or unsaved?
Steve
January 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I came across this article in the last few minutes Jonathon, after reading a lot of material..
http://www.equip.org/free/DJ902.htm
“It also needs to be pointed out that nothing Jakes said contradicts modalism or commits him to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Theologians recognize two distinct conceptions of the Trinity: the ontological Trinity, which refers to the existence of three distinct Persons within the Godhead apart from any relationship to the creation, and the economic Trinity, which refers to the distinct roles the three Persons assume in relation to creation. Modalism essentially teaches that the economic Trinity is the only Trinity there is. Their God, who ontologically is not Triune, assumes three distinct modes or roles in relation to creation. They are convinced that to confess God is three Persons is to confess the existence of three Gods — even though that’s not what the doctrine of the Trinity states (this is their main stumbling block in approaching orthodoxy).
In his rebuttal Jakes never affirms an ontological Trinity but only an economic one. He speaks of different functions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit perform, but then he clarifies that he does not believe in three Gods, by which it is fairly clear he means Persons. Even the illustration of H20 taking the forms of ice, water, and steam says nothing about three persons, only three manifestations, and is in fact a common illustration used by modalists to explain their view.
The key tip-off that Jakes is a dyed-in-the-wool modalist is his unwavering insistence — both before our article was published and even in response to our article — on using the word manifestations rather than persons in regard to the Trinity. Sabellius consistently avoided the use of the term “persons” (Greek: hypostasis) in favor of the term “manifestations.”8 Louis Berkhof explains that “he distinguished between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifestations….According to him the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence manifests itself. God reveals Himself as Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification.”9 By contrast “Oneness Pentecostalism is a form of simultaneous modalism that, unlike Sabellianism, regards all three manifestations as present at the same time, not in successive revelatory periods.”10 Hence Jakes is able to affirm the coexistence of Father, Son, and Spirit without in any way betraying his Oneness allegiances.
When Jakes cites 1 Timothy 3:16 (he mistakenly cited 3:15) to justify his use of the term manifestations, he simply falls back on the classic prooftext Oneness Pentecostals have always used to argue for their view, as the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements explains: “The threefold divine reality is defined as ‘three manifestations’ of the one Spirit in the person of Jesus. Taken from the Christological hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16, the term ‘manifestation’ bars the threeness from God’s nature and restricts it to his self-revelation. As a form of modalism, it preserves the radical monarchy of God and affirms the triune revelation.”
Steve
January 12, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Steve,
No, I wouldn’t consider them unsaved, even if they have a misunderstanding in their theology concerning the Godhead. The requirements for salvation are found in Romans 10:9-10. So long as these are fulfilled (and I believe most oneness groups have fulfilled these), then their constituents are saved, etc.
Now, on the other hand, this is about the oneness pentecostals. As regards to unitarian universalists — those people are not even Christians, because they deny the efficacy of the atonement, and that’s important, too. But, it is not the misconception of the Godhead that causes one not to be saved, but rather, what you understand about Jesus and the atonement.
As regards to the article that you cited and CRI, I’ve read stuff from that organization before, and its severely biased against the subject, usually. So, I do not put much stock in CRI as an anti-charismatic group. Now, while I believe the term “manifestations,” as Bishop Jakes is using it is a squishy term, I do not believe that it pegs him as a modalist. I believe it is a soft term, that it allows him to play both sides, if you will. Sure, it isn’t orthodox — quite frankly, I think the way he is using the term “manifestation” is poor exegesis. However, because there IS a Bible basis for it, I will NOT brand him a heretic for using that word instead of “Persons.” At least he is not using the term “function” or “mode” in lieu of “manifestations.”
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 13, 2007 at 6:32 am
Steve & Jonathan,
Interesting exchange of info and ideas…
January 13, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Steve,
I’m an SBC pastor myself and one following the story of Ed Young, Jr. and his dad Dr. Ed Young sharing Young, Jr’s pulpit again next month with Oneness Pentecostal T.D. Jakes:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/ed_young_jr_has.html
There you will find plenty of evidence that Jakes has not repented of his Oneness Pentecostalism. I have even written him personally offering to share my forums to set the record straight if he has: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/letter_to_dr_td.html
He hasn’t responded, and we know he won’t. I pray this helps.
January 13, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Pastor Ken,
I did not read any evidence of Jakes’ “oneness pentecostalism” in the article you linked to. In fact, the article only branded him with that label and with the label of heretic. It provided no basis for support of that label.
What do you think about that?
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 13, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Jonathan,
Well, I think I do my homework.
The interior links within the Young piece do provide much documentation.
But here are two pieces on Jakes’ modalism and denial of the Trinity.
T.D. JAKES AND ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM (AKA MODALISM):
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/td_jakes_and_on.html
KEEPING YOU APPRISED OF: T.D. JAKES ON THE TRINITY:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/keeping_you_app_8.html
Blessings to you as well,
Pastor Ken
January 14, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Pastor Ken,
I looked at the two articles, and they are horribly biased, calling people and branding Christian leaders as heretics without cause, and the like. I really have an issue with that. So far as I am concerned, the two articles linked above have ZERO credibility.
Again, there is no basis for what these articles say. Please provide me with something that is not biased (like the unadulterated Scriptures) to make your point about Bishop Jakes. Thanks.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 15, 2007 at 3:42 am
Jonathon, was it you that attempted to leave a comment on my blog yesterday concerning Jakes?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Steve
January 15, 2007 at 9:12 am
Jonathan,
With all due rspect, T.D. Jakes wasn’t written about in the Scriptures so I have no choice but to use his sources.
He has been contacted many times by many ministries for an opportunity state he does not believe what I show clearly he does. However, Jakes continues to leave the Oneness Pentecostal language up because he is Oneness Pentecostal.
His ordination and his associations make this very clear for anyone who wishes to see. I even wrote T.D. Jakes myself January 6, 2007 and offered the various forums I have for him to set the record straight:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/letter_to_dr_td.html
Jakes hasn’t responded because I accurately stated to him what he believes. Please know that T.D. Jakes is welcome to his beliefs but this is not the God of the Bible, therefore it is another god. Those are the sorry facts my friend.
January 15, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Steve,
No, that was not me.
Pastor Ken,
I think you’re being rather judgmental to Bishop Jakes. His failure to respond to your letter could be for several reasons, and not just because you “accurately stated to him what he believes.” Maybe he never received your letter becuse it got lost in the mail. Maybe he received your letter, but he had more important letters and e-mails to respond to, after all, he is a popular minister. Maybe he did not feel led by the Holy Spirit to respond to your letter. Maybe he did not choose to respond because he knows that you are not persuadable otherwise. There are many reasons that could explain why he chose not to respond. You cannot just say that he did not respond because you “accurately stated to hm what he believes.” — Pastor Ken, with all due respect, you ASSUME the reason he did not respond was because you were accurate. That’s not necessarily the truth, and you are deceived.
Regarding your last statement, I don’t really agree with Bishop Jakes’ beliefs either. I’ve met Bishop Jakes personally, myself (at a book signing). There is no doubt in my mind that he is a godly Christian man, doing the best he can with the light that he has. He is a SAVED person. He has confessed Jesus as Lord in accordance with Romans 10:9. The God of the Oneness Pentecostals is the God of you and me, and is the God of the Bible. Its not another god, as you say (that’s a rather judgmental comment, seriously, and inappropriate for you to say). Pastor Ken, you present your opinions as facts, and not as opinions — that’s arrogance and pride, my friend.
Blessings,
Jonathan
January 15, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Jonathan,
We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. So I’ll leave you with this. Jakes most certainly could have had a staff person respond.
And the rest of your reasoning is an awful lot of “maybes.” As such, maybe you’re bending over too far backward to see straight ahead.
Just a closing thought and something to pray about.
April 29, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Seeking Jesus,
Unfortunately, we seem to be hearing more abuse of church funds by pastor’s. This truly breaks my heart. My family and I were so heartbroken when the church we attended were misusing funds. Here is the link. Please give me your feedback and let me know if this is wrong or right?
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/feedback/archives/2007/11/21809.html
A Christ follower
April 29, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Seeking Jesus,
The church in question is Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship in San Antonio, Tx pastored by Rick Godwin.
A Christ follower
March 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm
God is not obligated to do something just because we claim it. God is a supreme being that can do whatever he wishes.If we are sick and in need of healing and we humbly come to him and ask him for healing or a miracal he may very well step in and preform it and alot of times does and sometimes does not for reasons that we may not know. But I believe that God is more concerned with our spirtual health. Seek Jesus and his kingdom and everything else will be added unto you. Remember that your chances of receiving healing or a miracle are much better if you humbly beg for one with faith that he can cure you if he so chooses. I Just don”t think it’s a good idea to demand anything from God but we should just know that he is in control and will take care of us in time of need.Make your requests to him you would be surprised how many he will answer.He is a loving God and completely capable of healing and curing our bodies. Not obligated.Jesus still preforms miracles and will always be the best Doctor around.