Are You Ready For Some Revelation? (Part 1)

The way a person handles the Scriptures tells us a lot about their view and opinion of the Bible, himself, and his audience. Case in point: Benny Hinn and his bizarre hermeneutics.

Usually, the authority of the interpreter of Scripture is established by his training, his ecclesiastical investiture and proven accuracy over time. In other words, he’s gone to seminary, been ordained, and his track record has been accurate. Benny Hinn possesses none of these, so he relies on other things, namely (1) Insider’s knowledge, (2) Divine origins of his teachings, and (3) Novelty.

We will look at each.

(1). Insider’s knowledge. This is what has historically been called Gnosticism. It is the claim to some secret knowledge that only the initiated are attune to. In many of his writings, Hinn has stratified Christians into four levels, the fourth being those, who like him, have the “anointing.” Worse than that though, he appeals to his Middle Eastern heritage as if it somehow, by osmosis, gave him inside knowledge of the biblical world that is unavailable to us poor Westerners.

Here are his own words referring to Malachi 3:10: “Listen! Every time you give, God promises revival. ‘Windows of heaven’ deal with revival. And believe me when I tell you, I am an Israelite, from Israel, and I can read this thing in Hebrew and tell ya. And I know the culture and the tradition and the mentality… He says, ‘And ye shall be a delightsome land.’ And the word ‘delightsome,’ I looked it up – remember I am from that part of the world. The word ‘delightsome’ means in Hebrew ‘highly desired.’ 1990 Praise-a-thon.

So much could be said in response to this short excerpt, but notice these few things: First, he is NOT an Israelite. Hinn is an Arab. That has been firmly established by dozens of investigations into his past. He is not Jewish. Secondly, if he knows Hebrew so well, why does he have to, as he says, “look it up?” Thirdly, there is no Scriptural evidence that the word ‘windows’ always means ‘revival.’ Usually it means the same thing we mean when we say ‘window.’

In his sermon, “Who is this Jesus,” from March of 1994, he again asserts, “I am an Israelite. I know something that most Westerners don’t know.”

Here is where the accusation of Gnosticism I made earlier rears its ugly head. Since when is knowledge of Scripture dependant on where one was born? Never mind the fact that Hinn is a liar. He isn’t an Israelite. Besides, the Jews of Jesus’ day were both Israelites and true Jews. They spoke, read and understood the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet when the Messiah their Scriptures had foretold came, they failed to recognize Him.

Without fail, whenever Hinn appeals to his imaginary Jewish roots, his interpretation of the passage is always out in left field. His insider’s knowledge never leads him to a correct exegesis of the passage he boasts of understanding.

Less Accurate Prophecy?

Here is a sample of God’s test for prophets. A true prophet is always 100% accurate. There is no hint of growth in the prophetic gift, no hint of development of skill. Simply 100% accuracy or death.

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut. 18:20-22 (KJV)

I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. Jer. 23:21-22 (KJV)

Here, on the other hand, is a sample of the evasions used by today’s false prophets.

“The prophet who misses it occasionally in his prophecies may be ignorant, immature, or presumptuous, or he may be ministering with too much zeal and too little wisdom and anointing. But this does not prove him a false prophet. It is certainly possible for a true prophet to be inaccurate.” Bill Hamon, Prophets and Personal Prophecy.

“Bob [Jones] was told that the general level of prophetic revelation in the church was about 65% accurate at this time. Some are only about 10% accurate, a very few of the most mature prophets are approaching 85% to 95% accuracy. Prophecy is increasing in purity, but there is still a long way to go for those who walk in this ministry. This is actually grace for the church now, because 100% accuracy in this ministry would bring a level of accountability to the church which she is too immature to bear at this time. It would result in too many Annaniases and Sapphiras.” Rick Joyner, Morningstar Prophetic Newsletter, Vol. 3, No.2, Page 2

Children of The Covenant

When we plead God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17) as the Scriptural foundation for baptizing the infants of belivers under the Gospel, we proceed upon these four principles. No credobaptist has ever mounted a case against these four points. .

1. 
   
   God's covenant with Abraham is the same in substance as the covenant we are under as believers (Luke 1:54-74; Matthew 21:41,43; Romans 11:16,17; Galatians 3:8, 14, 16; Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 6:13-18).
2. 
   
   In Abraham's covenant, infant were included with their parents and received the sign and seal of the covenant (Genesis 17:9).
3. 
   
   The promises to Abraham and his seed descends  in substance to believers and their seed (Acts 2:38,39). The covenant sign has been changed in the New Testament to baptism (Colossians 2:11,12).
4. 
   
   None of the promises and privileges granted to Abraham and his seed were ever repealed or revoked (Acts 2:38,39). 

The only way to evade the force of this argument is to deny that God's covenant with Abraham was a covenant of grace. Few theologians have ever tried this because it involves so many contradictions to reason and Scripture. Others fall back on the tired old "believe and be baptized" cop-out, wherein they insist that this is the order of events that must occur. One must believe first, then be baptized. The same could be said, however of Abraham - "believe and be circumcised," which indeed is what happened (Romans 4:9-12). This did not, however, keep him from applying the sign to his children, and indeed, this was actually commanded by God

Highway to Hegel

Hegelianism is the philosophy of relativism. It asserts that all judgments of the mind are made relative to the person making the judgment. The outworking of this system is the gross indifference to traditional morality that pervades much of our world.

As such, pragmatism becomes the order of the day. Face it, if nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, but this assessment is purely my subjective valuation, then whatever gets me the desired results is the way to go. Nothing embodies this more that modern evangelism. And the culprit responsible for this irresponsible and unscriptural results-orientated approach to evangelism is none other than the poster-boy of revivalism, Charles G. Finney.

Finney’s numerical success was his vindication. In his Memoirs he confronts his critics thus, "Show me the fruits of your ministry and if they so far exceed mine as to give me evidence that you have found a more excellent way, I will adopt your views.” Countless heretics have resorted to this hogwash of an answer ever since. People who have no business being in Christian ministry justify their unorthodox practices by comparing their so-called “track record” to that of their critics. He with the highest score wins. Finney’s invincible answer to his objectors was: My results justify my methods. In other words: the ends justify the means.

Later generations of evangelists fell victim to this fallacious reasoning that “success” is the barometer of God's blessing. Billy Sunday, though ostensibly a Calvinist, stated, "Theory has got to go into the scrap heap when it comes to experience." This is unmitigated mysticism. Since when is Christian doctrine merely theory? So the doctrines of grace could be ignored by the evangelist. And if they could be ignored, why not rejected? Future generations of evangelists have chosen this path. D.L. Moody resorted to this same false reasoning when he said, "It makes no difference how you get a man to God, provided you get him there."

The million dollar question though is this: Do we get anyone to God? And secondly, does anyone come to Christ when His gospel is not preached? The answer to both questions is a resounding “NO!”

Yet this hasn’t stopped hundreds of preachers from trying anyway. Billy Graham, on more than one occasion invited people to the front to accept Christ as Savior even though, because of unforeseen circumstances, he was unable to preach. He simply said, in effect, “I can’t preach tonight, but if you’d like to accept Jesus as your Savior, come on down to the front and pray.”

Believe me, in my years of ministry I have seen far worse. I heard a preacher (and I use that term liberally in this guy’s case) ask for a show of hands of those who wished to go to Hell. All those who did not raise their hands, and there were none, he insisted come to the front to pray and accept Christ. The fact that this was merely an appeal to the basest self-interest of sinful man didn’t stand in the preacher’s way. He was going to fill his quota.

Nowhere in Scripture do we find an altar call. Nowhere do we find the Apostles inviting people to accept Jesus as their Savior by repeating some stock prayer. Yet this fact has not stopped thousands of preachers from doing it anyway. Nowhere are we commanded to do these things. There is neither a direct command/example, nor a way to deduce it as a principle taught in Scripture.

What is this but Hegelian relativism? Millions of people then have been introduced into Christianity with the notion that what Scripture actually says is probably not realistic in this day and age, and is certainly not practical (just ask Robert “Crystal Cathedral” Schuller).

The ridiculous antics of the “church growth” movement and the drivel of the “purpose-driven” lot are all the fallout of this mentality. It doesn’t matter how we get people to God (be it through raffles, mimes and clowns or Jonas Brothers concerts) as long as we can produce numbers. Who is some farm-town pastor with 25 members to complain about Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen or Bill Hybels? Their success speaks for itself. Or does it?

Maintaining The Purity of The Visible Church

In treating this subject discipline in the Church, I have chosen to place it in the context of maintaining purity in the visible church. This should be one of the main purposes behind all ecclesiastical disciplinary practice.

By the term invisible church, we mean the entire Church comprised of the elect of all denominations. The invisible church is exclusively composed of true believers: God’s elect. By the term visible church we mean the whole mass of individuals who attend church or are counted as members or attendees of any Christian congregation.

At this point a very important observation should be made: the invisible church is in the midst of the visible church. It is no secret that all congregations are a mixed crowd. Not everyone who attends Sunday worship is a true believer. We all know the saying that going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going into a henhouse makes you a chicken! Any implementation of discipline in the Church should take into consideration this fact and conscientiously tackle this quandary.

This distinction is found repeatedly throughout Scripture. Paul tells us, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.1. In fact, earlier in his Epistle, Paul says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 2 Jesus himself declared, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord…And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”3

Israel, even during its periods of spiritual declension, always had a small remnant of faithful souls. God told Elijah that He had preserved a remnant of souls who had not bowed to Baal 4 Isaiah speaks of a remnant of Israel sixteen times. Throughout the history of the Church, even in her darkest days of apostasy, there was still a trace of faithful souls represented by the likes of Bernard of Clairveaux, Savanarola, Jan Huss, John Wycliffe, Jerome of Prague and Martin Luther. Having seen that the distinction exists, we now proceed to argue its relevance to the issue at hand: the implementation of discipline. We must also hasten to elucidate that by discipline we do not mean merely punitive measures. Discipline should, above everything else, mean the setting up of a structured program intended to establish order and to mold and shape character.

It should be fairly obvious, on the strength of the foregoing definition that church discipline is intended for the benefit of the invisible church, but that it is applied to the visible church. By this we mean to say that the unconverted members of the visible church are not, nor are they to be considered the beneficiaries of ecclesiastical discipline. The beneficiaries are always the true elect of God: the members of the invisible church. Christ is returning for a spotless bride, without wrinkle, 5 terms which can by no means be applied to the visible church. Nevertheless, we have a moral responsibility, in faithfulness to the Heavenly Bridegroom, to strive to maintain purity in the visible church.

In speaking of purity, I am primarily concerned with orthodox theology. I believe that this is the primary purpose of discipline. The Corinthian church is a case in point. St. Paul called for the expulsion of a sinning member, but his directive was couched in a long refutation of false theology.

In 1970, the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer spoke to a national congress of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod on the subject of simultaneously exhibiting the holiness and the love of God. 6 His message details the implosion of the Northern Presbyterian Church in the United States in the 1930’s, due to a lack of discipline against false teaching.

In the late 1890’s, Dr. Briggs was put out of the ministry of the Presbyterian Church for being the first person to introduce modern Liberal Theology into Union Theological Seminary. But by the 1936 the Liberals defrocked Dr. J. Gresham Machen and put him out of the ministry. Schaeffer argues that the reason for such a change within the denomination was the fact that the leaders of the church waited far too long to apply discipline. And when they finally got up the courage to do so, it was too late: the Liberals had won the day.

Schaeffer argues that the Liberals have no right to the Church. The Church belongs to those who adhere to its Creeds and Confessions. One has no right to the Presbyterian ministry if he disbelieves the Westminster Confession of Faith. Tertullian used a similar argument against the heretics of his own day. He said that we should not allow them to use the Scriptures because the Scriptures belong to the true Church, not to the heretics. He says, “If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.”7

When discipline is not applied swiftly and consistently, it can only wreak havoc in the church. And the Northern Presbyterian Church is a perfect illustration of this fact. In January of 1924, 150 Liberal theologians signed the Auburn Affirmation, which was a declaration of war by the Liberals against historic Christianity. 8 The Conservatives believed that the way to meet this was to get a conservative elected as moderator of the General Assembly. Later that year, they got a Bible-believing man, the Dr. Clarence Edward McCarthy, elected as Moderator in the General Assembly. Instead of disciplining the Liberals, the church tried diplomacy. The Liberals simply consolidated their power in the church bureaucracy. Within only a few years, the Liberals had kicked Machen out of the ministry and completely taken over control of the church and the seminaries.

It got so bad that many Bible-believing men began to exit the denomination. And here is where the real trouble began. Not all of the true Bible believers left at the same time. There was now a tension created – a polarization – between men who had stood side by side and fought together for years. This is where the importance of simultaneously exhibiting the holiness of God and the love of God comes into play. If we do not exhibit God’s holiness, we will compromise on every side. But, if we do not at the same time show forth God’s love, we will alienate our fellow believers who have not yet seen their way clear to leaving a corrupt church. Worse than that, we send a very ugly message to the world. Jesus told His disciples that the world had a right to judge whether or not they were truly His followers based on their love for each other.9 Even more sobering is Christ’s statement that the world may judge whether or not the Father has sent the Son based on our love for each other. 10

Returning to my distinction between visible church and invisible church, I now submit that ecclesiastical discipline should guarantee that the visible church does not override, outweigh or control the invisible church. Our example above shows that when false professors of Christianity are given freedom to speak in the name of the Church, from the pulpit or the seminary podium, it is the invisible church that suffers. The invisible church must always be in control and always apply discipline with consistency. If we stress only the holiness of God, we will present to the world and to our children something hard and ugly. We will be inflexible absolutists who will crucify each other over minor doctrinal differences. But if we stress only the love of God, we will compromise left and right to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Both can be done in the flesh, but we cannot create and maintain the proper balance in the flesh. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit within us that we can faithfully show forth both the holiness and love of God.

My guess is that we are all subconsciously aware of the initial negative reaction that a serious consistent disciplinary code would create. Accusations of uncharitableness and sanctimoniousness would fly. We would be called “holier than thou” and “Pharisees.” Worst of all we would probably be labeled “judgmental,” and be reminded that Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” And it is the fear of such initial reactions that hinders us from implementing any sort of systematic code of discipline in the church. Besides this, we are all too familiar with strange “control cults,” i.e., churches that psychologically manipulate their members by means of stern codes of behavior. The last thing we want is to be labeled a cult.

But on the other hand, what are our options? Will we ever be a church without spot if we refuse to punish false teachers? Will we ever present a credible witness to the world if we act as relativistic as they do? The Church has been infected by the Hegelian relativism that controls the world’s thinking. Modern man does not believe in truth. It is not that he does not believe that he has the truth; he does not even believe that such a thing as truth even exists. Then we come along claiming to know the truth, yet we act as if the truth weren’t binding upon us. When the chips are down, would rather compromise with error than to be accused of being bigots. This is the spirit behind the whole ecumenical movement. True believers should have no more to do with Open Theists or Papists than they do with Voodoo priests, yet, bound by the Hegelian spirit of the age, we form alliances with such blasphemers! 11

We have two opposite choices: destroy the beauty of the Church by presenting a caricature of God that is hard and unyielding, or destroy the purity of the Church by sleeping with the enemy. The only safe way through this mine field is applying discipline in love and holiness in order to maintain the purity of the visible church.

1. Romans 9:6

2. Romans 2:28, 29

3. Matthew 7:22, 23

4. 1 Kings19:18

5. Ephesians 5:27

6. The tape recording of this message is available from the tape ministry of Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL

7. Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, XV

8. Auburn Affirmation, Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

9. John 13:35

10. John 17:21

11. One such alliance is ECT – Evangelicals and Catholics Together. What we must realize is that the only thing we share in common with Rome is some terminology that is used in completely different ways.