Claiming God’s Promises Today: Classic and Modern Word of Faith Views Compared and Contrasted

This chapter is from Paul L. King’s book Only Believe: Examining the Origins and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies.

Classic and Modern Word of Faith Views Compared and Contrasted

The classic faith leaders affirmed the reality of the supernatural, not just in the Bible and the early New Testament church, but for the entire church age. The Pentecostal, charismatic and contemporary faith movements embraced this classic faith position, but sometimes went beyond classic faith teaching and practice regarding the supernatural. Classic faith teaching often provides a balance, a moderation, in the practice of faith in relationship to the supernatural that is sometimes lacking today. Some classic faith leaders backed away from Pentecostalism and supernatural manifestations, over-reacting to excesses in the movement, whereas some Pentecostals acknowledged and warned of the problems of excesses and counterfeits, yet maintained the genuineness of the movement as a whole.

Practically speaking, I would conclude that if those in the Pentecostal, charismatic, and contemporary faith movements would exercise more discernment and be more self-critical as did some early Pentecostal leaders, they would be criticized less. While some like MacArthur criticize from a cessationist point of view, Hunt and Hanegraaff are purported not to be cessationists. McConnell comes from a solidly Pentecostal camp, as does Fee. So it should be noted that one can exercise faith in the supernatural realm and believe that God works supernaturally today without embracing all of the teachings, practices, and phenomena often associated with charismatic, Pentecostal, and contemporary faith practice.

The Extent and Limits of the Believer’s Inheritance.

Of prime practical-theological concern is the extent to which a believer can obtain inheritance in this life. One of the criticisms of contemporary faith teaching is that some give the impression that a Christian can receive all of his inheritance now. However, Simpson recognized that believers receive a “sample of the inheritance of glory which Christ has purchased for us and is in due time to convey in all its fullness.”¹ He also indicated that God puts limits on His blessings: “He exercises a loving oversight in His blessings; and while He freely gives to all who ask and trust Him, and the only limitation in the measure of our blessings is our own faith and obedience, yet even when He gives most largely it is in the line which His wisdom and love see most consistent with our highest good and His supreme glory.”²

Murray viewed reception of inheritance as dependent upon maturity: “The death of the testator gives the heir immediate right to the inheritance. And yet the heir, if he be a minor, does not enter into the possession. A term of years ends the stage of minority on earth, and he is no longer under guardians. In the spiritual life the state of pupilage ends, not with the expiry of years, but the moment the minor proves his fitness for being made free from the law, by accepting the liberty there is in Christ Jesus.”³ In similar fashion, A.J. Gordon aptly put it: “The promises of God are certain, but they do not all mature in ninety days.”⁴

Spurgeon gave fuller explanation, counseling that a believer can rightly claim a promise of inheritance when it is “in due season”:

Often you cannot get at a difficulty so as to deal with it aright and find your way to a happy result. You pray, but have not the liberty in prayer which you desire. A definite promise is what you want. You try one and another of the inspired words, but they do not fit. You try again, and in due season a promise presents itself which seems to have been made for the occasion; it fits exactly as a well-made key fits the lock for which it was prepared. Having found the identical word of the living God you hasten to plead it at the throne of grace, saying, ‘Oh Lord, Thou hast promised this good thing unto Thy servant; be pleased to grant it!’ The matter is ended; sorrow is turned to joy; prayer is heard.”⁵

Some might recognize the validity of spiritual inheritance but question material and physical inheritance. While classic faith leaders believed that financial prosperity could be included in the believer’s inheritance, Simpson exemplified their attitude regarding material promises, avowing that Christ Himself is the believer’s supreme inheritance.⁶ He illustrated the point from the Old Testament incident of Abraham and Lot, perceiving that it is a matter of motivation and inner attitude: “He [Abraham] allowed Lot to have his choice of the land, and when he, full of his strong self-life, claimed the best, Abraham let him have it. When we believe God, we can let people have many things which really belong to us. If God has them for us, no one can possibly take them from us. So Lot took the rich plain of the Jordan. God had given it all to Abraham, and he knew he could not lose it.”⁷

Although some take the blessings and curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy 28 in a literal, physical sense as applied to believers, Simpson stressed that they primarily apply to the church as spiritual Israel spiritually, not materially.⁸ Further, they belong to the Mosaic covenant, and are only types of the New Covenant. Some contemporary faith teaching confuses what belongs to the Mosaic covenant and what belongs to the Abrahamic covenant, thus mistakenly identifying the material blessings in this Scripture with the Abrahamic covenant.⁹

Other Reflections on Criticisms Regarding Claiming the Promises of God

Imputed vs. Imparted Righteousness

While both contemporary and classic faith teaching emphasize that believers are “the righteousness of God in Christ,” contemporary faith teachers such as Kenyon fail to distinguish between imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness.¹⁰ Murray makes clear that believers are clothed with the robe of imputed righteousness.¹¹ The view that righteousness is imparted at conversion results in a two-fold practical-theological problem: (1) lack of seeing the need for believers to seek growth in sanctification and also (2) the lack of realizing the on-going problem with sin in the believer’s life.

Over-Realized Eschatology

As Simmons argued, there is a problem of over-realized eschatology in contemporary faith teaching.¹² The problem lies not in the teaching that a believer can claim an inheritance, but in the extent of claims being made. For some, there is a failure to recognize the “already, but not yet” nature of the kingdom of God as explained by Ladd.¹³ Classic faith leaders make it clear that the believer’s inheritance is a part of the kingdom “already, but not yet” status. Some contemporary faith teaching fails to understand that believers only receive the “firstfruits,” a sampling of the inheritance, in this life.

Believers as Little Gods

There are similarities to the Eastern Orthodox theology of “theosis,” or deification of believers, and the contemporary faith concept of believers as “little gods.” Church father Athanasius declared, “He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us.”¹⁴ Some translate it, “God became man that man might become God” or “The divine became human that humans might become divine.” He further asserted that God “made Moses God of Pharaoh.”¹⁵ Luther taught, “by faith we become gods and partakers of the divine nature and name.”¹⁶ These statements seem to support contemporary faith teaching.

However, neither Athanasius or Luther would take the concept as far. For instance, Athanasius writes further, that these human sons of God or gods “were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word,” and that “He Himself only is very Son, and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence.”¹⁷ Thus, human believers cannot be “Gods” in the same way or to the same extent at Jesus Christ. Luther, as well, emphasized that believers are servants as well as gods, an emphasis often missing in contemporary “little gods” teaching.

Further, although the classic faith leaders’ emphasis and terminology on believers partaking of the divine nature could engender controversy or misunderstanding, they would balk at the contemporary faith “little gods” interpretation. Simpson taught that “every true Christian is a reincarnation of Christ,” which may sound like the “little gods” concept, but by that he meant that the believer is the representation of Christ to model the love and ministry of Christ.¹⁸

Likewise, Chambers referred to his spiritual mentor as “a re-incarnation of Jesus Christ by His Spirit.”¹⁹ Interpreting Paul’s image of believers in 2 Corinthians 3:2, he commented, “an ‘epistle of Christ’ means a reincarnation of Jesus.”²⁰ Yet Chambers also cautioned about “an amateur providence attitude” in which a believer becomes, “as it were, god almighty,” thinking, “I am not likely to go wrong, but you are.”²¹ He especially warned, “The disposition of sin is not immorality or wrongdoing, but the disposition of self-realization—I am my own god.”²²

In contrast to Kenyon who described victorious believers as “supermen,” Chambers decried the belief, saying, “We are not all excellent supermen.”²³ Murray stated that believers have “an incipient Godlikeness,” which he identified as their nature of “bearing God’s image in having dominion, in being lord of all.” This, he explained is the “root” of man’s “inner likeness” to God.²⁴ Billheimer, a more contemporary representative of classic faith teaching, states it in this manner: “They are to be exact copies of Him, true genotypes, as utterly like Him as it is possible for the finite to be like the Infinite.”²⁵

Classic faith leaders thus used language similar to contemporary faith teaching to express the divine nature of the believers, but most would not go so far as to claim that believers are “little gods.” Chambers made a clear distinction, “We are never in the relationship to God that the Son of God is in; but we are brought by the Son into the relation of sonship.”²⁶ He warns, “The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization—I am my own god. … It has the one basis, my claim to my right to myself.”²⁷ Spurgeon also clarified:

To be a partaker of the divine nature is not, of course, to become God. That cannot be. The essence of Deity is not to be participated in by the creature. Between the creature and the Creator there must be a gulf fixed in respect of essence. But as the first man Adam was made in the image of God, so we, by the renewal of the Holy Spirit, are in a diviner sense made in the image of the Most High and are partakers of the divine nature. We are, by grace, made like God.²⁸

Tozer gave this explanation, applying the “little god” concept to life in heaven: “Heaven is going to be a place where men released from tensions and inhibitions, released from prohibitions from the outside, released from sin, and made in the image of God can go to work like the young gods they are. For He said, ‘Ye are gods’—He didn’t mean you are God, but ‘You are little images of Mine, born to do the kind of work that I do, creative work.’”²⁹ Without these clarifications, these classic faith leaders could well have been criticized for “little gods” teaching. While there is a qualified sense in which believers could be called “gods,” as taught by classic faith leaders, because the terminology is prone to misunderstanding today, it should be avoided. It should be noted that some contemporary faith teachers such as Frederick Price and Casey Treat have abandoned the “little gods” concept and terminology.³⁰

The Believer’s Inheritance and Materialism

The classic faith leaders address the problem of materialistic attitudes in the contemporary faith movement. It should be noted that the classic faith leaders believe that while material blessing can be a part of the inheritance of the believer, the main focus is on the spiritual inheritance. As mentioned above, although some in the contemporary faith movement would claim “All things are yours” (1 Cor. 3:21) means that the believer is meant to be wealthy, classic faith leaders like Simpson interpret the phrase “all things are yours” as a life of contentment, peace and joy, not necessarily material prosperity, although that could be included in a secondary way.³¹ Hannah Whitall Smith similarly claimed this verse for believers, including provision for material needs,³² but also warned against materialistic abuse of this verse: “I knew one earnest Christian who had the text ‘All things are yours’ so strongly impressed upon her mind in reference to some money belonging to a friend, that she felt it was a direct command to her to steal that money, and after a great struggle she obeyed this apparent guidance, with of course most grievous after-results.”³³ The counsels of the classic faith leaders need to be accepted by contemporary faith teaching. Additional implications of prosperity teaching will be discussed further in Chapter 23.

Contrary to Hanegraaff’s charge that correlating Galatians 3:13 with Deuteronomy 28 is text abuse, as cited earlier, Spurgeon and Murray related these two Scriptures together. By so cavalierly dismissing the interpretative connection between Deuteronomy 28 and Galatians 3:13 understood by other older evangelical commentators, Hanegraaff finds himself in the dubious position of calling it text abuse. Hanegraaff fails to understand that the problem with contemporary faith teaching is not in textual abuse of the verses, but in misapplication, by over-emphasizing the “already” to the neglect of the “not yet.” The interpretative connection between the verses is validated by the classic faith leaders. As Tozer has discerningly declared, “Truth has two wings.”³⁴ The problem is found in the lack of balance in contemporary faith interpretation, trying to fly with one wing, once again breaking the dynamic tension of truth. Some contemporary faith leaders fail to see that redemption from the curse, though initiated and partially experienced through Christ today, is not yet fully consummated.

A problem also exists among some contemporary faith teaching of legalistic or materialistic application of the Covenant. Though Kenyon views the Covenant as a contract, he is in agreement with classic faith teachers when he declares, “Faith grows out of continual fellowship with the Father.”³⁵ However, Capps, another contemporary faith teacher, misses Kenyon’s caveat by claiming, “God does not answer prayer because of friendship. He answers prayer because of a legal document and the result is governed by the rules of this document. That document is God’s Word.”³⁶ Contrary to both Kenyon and classic faith leaders, Capps reduces prayer to legalism—God must obey his contract. Murray, representing classic faith teaching, opposes such a view: “We must look for the fulfillment of the New Covenant within, the Covenant—not of laws—but of life.”³⁷ Capps and Copeland also fail to understand that the biblical concept of covenant is not based on a contract between equals, but rather the ancient Mid-eastern suzerainty treaty between a superior and an inferior power.

Some over-emphasize the materialistic aspects of the covenant relationship.³⁸ For Simpson, however, claiming covenant rights is not a matter of claiming material blessings for oneself, but rather claiming inheritance that Satan would try to hold back or steal from the Christian.³⁹ Further, Simpson wrote, “Faith is contending for its inheritance when the enemy disputes it. … When Satan disputes our standing, and puts his foot upon our inheritance, we will arise in the name of the Lord against the most tremendous odds, and claim the victory through Jesus Christ, by that aggressive and authoritative faith which treads on scorpions and serpents, and triumphs over all the power of the enemy; saying even to the mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea’ (Matthew 21:21), and withering the fig tree of evil in His name.”⁴⁰

Final Reflections on Claiming the Promises of God

From this research we can see that how believers view their position in Christ will affect in a practical way the manner in which they view themselves, which in turn affects their faith praxis. When believers see themselves as heirs of Christ, they can have confidence to claim the blessings of their inheritance. The classic faith leaders strike a balance between those who claim too little for the believer’s inheritance today and those who try to claim too much in claiming their inheritance, maintaining the dynamic tension of truth. Spurgeon, Simpson, and Murray all represent respected evangelicalism, and their views are widely regarded as sound and led of the Spirit. Criticisms of some of the contemporary faith interpretations and applications of the believer’s inheritance not withstanding, these classic faith leaders demonstrate wholesome faith praxis.

PR

 

Notes

¹ A.B. Simpson, The Highest Christian Life (Harrisburg, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1966), 31.
² A.B. Simpson, The Land of Promise (Harrisburg, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1969), 86.
³ Andrew Murray, The Two Covenants (Ft. Washington, Penn.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1974), 74.
⁴ A.J. Gordon, cited in Mrs. Charles Cowman, Streams in the Desert (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1925] 1972), Jan. 3.
⁵ Charles Spurgeon, cited in Cowman, Streams in the Desert, Jan. 13.
⁶ Simpson, The Land of Promise, 128.
⁷ Ibid., 34-35.
⁸ A.B. Simpson, Christ in the Bible (Camp Hill, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1992), 1:358.
⁹ See Kenneth Copeland, Our Covenant with God (Ft. Worth, Tex.: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1976), 20-21.
¹⁰ E.W. Kenyon, Two Kinds of Righteousness (Seattle: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Co., 1965), 20, 27; E.W. Kenyon, In His Presence (Seattle: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Co., 1969), 52.
¹¹ Andrew Murray, Abiding in Christ (Springdale, Penn.: Whitaker, 1979), 59.
¹² Dale H. Simmons, “Mimicking MacMillan.” Unpublished paper, Oral Roberts University Graduate School of Theology (Tulsa, Okla.: Oral Roberts University, 1984), 12.
¹³ George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 68-69.
¹⁴ Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse I, 11:39, Nicene-Post Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 2:4:329.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ Luther, “Sermon for the 3^rd Sunday of Epiphany, Matthew 8:1-13,” The Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 2:73-74.
¹⁷ Athanasius, 39.
¹⁸ A.B. Simpson, cited in David F. Hartzfeld and Charles Nienkirchen, eds., The Birth of a Vision (Camp Hill, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1986), 201.
¹⁹ David McCasland, Oswald Chambers: Abandoned to God (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 1993), 67.
²⁰ Oswald Chambers, The Place of Help (Grand Rapids: Discover House, [1935] 1989), 181.
²¹ Ibid., 94.
²² Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., [1935] 1963), 279, see also p. 99.
²³ Oswald Chambers, The Place of Help (Grand Rapids: Discover House, [1935] 1989), 174.
²⁴ Andrew Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer, (New York: Anson D.F. Randolph and Co., [1886]), 140.
²⁵ Paul E. Billheimer, Destined for the Throne (Ft. Washington, Penn.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1975), 37.
²⁶ Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, 99.
²⁷ Ibid., 279.
²⁸ Spurgeon, Morning by Morning (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 262.
²⁹ A.W. Tozer, Who Put Jesus on the Cross? (Camp Hill, Penn.: Christian Publications, [1975] 1996), 227. This is quite similar to John G. Lake’s interpretation of “ye are gods” as man’s divine potential that will be fulfilled “when earth becomes a part of heaven”: “He discovers the exalted purpose that Christ had in mind for every man, for the holy day when by the grace of God the sons of God will put the crown of glory on the head of Jesus Christ and the world will proclaim him King of kings and Lord of lords.” John G. Lake, Spiritual Hunger and Other Sermons, ed., Gordon Lindsay (Dallas: Christ for the Nations, 1994), 90-92. This is not to say that Tozer would agree with all that Lake taught about being gods.
³⁰ Robert M. Bowman, Jr., “‘Ye Are Gods?’ Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man,” Christian Research Journal (Winter-Spring 1987), 18ff.; Bob and Gretchen Passantino, Witch Hunt (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 145-156.
³¹ Simpson, Christ in the Bible 2:319.
³² Hannah Whitall Smith, Living Confidently in God’s Love (Springdale, Penn.: Whitaker, 1984), 281-282.
³³ Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1942), 67.
³⁴ A.W. Tozer, That Incredible Christian, (Harrisburg, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1964), 59.
³⁵ E.W. Kenyon, The Two Kinds of Faith (Seattle: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Co., 1942), 101.
³⁶ Charles Capps, Releasing the Ability of God (Tulsa, Okla.: Harrison House, 1978), 65.
³⁷ Andrew Murray, The Spirit of Christ (Springdale, Penn.: Whitaker, 1984), 11.
³⁸ Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1993), 213-215.
³⁹ A.B. Simpson, Life More Abundantly (New York: Christian Alliance Publishing Co., 1912; Harrisburg, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1965), 116; see also Simpson, Christ in the Bible, 1:361; Charles Spurgeon, Faith’s Checkbook (Chicago, Moody Press, n.d.), 36, 44, 55, 73.
⁴⁰ Simpson, Christ in the Bible, 1:81.

This article is an excerpt from Only Believe: Examining the Origins and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies (Tulsa, OK: Word and Spirit Press, 2008). Only Believe is available through the author’s website, HigherLifeMinistries.com, and through online sellers, such as Amazon. Used with permission.