Theological Roots of the Word of Faith Movement: New Thought Metaphysics or Classic Faith Movements?
Historian Paul King introduces us to the origins of the controversial Word of Faith movement.
A spate of articles and books have appeared over the past two decades debating the controversial teachings of the “Word of Faith” movement. Several blistering critiques such as those of D.R. McConnell (A Different Gospel) and Hank Hanegraaff (Christianity in Crisis) have claimed the movement as heretical or cultic, originating in New Thought metaphysics.1 Others such as William DeArteaga, Joe McIntyre, Derek Vreeland have mounted defenses or reconstructions of modern faith theology, while still others such as Geir Lie, Dale Simmons, and Robert Bowman have presented more moderate critiques and scholarly studies.2
E. W. Kenyon (1867-1948) is generally recognized as the chief originator of the modern faith movement.3 The core of the controversy is found in the purported origins of Kenyon’s teachings. McConnell’s pivotal and influential book entitled A Different Gospel made a case for extensive influence from New Thought metaphysics upon the thinking of Kenyon, detailing noticeable parallels between Kenyon’s writings and New Thought writers. He thus concluded that Kenyon’s thought, and therefore modern faith teaching, is derived from non-Christian cultic sources and thus suspect. Hanegraaff built on McConnell’s research and conclusions to avow further that the modern faith teaching is heretical and cultic. Both books have made a significant impact on the evangelical Christian community in labeling the word of faith movement as heterodox and even sacrilegious.
Church historian Eddie Hyatt comments, “These critics … display a lack of knowledge concerning the historical development of the twentieth century Pentecostal movement from its nineteenth century antecedents and its influence of the modern movement. It is in the religious mileau [sic] out of the Holiness and Healing movements of the nineteenth century that the modern “Faith Movement” finds its primary emphasis.”4 Similarly, Simmons’ doctoral dissertation concludes:
As for Kenyon himself, it would appear that he is best placed within the Keswickean/Higher Christian Life tradition. … This is not to say that there are not aspects of Kenyon’s teaching—specifically those centering on one’s confession—that he stresses to a point that is only comparable to that of New Thought. … It would be going too far to conclude that New Thought was the major contributing factor in the initial development of Kenyon’s thought.5
Taking a more scientific approach than McConnell and Hanegraaff, Bowman compared 23 standard New Thought concepts with Christian Science and Kenyon. From this statistical analysis, he concluded that while there is much in common between Christian Science and New Thought, there is “little resemblance” between Kenyon and New Thought. Further, he concluded that Kenyon is “far closer to orthodoxy than is Christian Science.” Kenyon may share some similarity with metaphysical thought, but his views are “fundamentally different.”6 He demonstrates that McConnell’s methodology is faulty, and thus his conclusions regarding Kenyon’s connections with metaphysical New Thought are deeply flawed. While there may have been some metaphysical influence, Kenyon’s views are more unlike such concepts than like.
Most of Kenyon’s thought, then, remained in the sphere of orthodox evangelical teaching represented by the Keswick/Higher Life movement, although he acquired some ideas that would be considered unusual, stretching the limits of orthodoxy.7 Kenneth Hagin, who is considered the most widespread popularizer of modern faith teaching, draws the majority of his teaching from Kenyon, but also acknowledges the influence of evangelical and Higher Life leaders Müller, Spurgeon, Simpson, T.J. McCrossan, J.A. MacMillan and Pentecostal leaders John G. Lake and Smith Wigglesworth.
The teachings of these evangelical leaders of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century holiness and healing movements, what I am calling the “classic faith” movement, emphasize many principles of faith similar to modern faith movement, though there are important differences as well.9 Scholars have recognized the healing and holiness movements of the nineteenth century as forerunners to the Pentecostal and modern faith movements.10 For example, Chappell affirms, “The Holiness movement provided the theological environment for faith healing in America.”11
Examination of church history reveals that seeds of faith were planted, then germinated and grew into greater movements of faith.12 What began with a few individuals continued to expand in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in a revival of faith.13 The nineteenth-century “Higher Life” holiness movement was sometimes called “the life of faith.”14 This classic faith movement was interdenominational in scope and included people of a wide variety of theological persuasions—Presbyterian (Simpson, Boardman, Pierson), Lutheran (Francke, Blumhardt, Stockmayer), Baptist (A. J. Gordon, Spurgeon, Meyer, Chambers), Methodist (Palmer, Bounds), Quaker (Hannah Whitall Smith), Congregational (Upham, Finney, Torrey, Bushnell), Plymouth Brethren (Müller, Nee), Dutch Reformed (Murray), Episcopalian (Cullis, Montgomery). The classic faith movement was also international, beginning in mainland Europe (emerging out of Pietism—Blumhardt, Trudel, Stockmayer) and spreading to England (Müller, Spurgeon, Taylor, Meyer, Penn-Lewis, Chambers), South Africa (Murray), Asia (Taylor, Carmichael, Nee) and America (Moody, Gordon, Simpson, Torrey).
In this brief study we will look at five of the modern faith concepts considered illegitimate by their critics, and demonstrate their roots in classic faith teaching: 1) blessings of Deuteronomy 28 applied to the believer, 2) faith as a law, 3) faith as a force, 4) the faith of God, 5) revelation and sense knowledge.
Blessings of Deuteronomy 28 for the Believer
Modern faith leaders take the blessings and curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy 28 in a literal, physical sense as applied to believers today, citing Galatians 3:13 as the New Testament support for this belief.15 Hanegraaff contends that this is “another example of text abuse.”16 However, he does not realize that classic evangelical leaders also make this connection, teaching from Deuteronomy 28:13 that believers are “the head and not the tail, above and not beneath.” This interpretation finds its roots in Puritanism, as seventeenth-century Puritan leader Thomas Brooks claimed this Scripture, asserting, “There will come a time, even in this life, in this world, when the reproach and contempt that is now cast on the ways of God, by reason of poverty and paucity of those that walk in those ways, shall be quite taken away, by his making them the head that have days without number been the tail, and by his raising them up to much outward riches, prosperity, and glory, who have been as the outcast because of their poverty and paucity.”17 If we did not know that this statement came from Puritanism, we might assume that it came from the pen of one of the modern faith leaders.
Carrying it over into nineteenth-century evangelical teaching, Spurgeon, known as “the last of the Puritans,” also claimed this Scripture: “Though this be a promise of the law, yet it stands good to the people of God; for Jesus has removed the curse, but He has established the blessing. It is for saints to lead the way among men by holy influence; they are not to be the tail, to be dragged hither and thither by others. … Are we not in Christ made kings to reign upon the earth?”18
Other classic faith leaders cite Galatians 3:13 in relation to the blessings and cursings of Deuteronomy 28. Jessie Penn-Lewis quoted Andrew Murray in connecting redemption from the curse in Galatians 3:13 with the curses of Deuteronomy: “The cross and the curse are inseparable.”19 Although some, like Spurgeon, take the blessings and curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy 28 in a literal, physical sense as applied to believers, A.B. Simpson stressed that they primarily apply to the church as spiritual Israel spiritually, not materially.20 Further, they belong to the Mosaic covenant, and are only types of the New Covenant. Some modern 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.21
By so casually rejecting the interpretative connection between Deuteronomy 28 and Galatians 3:13 understood by other older evangelical commentators, Hanegraaff finds himself in the questionable position of accusing people like Spurgeon of text abuse. Hanegraaff fails to understand that the problem with modern 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 many classic faith leaders.22
Faith as a Law
As early as the seventeenth century, French mystic Grou wrote of love as a law.27 Prefiguring modern faith teaching by more than a century, Palmer, in the Methodist tradition, indicated there are “laws which govern God’s ‘moral universe’ just as there are laws governing the physical universe.”28 Spurgeon, in fact, suggested, “Perhaps there are other forces and laws that He has arranged to bring into action just at the times when prayer also acts—laws just as fixed and forces just as natural as those that our learned theorizers have been able to discover. The wisest men do not know all the laws that govern the universe.”29 Congregational philosopher Thomas Upham and Quaker Hannah Whitall Smith compared the law of faith to magnetism or the law of gravity.30 These evangelical leaders (and others such as Simpson, Murray, and Pierson) did not accept metaphysical teaching, yet they used the terminology of faith as a law.31 Hunt correctly criticizes modern faith leaders for teaching that unbelievers can tap into this law of faith and do great miracles.32 Most classic faith leaders, on the contrary, do not teach this.33 Rather than tapping into the law of faith, many of the classic faith leaders would concur with Penn-Lewis, who believed that unbelievers (and sometimes believers) exercise what she called “soul force,” and with Watchman Nee who called it “the latent power of the soul.”34
None of these classic faith writers were in any way associated with metaphysical cults. These writers speak of spiritual laws, not metaphysically or deistically, but of spiritual principles of life by which God operates or consistent spiritual patterns of working that are designated as laws. On the other hand, God is not controlled by these laws as metaphysical as some modern faith teachers seem to imply, but God controls these laws. Modern faith teachers need to be careful of the language they use and the practical implications they draw when they speak of faith as a law. Anti-faith critics need to understand that the concept of faith as a law can be validly taught without implying a deistic or metaphysical connection.
Faith as a Force
As an extension of faith as a law, modern faith teachers also teach that faith is a force that must be exercised. McConnell considers the concept heretical:
In describing faith as a ‘force’ with which the believer can ‘move things,’ the Faith theology depersonalizes God. It renders him an impersonal force that must do man’s bidding because it is capable of doing nothing else. The ‘Force of Faith’ is, in reality, ‘Faith in the Force.’ Just as Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars trilogy learns how to manipulate ‘the good side of the Force’ with his mind control, so also the Faith theology teaches how to manipulate the Faith god with positive confession”35
Hanegraaff, drawing upon McConnell, also condemns this concept as metaphysical and cultic, claiming that it is “deadly error,” derived from New Thought metaphysics.36 To them, the idea of forces that correspond to laws, like “the law of attraction,” is anti-biblical metaphysics. They view the idea of faith as a force as an impersonal force that manipulates and binds God, making man sovereign by his words of faith.
With a kaleidoscopic understanding of spiritual forces among classic faith leaders (including love, the Word of God, prayer, and even God Himself as forces), it becomes a natural progression to view faith as a force. If God Himself is a living force, then as Simpson described it, faith emanates as a force from the character of God, from His omnipotence, as “one of the attributes of God Himself.”39 In particular, faith is viewed as the force of an electric current (Spurgeon, Simpson), a creative force (Spurgeon, Smith, Simpson), the force of a water current (Murray), an energy force (Smith), and the force of a spring (Spurgeon, Charles Price).40
It is obvious that modern teaching on faith as a force is derived from classic evangelical faith teaching. Thus McConnell’s and Hanegraaff’s claim that the concept of faith as a force is derived from heretical and cultic New Thought metaphysics is clearly in error. This does not mean, however, that everything taught by modern faith teachers about faith as a force is valid.41 It should be noted that there are dissimilarities as well as similarities between classic and modern faith teaching.
The Faith of God
On the basis of absence of the preposition “in” in the Greek construction of Mark 11:22, modern faith leaders interpret the clause “Have faith in God” as “have the faith of God” or the “God kind of faith.” McConnell and Hanegraaff declare the “faith of God” or the “God kind of faith” concept as false teaching and a “perversion,” avowing that interpreting the phrase in Mark 11:22 as a subjective genitive is not accepted by any scholars.42 However, McConnell ignores the fact that his own mentor and critic of the modern faith movement, Oral Roberts University professor Charles Farah, validates this interpretation,43 also citing Pentecostal evangelist Charles Price, who also was knowledgeable of Greek grammar.44
Though “faith in God” as an objective genitive generally may be the favored interpretation today, the concept of “faith of God” as a secondary or alternative translation is by no means uncommon among evangelical leaders and scholars, and is found in some form among several eighteenth and nineteenth century commentaries.45 Even as early as 1380 Wyclif translated it “haue ye the feith of God.”46 The “faith of God” translation of Mark 11:22 was interpreted in at least six ways among classic faith leaders, sometimes combined together: (1) God as the source or author of faith, (2) the faithfulness of God, (3) the faith exercised by Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:20), (4) God’s own faith—the faith that God possesses and exercises as a part of His nature, (5) special mountain-moving faith, not everyday faith, or (6) as a double entendre, allowing for both interpretations, faith in God and the faith of God.47
The rightness of grammatical interpretations may be argued, but for Hanegraaff to say that the “faith of God” interpretation held by a host of evangelical leaders and scholars is a “perversion” obviously goes too far.48 There is thus great debate among scholars regarding the appropriate translation. One Greek scholar friend remarked that such passages are “divinely ambiguous” so as to allow both interpretations, perhaps intended to be a double entendre.
Revelation and Sense Knowledge
Kenyon and modern faith teaching commonly distinguish between “revelation knowledge” (which comes from faith and revelation from God) and “sense knowledge” (which comes from the five senses and reason). McConnell claims Kenyon’s concept is a rebirth of the ancient heresy of gnosticism:
The major epistemological error of the metaphysical cults incorporated into Kenyon’s doctrine of Revelation Knowledge is that of gnosticism. … We are not implying that there is a direct historical connection between the Faith theology and ancient gnosticism. The gnostic concept of knowledge does, however, have strong parallels in thought with the metaphysical cults. Through Kenyon, these parallels found their way into the Faith theology.49
Hanegraaff also castigates the revelation knowledge concept as a cover-up for misinterpreting Scripture by claiming revelation from God, citing examples of heretical teaching passed off as revelation knowledge.50
However, the second century theologian Clement of Alexandria, when refuting gnosticism, distinguished between knowledge by reasoning or the senses and knowledge by revelation in an excerpt entitled “First Principles of Faith”:
This type of reasoning knowledge is dependent upon our senses—that is, our abilities to see, feel, hear, touch, and taste. Through sensing we are led to reasoning and understanding. From understanding, to knowledge. And then we form our opinions. But far above this way of knowing are the first principles of our knowledge—the knowledge of God, given to us by revelation. For the principles of our faith were revealed to us by God, from above, by the Spirit. … For whatever your human senses insist that you believe must be brought under the spirit (italics mine).51
The “first principles” are the essences or self-evident truths discussed by Aristotle.52 This citation from Clement is significant because it clearly demonstrates, contrary to McConnell, that the seemingly dualistic concepts of revelation and sense knowledge are not inherently gnostic, since Clement uses the terms in refutation of gnosticism.
Jan Hus also differentiated between the senses and “the faith which comes from divine knowledge.”53 The anonymous fourteenth century writing The Cloud of Unknowing similarly distinguished “sense knowledge” and “spiritual knowledge.”54 Others who made a similar distinction include Jacob Böhme, William Law and A.T. Pierson.55 Oswald Chambers, in language strikingly similar to (yet predating) Kenyon, used the terms “revelation sense” or “revelation facts.”56 Kenyon’s phraseology is so similar that one may wonder if he may have borrowed it from one of these earlier sources. More recently, Corrie Ten Boom (who was familiar with Kenyon’s teachings and circulated his writings) and A.W. Tozer use similar concepts and/or terminology.57
Just because some have used the concepts of revelation and sense knowledge in seemingly gnostic ways does not invalidate the concept of revelation and sense knowledge altogether. This investigation has shown that the distinction between the two kinds of knowledge has existed throughout church history in some form.58 Practically speaking, sense knowledge through reason, the senses, common sense, etc., has a valid place in the believer’s life, contrary to what some modern faith teaching implies. Yet the modern faith elevation of revelation knowledge above and beyond sense knowledge has solid support from classic faith leaders, so long as sense knowledge is not denied altogether.
Additional Comparisons and Contrasts
Because of the limitations of this paper, I have been able to give only a sampling of parallels. Additional modern faith concepts I cover in my dissertation that find their roots in classic faith teaching, include: the authority of the believer, acting and claiming in faith, logos and rhema, healing in the atonement, positive mental attitude, positive confession, prosperity, point of contact, living a long healthy life, the problem of praying “if it be Thy will.” These concepts are found especially, but not exclusively, in the Wesleyan, Keswick, and Higher Life movements.
This is not to say that all modern faith teaching is derived from classic faith teaching. My research has revealed that classic faith leaders sometimes have been, along with anti-faith critics, in disagreement with modern faith leaders. Some of the areas in which some modern faith leaders have deviated from classic faith teaching include: having faith in one’s self or one’s own faith, faith as the source of healing, faith as an impersonal force that can be manipulated even by unbelievers, words as a container of faith or creator of reality, demanding from or controlling God, always praying only once, “name it and claim it” theology, and many others.59
Conclusion
Critics have had some valid concerns about modern faith theology and praxis, but their basic thesis that such teaching is metaphysical in origin is false. Although certain elements of modern faith teaching may appear cultic and heretical to critics of the movement, those same critics, in effect, also attack teachings on faith that have been taught by other respected evangelical leaders of the early healing and holiness movements. Some have thus not only rejected modern faith teaching, but also valid principles of faith that sound similar to the excesses of modern faith teaching, and may sometimes, in fact, be precursory of modern faith teaching.
Not all principles taught by contemporary faith teachers are suspect. The Latin phrase I learned from my faith critic mentor Charles Farah applies here: abusus non tollit usus, i.e., the abuse should not obscure or invalidate legitimate use. One of the prominent classic faith teachers, A.B. Simpson, put it this way, “The best remedy for the abuse of anything is its wise and proper use.”60
Truth is by nature elliptical, tending to revolve around distinct polarities (e.g., God’s sovereignty vs. man’s free will). Neither pole possesses the totality of truth. Rather, a divinely-designed dynamic tension exists between the two focal points,61 explained by Tozer as the two wings of truth.62 Both wings are needed to make truth fly properly. Modern faith teaching and its critics, therefore, represent contra-polarities. Each holds elements of truth, but also elements of error, and thus has broken the dynamic tension between the focal points of truth.63 Conversely, classic faith teachings, to a great degree, have preserved a balance between the poles.
On one hand, many of the modern faith controversies could have been avoided if their leaders had been more careful communicators of their own evangelical/classic faith roots. On the other hand, their critics have been ignorant of the evangelical heritage of faith teaching and practice (especially from the last two centuries) out of which modern faith theory and praxis has sprung. This study entails a more discerning understanding of the evangelical faith heritage common to both polarities. This findings of this research show that classic evangelical leaders, especially from the Keswick, Higher Life, and Wesleyan movements, by and large taught an orthodox, balanced walk of faith that can be trusted and emulated by believers today.
PR 
For more in-depth study, Paul King recommends his book Only Believe: Examining the Origin and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies (Word & Spirit Press, 2008). Available through his ministry website, http://PaulKingMinistries.com/.
Notes
1 Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993); Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon, Seduction of Christianity (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1985); Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1987); D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (1988), John F. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992); Bruce Barron, The Health and Wealth Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987); Gordon Fee, The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospel (Cosa Mesa, CA: Word for Today, 1979).
2 Dale H. Simmons, E.W. Kenyon and the Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Plenty (Lanham, MD and London: The Scarecrow Press, 1997); Joe McIntyre, E.W. Kenyon and His Message of Faith: The True Story (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1997), Robert M. Bowman, The Word-Faith Controversy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001), William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1996); Geir Lie, “E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister? An Historical Analysis of Kenyon’s Theology with Particular Emphasis on Roots and Influences.” Masters thesis, Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology, 1994; Derek E. Vreeland, “Reconstructing Word of Faith Theology: A Defense, Analysis and Refinement of the Theology of the Word of Faith Movement.” Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 2001. See also Eddie Hyatt, “The Nineteenth Century Roots of the Modern Faith Movement,” unpublished paper. Tulsa, OK: Oral Roberts University, April 25, 1991.
3 Simmons, in his doctoral thesis on Kenyon, avows, “Kenyon is the primary source of the health and wealth gospel of the independent Charismatic movement.” Simmons, x.
4 Hyatt, 1, 2.
5 Simmons, 304.
6 Bowman, 46-48.
7 In his later ministry, Kenyon became more of an individualist in his teachings. Simmons (p. xii) comments, “In thrashing out his own teachings, Kenyon displayed an independent streak and an overwhelming need to come up with teachings that no one else had ever discovered.”
8 Paul L. King, A Practical-Theological Investigation of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century “Faith Theologies, Th.D. Dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 2001.
9 I recognize that “classic” is commonly used of older writings and that it could be argued that in a broad sense the modern faith movement began in the nineteenth century, but for the purposes of this study I am making the distinction.
10 Cf. Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 15-33, 87-141; P. G. Chappell, “Healing Movements,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 353-374; H. Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, [1971] 1997), 14-83, 143-145; Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement, 1-36. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 1-36.
11 Chappell, 357.
12 King, 14-29.
13 King, 29-56.
14 Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1942), 20, 25, 32, 47, 96, 101, 104, 121, 132, 134, 140.
15 Kenneth Copeland, Our Covenant with God (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1976).
16 Hanegraaff, 251.
17 Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1652, 1866] 1968), 131 (italics mine).
18 Charles H. Spurgeon, Faith’s Checkbook (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, n d), 4.
19 Jessie Penn-Lewis, The Conquest of Canaan (Ft. Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, [1989] 1995), 105, see also pp. 109, 114-115; Russell Kelso Carter, Faith Healing Reviewed After Twenty Years (Boston, Chicago: The Christian Witness Co., 1897), 62-63; Carrie Judd Montgomery, The Secrets of Victory (Oakland, CA: Triumphs of Faith, 1921), 11.
20 A.B. Simpson, Christ in the Bible (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992), 1:358.
21 Cf. Copeland, 20-21.
22 According to A.W. Tozer, “Truth has two wings.” A.W. Tozer, That Incredible Christian (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1964), 59. The problem is found in the lack of balance in modern faith interpretation, trying to fly with one wing, once again breaking the dynamic tension of truth. Some modern faith leaders fail to see that redemption from the curse, though initiated and partially experienced through Christ today, is not yet fully consummated.
23 Hanegraaff, 73-85, and McConnell, 172-173.
24 McConnell, 172-173.
25 Hanegraaff, 105-127.
26 Such as Henry Drummond’s Natural Law in the Spiritual World and Horace Bushnell’s Nature and the Supernatural.
27 Jean-Nicolas Grou, cited in The Alliance Weekly, 2 July 1952, 424; Jean-Nicolas Grou, “On Being Truly Spiritual,” The Alliance Weekly, 10 September 1952, 592.
28 Harold E. Raser, Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellon Press, 1987), 185; see also Simmons, 290; Hannah Whitall Smith, The Unselfishness of God. (Princeton, NJ: Littlebrook Publishing Co., 1987:190; Charles H. Spurgeon, Spiritual Warfare in a Believer’s Life. Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1993), 168.
29 Charles H. Spurgeon, The Power of Prayer in a Believer’s Life (Robert Hall, comp. and ed. Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1993), 114.
30 Thomas Upham, The Life of Faith (Boston, MA: Waite, Pierce; New York, NY: Garland, [1845]1984), 238; Hannah Whitall Smith, The Unselfishness of God and How I Discovered It (New York, NY: Garland Publishers, {1903]), 1985), 252.
31 Simmons’ research demonstrated that holiness leaders also often spoke of laws in the sense of principles, rather than fixed mechanical laws. Simmons, 155-156. See also A.B. Simpson, The Gospel of Healing (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1915), 68; A.B. Simpson, A Larger Christian Life (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1988), 10-11, 137), Andrew Murray, Divine Healing (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1982), 30, Spurgeon, The Power of Prayer, 110, A.T. Pierson, The Acts of the Holy Spirit (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1980), 100.
32 Dave Hunt, The Berean Call, September 1995, 2.
33 See Simpson, A Larger Christian Life, 10, Upham ([1845] 1984:238)].
34 Jessie Penn-Lewis, Life in the Spirit (Dorset, England: Overcomer Literature Trust, 1910), 62; Jessie Penn-Lewis, Soul and Spirit (Dorset, England: Overcomer Literature Trust; Ft. Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, n.d.), 62, 68-70, 77-79), Watchman Nee, Latent Power of the Soul (New York, NY: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1972).
35 McConnell, 143; see also pp. 141-145.
36 Hanegraaff, 65-71.
37 Charles H. Spurgeon, 1000 Devotional Thoughts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), 443; Arthur T. Pierson, Lessons in the School of Prayer (Dixon, MO: Rare Christian Books, n.d.), 61.
38 See King, 134-148.
39 Simpson, A Larger Christian Life, 13. See also William E. Boardman, The Higher Christian Life (Boston: H. Hoyt; Chicago: William Tomlinson; New York: Garland, [1858] 1984), 256; Charles H. Spurgeon, The Triumph of Faith in a Believer’s Life (Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1994), 36, 43, 89; Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning by Morning (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 253; Hannah Whitall Smith, Living Confidently in God’s Love (Springdale, PA: Whitaker, 1984), 261; The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, 55; Andrew Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1981), 119; Simpson, A Larger Christian Life, 13; Simpson, The Life of Prayer (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1989), 60-62; Simpson, Christ in the Bible, 4:199; Mrs. Charles Cowman, Streams in the Desert (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [1925] 1972), Vol. 1, July 7; John A. MacMillan, The Authority of the Believer (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1980), 67-68; Charles S. Price, Two Worlds (Pasadena, CA: Charles S. Price Publishing Co., 1946), 13.
40 See King, 142-143.
41 It should be noted that in contrast to modern faith teachers, classic faith writers do not believe that words are the containers of the force of faith, nor that those words can create reality Boardman, 254; Smith Wigglesworth, The Ever‑Increasing Faith. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1924), 41; Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead, and Co., [1935] 1963), 150; A.W. Tozer, Of God and Men (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1960), 85-88. These classic leaders make it clear that it is faith imparted by God that creates, not man’s faith or his words of faith. It is important to note that the classic faith writers did not believe God is an impersonal force, but a “living force,” a force who is a living personality. Although modern faith leaders would probably claim they do not believe God is an impersonal force, their language makes the force of faith appear mechanistic. So if faith originates in God, and faith is a force from a law to which God is bound, then faith and God appear to become impersonal forces.
42 McConnell, 145, Hanegraaff, 87-95, 390.
43 Charles Farah, Jr., From the Pinnacle of the Temple: Faith or Presumption (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, n.d.), 100-103.
44 Cf. Charles S. Price, The Real Faith (Pasadena, CA: Charles S. Price Publishing Co., [1940] 1968), 52-60.
45 See Barnes Notes on the New Testament ([1884] 1985:372-373); H. D. M. and Joseph S. Exell, eds. The Pulpit Commentary (Chicago, IL: Wilcox & Follett Co., n.d.), Vol. 36, 123; Westminster Commentaries (Rawlinson 1925:38:158); The Bible Commentary (Cook [1871] 1981:7:270); Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (1959:6:220); Henry and Scott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible ([1710, 1792] 1979:3:192); Clarke’s Commentary on the New Testament ([1830]:1:327); Gill’s Commentary ([1852] 1980:5:377). Montgomery pointed out that Bibles printed in 1921 give “faith of God” as an alternative translation, indicating that it was an acceptable interpretation by biblical scholars. Montgomery, The Secrets of Victory, 28.
For more examples including the 1599 Geneva Bible, Young’s Translation, Douay-Rheims Bible, Clarke, Godbey, and Wilbur M. Smith, see Troy J. Edwards, “The God-Kind of Faith—A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Defense” (n.d.), available on the Internet at www.100megspop2.com/victoryword.
46 John Wyclif, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocryphal Books (Oxford: University Press, 1850).
47 Sometimes they combined these meanings, so that the faith imparted by God is God’s own faith or faithfulness or that the supernatural faith was the very faith of God Himself. Kenyon, Robertson, Spurgeon, and Murray give alternative or dual translations, it would appear that they viewed these Scriptures as a double entendre. See King, 160-168, for a fuller discussion.
48 McIntyre exposes the fact that Hanegraaff actually interprets Greek scholar A. T. Robertson’s comments on Mark 11:22 incorrectly: “Now here is the irony. Robertson was quoted correctly, but incompletely. The whole quote was not given because it would prove embarrassing to the argument.” McIntyre, 257.
49 McConnell, 109. He elaborates, citing these parallel errors as dualism, sensory denial, perfect knowledge of God, transcending human limitations, anti-rationalism, and classification of levels of spirituality. For a critique of the revelation knowledge concept by British charismatic scholars, see Thomas Smail, Andrew Walker, and Nigel Wright, “Revelation Knowledge and Knowledge of Revelation: The Faith Movement and the Question of Heresy,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994), 57-77.
50 Hanegraaff, 172, 123, 124, 133, 159, 172, 173, 283.
51 Clement of Alexandria, “First Principles of Faith,” cited in You Give Me New Life, ed. David Hazard (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995), 36-38.
52 See Peter Kreeft and Ronald K Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 369.
53 Jan Hus, “Faith Formed in Love,” Christian History, Issue 68 (Vol. 19:4) (n.d.), 33.
54 The Cloud of Unknowing, The Book of Privy Counseling, ed. William Johnson (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1973), 138-139.
55 Jacob Böhme and William Law, The Way of Divine Knowledge (Albany, OR: AGES Software, 1997), Pierson, Lessons in the School of Prayer, 23.
56 Oswald Chambers, The Psychology of Redemption (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, [1930] 1963), 20.
57 Corrie Ten Boom, Defeated Enemies (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, [1963] 1970), 23; A.W. Tozer, Man: The Dwelling Place of God. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1966), 49-52; A.W. Tozer, The Size of the Soul (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992), 120-122; A.W. Tozer, Faith Beyond Reason (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1989), 39-40.
58 See King, 187-198.
59 See my dissertation for sections discussing all of these areas.
60 A.B. Simpson, Editorial, The Christian Alliance and Missionary Weekly, March 27, 1891, 195. Similarly, a more recent advocate of the classic faith movement, A. W. Tozer, rephrased it as: “Never allow the abuse of a doctrine to cancel out its use.” A. W. Tozer, cited in “Minutes of General Council 1995 and Annual Report 1994,” The Christian and Missionary Alliance, 142.
61 See Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism (New York, NY: The Noonday Press/Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1955), 12-15, 336-347, for a discussion of elliptical thinking and polarities in biblical theology and philosophy, especially in Judaism.
62 Tozer, That Incredible Christian, 59.
63 Henry H. Knight III, “God’s Faithfulness and God’s Freedom: A Comparison of Contemporary Theologies of Healing,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Vol. 2, (1993) 65-89, discusses the polarities of God’s freedom and God’s faithfulness in relationship to faith theologies of healing.
This article was first presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies which was held March 11-13, 2004 at Marquette University, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
