Monotheism

The Primary Claim and Assumption of Christianity

You cannot get past the first sentence of the first book in the Bible without encountering the concept of monotheism: “In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1).

However, there are those that would beg to differ – the Mormons, for example, would have us believe that “beginning” here is merely referring to the beginning of our planet or “world.” Because God, of course, is not unique – and, in fact, had to attain to “godhood” before he was able to create and populate this; his own personal “creation.”

This idea(and its fellows), is absurd and blasphemous on its face to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And that is for the simple reason that these uniquely monotheistic religions of the world draw from the special revelation that God made of Himself to the Hebrews of antiquity. Judaism has preserved for us the Tanakh, upon which the religions of both Christianity and Islam claim to be built; or at least they claim to proceed from the same vein as the Hebrew Scriptures – thus these three religions share the doctrine of monotheism. For not only does Genesis and Job assume the existence of only One True God, but portions of the Law and the Prophets argue for and display His unique grandeur.

But before I make a case from Scripture for Absolute Monotheism, allow me to define the term for the sake of clarity.

Monotheism

MON’OTHEISM, noun [Gr. only, and God.] The doctrine or belief of the existence of one God only.”

Simple enough, right?

The authors of the Bible wrote in such a way that it is obvious they assumed the existence of only one divine being: “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” ~ Deuteronomy 4:39 (NASB) (See also: Numbers 23:19, Romans 11:33-36, Colossians 1:15-17, etc…)

In Scripture we also have God’s own spoken words that ground and affirm that assumption: “For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.”” ~ Isaiah 45:18 (NASB) (See also: Isaiah 43:10-13, 44:6-8 & 24, and Job 38-41, etc…)

Notice that many of these texts (and the surrounding context) teach creation itself as a proof for the existence of only one divine Creator – and by right of owning and sustaining that creation this God should be acknowledged and worshipped – moreover He deserves whatever He demands.

Thus we come to my final observation for this post:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” ~ Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (ESV)

Verse 4 quoted above is called the shema. It is similar to the shahada of Islam in that it serves as the primary declaration of belief and/or allegiance to God in Judaism. This phrase was to be recited and taught among the Jews from generation to generation (see context: Deuteronomy 6).

This declaration, the commands that follow it, and the other texts referenced above seem by themselves to be pretty solid evidence for the doctrine of monotheism. However, they are certainly not even a fraction of the story – the historical Jewish and Christian teaching about God is a mountain of information in and of itself… but that is beyond the scope of this post.

So to keep things simple for the time being, I’ll close with a link to some helpful material – while double-checking that I was spelling “shema” right – I found this interesting article on the subject of Deuteronomy 6:4: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.myjewishlearning.com/article/deuteronomy-64-the-shema/amp/

Advertisements

Defining Deception: A Review

Every professing Christian in the U.S. should read this book. It is concise and easy to read – by far the quickest read I have ever found on the subject.

Costi Hinn and Anthony G. Wood have done a fine job of objectively examining Bill Johnson’s neck of the Word-Faith / NAR woods and condemning (and/or pointing out) problem areas without going on a “slander campaign.” They display their Christian concern many times in explaining their intent before continuing with the hard truth – here are a couple quotes as examples:

“Any man who dares to raise the charge of unintentional or intentional heresy against another must do so with humility and biblical evidence, ultimately requesting others within the true circles of Christian belief to carefully consider the assessment…” – Costi Hinn & Anthony Wood, Defining Deception (Preface, page ix)

“…Christians must not stand idly by while God’s Word is maligned. No matter our attachments and no matter how much we love someone, the most loving thing we can do is tell the truth and stand with Christ. All have sinned and no one is perfect, but those claiming to be teachers are held to a higher standard (James 3:1), and those teaching falsehood about Christ are to be called out (Rom 16:17-18)…” – Costi Hinn, Defining Deception (page 57)

Side NOTE: This is definitely a book where every reader who picks it up should start with the Preface – it’s subtitle speaking for itself: “Heart of the Authors.”

I have read a lot on the Word of Faith movement (and some on the NAR) – and I believe the authors of this book have done the best job yet of pleading for discernment from the followers (potential or otherwise) of this movement with compassion and understanding, but without pulling any of the necessary punches on its heretical and often blasphemous nature.

One example of the easy to read nature of this book is that it’s main purpose – namely thoughtfully examining the doctrine and practice of Bill Johnson and Bethel Church – is covered in the course of 7 chapters that cover only about 117 pages. The last quarter of the book subsists in appendices that address errors common to all of “charismatic” Christendom.

In particular I found Appendix 4: The Myth of Being Slain in the Spirit (page 151) to be very helpful in articulating why that particular practice is not truly based in the Bible.

Here is a link that can be used to obtain the book.

And here is a link to the blog also written by Costi Hinn and Anthony Wood.

Another resource – that also happens to now have some interviews with Mr. Hinn – is the seminar Clouds Without Water by Justin Peters. The Original format of this seminar, A Call for Discernment, was used by God to fully pull me out of the mire of this movement that I grew up in.

Again I would urge the reader – if you know anyone who is or are yourself familiar with and/or influenced by Word-Faith or “New Apostolic” teaching – to look into these resources.

Leaving for Lent

So my wife and I have been wanting to participate in Lent for a few years now, but never could remember to figure out when it was supposed to be… but this year I managed to remember early enough and so from February 14 to March 29 my wife and I have decided to “fast” from all forms of internet activity that are not absolute necessary – we’ve decided on a couple other things as well, but that particular item is the only thing relevant to this post 🙂

Anyway, I thought I’d share with the reader a few books that we have appreciated and will be partaking of during this time set aside for special prayer.

Behold the King of Glory by Russ Ramsey – is a good summation of Christ’s life in “story telling” format, that also happens to be written for reading one chapter for each day of Lent if the reader so chooses.

Every Moment Holy by Douglas Kaine McKelvey – is a book of liturgical prayers that my wife and I have found very helpful and encouraging… you can learn more here: https://www.everymomentholy.com/about

Some Thoughts on Isaiah 11:6 and “the Mandela Effect”

The other day a coworker of mine asked if I read the Bible and proceeded to share with me some things that he’d heard about Isaiah 11:6 on a YouTube video claiming to provide “…the three best and most detailed examples of the Mandela Effect.” [time mark 1:27] And In the course of the brief exchange I asked him to send me a link to the video – which has resulted in further conversation and this post that you are now reading.

The Mandela Effect(?)

The video in question kind of opens with a summary of the concept of this theory. And as far as I can tell – considering I had no active knowledge of this concept until watching the video – the event that gave the theory its name does seem somewhat puzzling… Especially when only equipped with the minimal information provided by the video.

However, since my concern is more related to the text of Scripture, as far as this theory goes I will simply offer a short list of thoughts and/or questions regarding said subject and leave the rest to the reader’s opinion and/or knowledge/research.

1: it seems to me that this theory assumes the infallibility of a person’s memory – simply based upon the “vividness” and/or “detail” of the mistaken memory – and this assumption is apparently validated by “many total strangers” having the same mistaken “memory.”

2: building further on this assumption of infallible human memory, it seems this theory is more imaginatively pointless than it is thoughtfully helpful (no offense intended to those who believe or have further studied the idea). After all, if such a theory were actually fact – and we had experienced intersection of dimensions and/or timelines – what could we possibly do about it?

3: from a slightly different angle – but in a similar vein as my question ending the previous point – the proponents and conceivers of this theory seem to be coming from a completely secular-humanist and/or materialistic (if not occult) worldview. Now this thought would mean more to a disciple of Jesus than anyone else – but the point stands that this theory ignores or outright denies the existence of a Sovereign Creator working all things according to the council of His own will.

These were just a few of the more poignant of my thoughts as I watched the first portion of the video. But I would prefer to specifically focus on the second part that the creators of the video titled “Biblical Changes.”

Changes to the Bible? [time mark 6:12]

The first difficulty I had with this section was the language about “Biblical changes” with no qualifications or basis given for the presumptive phrasing. Obviously the discussion of Isaiah 11:6 would be considered an example – but one verse is hardly sufficient to warrant language implying more than a few actual changes to the text of the Bible.

In fact, the first real example cited (outside of a general statement about ‘many Christians misremembering the verse’) is a post by a user on a site called “Reddit” claiming to have gone to “three different churches” to ask ministers about the verse and finding that the people the Reddit person talked to misremembered the verse. [time mark 7:35]

I would submit to the reader several ideas/questions at this point: 1) what evidence can the Reddit user give for their story? What churches did they go to? Who were the ministers? What denomination were the churches? 2) what do three unverifiable examples prove about the “changing” of an ancient, historically verifiable text? 3) should we really allow the mistakes of people’s fallible, often prone to or capable of malfunction minds to cause us to assume the text of an ancient set of books has been changed? 4) does this one story really give the video warrant to say “even those within ecclesiastical institutions incorrectly remember the verse” [time mark 7:30] as if this mistake were a normative thing across Christianity? (NOTE: That may not have been the intent of those who made the video, but it was still implied by their choice of words and the method of presenting the data)

Again, I realize my thoughts would not necessarily be significant to one who is not a disciple of Jesus – but I believe my questions are valid and deserving of consideration by anyone interested in fact/truth.

The next phrase (with no substantiation) that I would think any critically thinking person would take issue with came at time mark 8:15 – “Christians are becoming increasingly worried about what this passage change means…”

Now, again, what grounds are there for assuming that the passage has been changed? I would submit to the reader that subjective human thoughts are no basis upon which to question ANY historically verifiable reality. More important and directly relative to the quote, however, is what documentation do the makers of this video have for such a statement? I, for one, have never even heard of people making this mistake before watching this video… and I follow enough “Christian sources” online that I’m pretty sure I would have heard of this before if it was an actual concern among the greater Christian community – as implied by the statement.

The video follows this statement with some odd thoughts of what the significance would be if the passage had been changed which I will simply provide some of my own thoughts about and leave the video alone for the rest of this post. However, the reader is obviously free to watch the video in its entirety and come to there own conclusions.

Context and Concept of Isaiah 11:6

1: If one will read the entirety of Isaiah, they will see that chapter 11 is a prophetic text – and it seems to me to be of a particularly eschatological bent, although the beginning sets it up as ultimately messianic in nature. The concept of verses 6-9, namely the perfect peace that will be on God’s mountain/kingdom, is set up by verse 6: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” (ESV) The context – and simply the entirety of the verse – taken into consideration removes any need to question the “significance” of the animals depicted. The obvious thrice-emphasized Hebrew parallelism of “wolf and lamb,” “leopard and kid,” and “lion and calf,” make it clear that the verse is simply putting forth the removal of predator and prey distinctions in this land where there is perfect peace (I.e. No natural indicators of struggle and death). The rest of the context of the chapter does not allow for any “secret/hidden” interpretation or meaning to the animals used in the illustration. (NOTE: the parallel passage in Isaiah 65:25 is another indication of the simplicity of the intended meaning)

2: Even if we were to consider this idea that the animals depicted have a “deeper meaning” – there would be no definitive precedent to indicate what that meaning would be. Though Christ is called the “Lion of Judah” (Revelation 5:5) there are plenty of illustrations in scripture that utilize a lion (as well as a wolf) as a ferocious and terrible beast (Isaiah 5:29, Ezekiel 22:27, Psalm 17:12), and the only other illustration I know of in the Bible utilizing a wolf is in connection with false prophets/teachers (Acts 20:29-30, Matthew 7:15)… so there would really be no reason to note such a supposed “change” in the first place.

3: in humoring the video – my wife and I came up with a few potential possibilities for why this mistake of memory is made: 1) the popular “worship song” How Great Is Our God by Chris Tomlin has “Lion and the lamb” as one of its refrains… 2) the imagery of Jesus in the Bible not only utilizes a lamb (Revelation 5:6, etc.) but Jesus is also given the title of “the Lion of Judah” (Revelation 5:5)… and these are just two very commonly experienced/known things among Christians and in “Christian culture” that could reasonably explain the common mistake of misremembering Isaiah 11:6. However, even if these didn’t explain the phenomenon – there is still not enough grounds to claim changes have been made to an ancient text when all you’ve got is a potentially freaky case of common mistaken memory.

Final Note

No intended offense is meant against my coworker or the makers of the video that sparked this post, but it must be made clear to the reader that ancient, orthodox Christianity holds to none of the superstitions or confidence in mankind’s own thoughts and/or memories that seem to have given rise to the presentation in the video linked to above.

The good news of the Son of God taking on human flesh and living a perfect life to fulfill the demands of the Law of God, dying upon the cross to satisfy the Wrath of God and take away the sins of His people, and being buried and rising again on the third day to prove His Work acceptable and His people Justified before God denies any possible confidence in the thoughts and intentions of mankind.

No matter what we encounter that seems unexplainable, these things remain self evident; everything we see and interact with was made and is owned by a Thrice-Holy God, the whole of humanity desires and does nothing but that which is evil, and there is no way for man to stand clean before his Maker unless the Maker first does something to cleanse him… which He has.

A Final Note on Kenneth Hagin

After my lengthy critique of his ideas in “the Believer’s Authority” I am well aware that there are those who would accuse me of “consigning the man to hell” – and I am aware of those Word-Faithers who would tack on an idea like “simply because he got a few things wrong.” Not that I wish to build and burn any form of straw man, but allow me to say a few things to attempt to dissuade the more reasonable objectors from thinking the worst of me and/or my methods…

1: I have said to my wife many times in the last few years that it could very well be that before the end of his life God broke through to Hagin and saved him. But I have said just as often, that the fruit of Hagin’s “ministry” and life give us no reason to ASSUME that God saved him at all, unless it was so soon before the heart-attack that claimed his life that he had no time to publicly recant… so to end this point I will add: It is not our job as followers of Jesus to consign/make the final judgement about whether anyone goes to hell… OR heaven! (it seems to me – for all their fear of “judging” – that way too many Christians are willing to wave there hand in front of the professing “believer” and pronounce that there can be no doubt of their being destined for heaven – without one bit of concern about the current and constant fruit of that person’s life…)… something to think about there, I would say.

2: public material is free game for critical review – be it positive or negative. It should be the assumption of everyone that anything anyone says in a public format is open to feedback, and the teacher and/or leader who claims to speak of the doctrines of the Bible should expect and desire feedback (in any form; rebuke, exhortation, refutation, correction, encouragement, etc) from fellow shepherds (and the occasional “sheep”) in the faith. No one should be surprised when someone is criticized for what they write – and Christians who have influence over others should welcome such challenges, since “teachers will incur a harsher/stricter judgement” and they should seek to keep their repeated errors to an absolute minimum… Hagin, like his disciple Copeland and his contemporaries Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn, never seemed open to such critical examination.

3: Finally – and within the same vein of point “1” – the fact that I vehemently condemn statements of blasphemy and/or heresy should not cause the reader to automatically categorize me as “hating” Kenneth Hagin or as a “hateful” person in general… do I hate the rotten fruit and lies about God perpetrated by what was/is spewed from books and “ministries” like Hagin’s? YES. I despise anything and everything that belittles, degrades, and attempts to spit upon the honor and glory of the Great and All-Mighty, One True God, Yahweh. But it should not be an assumption of the reader (especially those who are so “charitable” and “positive”-oriented) that in acting that out I am committing the sin of hatred against another human being.

On that note, it should go without saying that I am open to any thoughtful criticism a reader might have of my own statements about Hagin’s book “The Believer’s Authority.” And even if the reader wishes to criticize my own method(s) of critique, I would be happy to discuss them… I would be completely inconsistent and hypocritical if I were not willing to do so, after all.

In closing, I encourage the reader, once again, to think critically about the things that they read and – especially in matters of theology and doctrine – to not merely accept the words of any man without testing them against Scripture.

Believer’s authority – Part 9

The full, blasphemous conclusions of Hagin’s false doctrine are reached in the fifth chapter of his book “The Believer’s Authority”

Ignoring Hagin’s continued attempt to simply brainwash and/or hypnotize his reader in the beginning of his fifth chapter (by repeating his unfounded proclamations and the perverting of Ephesians that he has done previously in the book) – I would once again point the reader to the blasphemous nature of Hagin’s doctrine:

“All the authority that was given to Christ belongs to us through Him, and we may exercise it. We help Him by carrying out His work upon the earth. And one aspect of His work that the Word of God tells us to do is to conquer the devil! In fact, Christ can’t do His work on the earth without us!

Someone will argue, “Well, He can get along without me, but I need Him.”

No, He can’t get along without you any more than you can get along without Him.” – Kenneth Hagin, “Believer’s Authority” (page 33)

On the following page Hagin tries to tell us that this is what Paul means by his illustrations of the “body of Christ” and “Christ as the head of the church” by partially quoting Ephesians 6:12 out of context.

The problem is Hagin’s overly simplified (borderline idiotic) interpretation of Paul’s use of a metaphor of the Church as being one “body” in Christ. I urge, exhort, and plead with the reader to examine the entirety of Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians – if you do so with no desire other than knowing the intent behind his own words you will find nothing but condemnation for Hagin’s perversion of those words.

Side NOTE: I have dealt with Hagin’s tortured understanding of Paul’s illustration in Ephesians HERE a little more in depth than I will in this post…

Following these blasphemous statements and further twisting of Paul’s meaning in Ephesians, on page 35 Hagin wrote this: “In 1952, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to me in a vision and talked to me for about an hour and a half about the devil, demons, and demon possession.”

I hope I do not have to point out to the reader that anyone claiming to have had a vision/visitation from the LORD of Glory would not do so in such a cavalier fashion (take for example the men of Scripture who had direct encounters with God: Moses in Exodus, John in Revelation 1:10-20, Isaiah in Isaiah 6:1-7, Paul in Acts 9:3-19, etc.). I also hope the reader does not need to be advised to be highly suspicious that Hagin’s stated topic would be a subject of any vision from God – although that point holds far less weight than the first.

But let us read what Hagin had to say about this alleged “vision from the Lord.”

Side NOTE: this lengthy quote begins immediately following the previous quote… why not share with us what “Jesus” taught him for the “hour and a half” before this? The haphazard (and yet, oddly specific) nature of Hagin’s thoughts should be another indication of his mental imbalance.

“At the end of that vision, an evil spirit that looked like a little monkey or elf ran between Jesus and me and spread something like a smoke screen or dark cloud.

Then this demon began jumping up and down, crying in a shrill voice, “Yakety-yak, yakety-yak, yakety-yak.” I couldn’t see Jesus or understand what He was saying.

(Through this entire experience, Jesus was teaching me something. And if you’ll be attentive, you’ll find the answer here to many things that have troubled you.)

I couldn’t understand why Jesus allowed the demon to make such a racket. I wondered why Jesus didn’t rebuke the demon so I could hear what He was saying. I waited a few moments, but Jesus didn’t take any action against the demon. Jesus was still talking, but I couldn’t understand a word He was saying—and I needed to, because He was giving instructions concerning the devil, demons, and how to exercise authority.

I thought to myself, Doesn’t the Lord know I’m not hearing what He wanted me to? I need to hear that. I’m missing it!

I almost panicked. I became so desperate I cried out, “In the Name of Jesus, you foul spirit, I command you to stop!”

The minute I said that, the little demon hit the floor like a sack of salt, and the black cloud disappeared. The demon lay there trembling, whimpering, and whining like a whipped pup. He wouldn’t look at me. “Not only shut up, but get out of here in Jesus’ Name!” I commanded. He ran off.

The Lord knew exactly what was in my mind. I was thinking, Why didn’t He do something about that? Why did He permit it? Jesus looked at me and said, “If you hadn’t done something about that, I couldn’t have.”
That came as a real shock to me—it astounded me. I replied,

“Lord, I know I didn’t hear You right! You said You wouldn’t, didn’t You?”

He replied, “No, if you hadn’t done something about that, I couldn’t have.”

I went through this four times with Him. He was emphatic about it, saying, “No, I didn’t say I would not, I said I could not.”

I said, “Now, dear Lord, I just can’t accept that. I never heard or preached anything like that in my life!”

I told the Lord I didn’t care how many times I saw Him in visions—He would have to prove this to me by at least three Scriptures out of the New Testament (because we’re not living under the Old Covenant, we’re living under the New). Jesus smiled sweetly and said He would give me four.” – Kenneth Hagin, “Believer’s Authority” (page 35-36)

What utter, bald-faced blasphemy!

This story alone is enough to prove Hagin’s ideas have no weight or worth to them. It is also proof-positive of one of four things: Hagin was either certifiably insane, influenced by evil spirits, fully demon-possessed, or an outright charlatan.

However, let us again examine a few underlying assumptions that provide Hagin with his foundation of sand.

1: Hagin demanded that the demon masquerading as Jesus provide him with a number of passages out of the New Testament – and he specified that he would only accept New Testament texts because “we’re not living under the Old Covenant, we’re living under the New.” This is a completely faulty view of the Scriptures. To reject the absolute authority and worth of the Old Testament in teaching and reproof simply because one assumes “we’re not living IN/under” the context of the Old Testament reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what Scripture is and does. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

2: as I have implied before, IF Hagin had encountered the Risen and Exalted Christ he would be Incapable of his arrogant demand that God Himself provide Scripture to “support” His words for two reasons: A) God would not have said things that so obviously contradict previous revelation in Scripture – and thus would need no twisting of a text to make them believable. And B) Hagin’s arrogance would have evaporated in the Presence of (or been vaporized by the wrath of) the King of Glory.

Thus this tale can be only one of two things: the recounting of a visitation that Hagin had from an “angel of light,” or a fabrication of his own imagination. (2 Corinthians 11:14)

This conclusion is further proven by Hagin’s own words and ideas coming from the mouth of this supposed “Jesus” for the rest of the chapter as he quotes Matthew 28:18, Mark 16:15-18, James 4:7, 1 Peter 5:8, and Ephesians 4:27 out of context and twists their original, plain meaning.

All the reader has to do is read the fifth chapter of Hagin’s book to see the utter insanity of the ideas it contains – when one man’s writings can sound exactly like (as in structure, flow of thought, vocabulary, etc) the words supposedly spoken to him by Jesus, either that man is writing Scripture, or he (or someone else) is putting words in the Lord’s mouth.

As far as I am concerned, this account of Hagin’s encounter with “Jesus” is enough to damn everything he has written so far in this book and whatever he adds to it.

Such drivel is not even worth the energy it takes to read the words that convey it – thus it is here that I conclude my series of posts critically examining Hagin’s book, “The Believer’s Authority.”

Believer’s authority – Part 8

An Introductory NOTE: For those who have not read through previous posts in this series, here are some quick links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and “Believer’s Authority Vs Scripture

The book: “The Believer’s Authority” by Kenneth Hagin, Second Edition Twenty-Second Printing 1996

(ISBN 0-89276-406-6)

“Breaking the Power of the Devil” …?

In opening the fourth chapter of his book, Hagin once again quotes one verse from Ephesians (6:12) completely out of context. And then proceeds to make broad assertions following the text as if he is stating the most obvious conclusion of the Scripture…

“The Word of God teaches us that these evil spirits are fallen angels who have been dethroned by the Lord Jesus Christ. Our contact with these demons should be with the knowledge that Jesus defeated them, spoiled them, put them to nought (Col. 2:15). And now that Jesus has dethroned them, we can reign over them!” – Kenneth Hagin, “The Believer’s Authority” (page 27)

Now, as far as his references to Christ’s defeating the rebellious angels, I have very little to say about Hagin’s demonology. What I believe every Christian should cringe at – and what I have argued in previous posts – is the un-Scriptural assumption in Hagin’s words: “And now that Jesus has dethroned them, we can reign over them!”

Merely reading the whole section of Ephesians that Hagin has quoted from (and another text from Jude) will destroy his preposterous conclusion:

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.” ~ Ephesians 6:10-20

“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.” ~ Jude 3-13 (both texts taken from ESV)

Notice the entire context of the passage in Ephesians is a concept of struggle or warfare, NOT “ruling and reigning” – and no, Romans 8:37 cannot be perverted in that direction either. Also, remember the rest of the epistle to the Ephesians – God is the Great Workman, and He will accomplish His will in spite of us, more often than not. (Ephesians 2:4-10)

The passage I have quoted from Jude stands on its own in its rebuke of Hagin – and I would encourage the reader to go and read the epistle in its entirety. Specifically note the section where not even the archangel would take it upon himself to rebuke Satan – Jude is an epistle obviously ignored by people who go around giving “commands” to and/or making “demands” of the devil…

But when it comes to the false doctrine of the believer’s supposed “authority” the Scriptures don’t actually matter to its teachers. As displayed by the following quote from Hagin:

“Originally, God made the earth and the fullness thereof, giving Adam dominion over all the works of His hands. In other words, Adam was the god of this world. Adam committed high treason and sold out to Satan, and Satan, through Adam, became the god of this world. Adam didn’t have the moral right to commit treason, but he had the legal right to do so.” – Kenneth Hagin, “The Believer’s Authority” (page 27)

Notice the complete lack of Scriptural reference for these statements. That is because Scripture does not allow for this false Word of Faith doctrine of Adam having been the “god” of planet earth – but having transferred his “godhood” to Satan in the fall.

Side NOTE: the only text that the promoters of this heresy can point to for the phraseology is 2 Corinthians 4:4 – but the reader will note that the heretics will be ripping it, kicking and screaming, from it’s context and intended meaning… at some point I will address this evil belief of Word-Faithers – but for now, suffice it to say that it is a false doctrine invented in order to exalt man and Satan and degrade God.

The quotation above is yet another instance of disqualifying, heretical borderline-blasphemy that should indicate to a Biblically literate person that they should toss Hagin’s book into the closest fire at hand… but I digress into ranting.

Speaking of ranting, Hagin spends the next three pages (27-29) blowing hot air about his false doctrine that he has spent the last few chapters trying to convince his reader of. In the course of his raving, Hagin makes a lot of assertions about “Christians” and the “Church” that make it sound like he’s talking about either a group he made up in his own mind, or that I’ve never encountered before – and on top of that, he quotes and abuses Matthew 28:18 and Luke 10:19 again. But what he says on page 30 is worth addressing:

“I have found that the most effective way to pray can be when you demand your rights. That’s the way I pray: “I demand my rights!”

Peter at the Gate Beautiful did not pray for the lame man; he demanded that he be healed (Acts 3:6). You’re not demanding of God when you demand your rights; you’re demanding of the devil.

Jesus made this statement in John 14: “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do… If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (vv. 13,14). He’s not talking about prayer. The Greek word here is “demand,” not “ask.”

On the other hand, John 16:23,24 is talking about prayer:

“And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” (The Father is mentioned here in connection with prayer, but He isn’t mentioned in the passage from John 14.)” – Kenneth Hagin, “Believer’s Authority” (page 30)

The utter arrogance of these statements is enough to make one vomit on the spot. Not to mention the gall of completely twisting the text of Scripture to say what one wants it to – and the impudent assumption that your audience is too gullible or stupid to catch you in your lie.

A simple search through a concordance or Greek lexicon will prove Hagin an outright liar. The word translated “ask” in BOTH John 14:13-14 & John 16:23-24 is the Greek word “aiteo” (“154” in Strong’s Concordance) and it’s definition is as follows:

AITEO, to ask, is to be distinguished from No. 2. [EROTAO] Aiteo more frequently suggests the attitude of a suppliant, the petition of one who is lesser in position than he to whom the petition is made…” – W. E. Vine, M.A. “An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words – with their Precise Meanings for English Readers” (page 79), Fleming H. Rebellion Company – First Published 1940… 17th impression 1966.

So, once again, it is painfully obvious that the reader must never assume someone who claims the Greek means anything other than it is translated as is telling the truth unless they can prove their case with legitimate linguistic backing.

But with the typical blithe arrogance he shows throughout the course of his book, Hagin continues by writing: “The Greek actually reads, “Whatever you demand as your rights and privileges ….” You’ve got to learn what your rights are.”

Again, the blasphemous pronouncements of Hagin disqualify him from any position of pastoral or teaching ministry in the Church. And the rest of Hagin’s fourth chapter has no Scriptural support – literally; hequotes no text for the next 2 pages – so I will be ignoring it, as it is not worth the time to even read it.