|
DOCTRINAL ERROR | PAUL CROUCH and GIVING AND RECEIVING |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
|
DOCTRINAL ERROR | PAUL CROUCH and GIVING AND RECEIVING |
| The Word Of Faith Doctrine On Giving |
| BIRTH - DEATH | Not applicable. |
| EDUCATION | Not applicable. |
| MINISTRIES | Not applicable |
| MAJOR WORKS |
Not applicable. |
|
There is probably no larger group of people, gathered into one unit, who teach the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, than the teachers and preachers on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), operated by Paul Crouch. There are very few teachers and preachers on TBN who do not accept and teach the Word of Faith view, which incorporates the Giving and Receiving doctrine. Originally created by Oral Roberts as the "Seed Faith" doctrine, Giving and Receiving is the doctrine that is the major presentation of the TBN Broadcasting Network, because it is a doctrine that is necessary for the operation of that broadcasting network and the ministries associated with it. Paul Crouch and the teachers and preachers on the TBN network programs find themselves in a symbiotic relationship. They all need each other in order to exist at the level to which they aspire. Paul Crouch needs the preachers and religious teachers to fill his programming schedule and to increase the numbers of listeners to the network. The greater the number of listeners, the greater the amount of offerings that will be given and the larger the network can become. The teachers and religious leaders need Paul Crouch and TBN so that they can gain exposure, sell their books, tapes, CD's and other goods, to win adherents to their beliefs and extend the boundaries of their ministries in addition to tapping into the greater numbers of potential donors. The relationships of those who constitute TBN bring them into a common theology, not necessarily of a Biblical nature, but one in which the giving of donors can be maximized. All other doctrinal issues are secondary or are presumed to be non-existent in the pursuit of donations, in order to expand the ministry. The Giving and Receiving doctrine has some key elements which are the foundation: GODIn the October 2002 issue of the Praise the Lord Newsletter, Volume 29, Number 10, Paul Crouch presented his views regarding the doctrine of Giving and Receiving. On Doctrine commented on what was presented in that newsletter HERE. In the February 2003 issue of the Praise the Lord Newsletter, Volume 30, Number 2 , Paul Crouch again presented his views regarding the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, using much of the information from the October 2002 newsletter, but added a few more items. The following comments by Paul Crouch in the February 2003 newsletter are notated in red with the On Doctrine comment following, notated in black. TBN NEWSLETTER - February 2003 PAUL CROUCH "But the one that really got my goat (pardon the 'Missouri' in me), was a dear brother on Praise the Lord a few weeks ago. Yes, on Our TBN! I was down in Florida and the program was on tape. If it had been 'LIVE' I would have called the engineer to take it OFF THE AIR! This "dear brother" was waxing eloquent on the "error" of giving to God, expecting ANYTHING in return! In about 15 minutes, he totally trashed everything Oral Roberts has taught us on 'Seed Faith' for over 40 years! The great messages by R.W. Schambach, John Avanzini, Dad Hagin, Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Rod Parsley, T.D. Jakes and a host of others, flushed right down the drain" ON DOCTRINE COMMENT Who are these religious authorities, whose doctrinal teachings Paul Crouch holds in such high esteem? PAUL CROUCHOral Roberts "I will not judge the brother, but the Apostle Paul commands us to judge the message! I sat in stunned silence as truth after truth we have rejoiced in and proved to be true was systematically twisted to meet HIS TRADITION!" ON DOCTRINE COMMENT Establishing the "straw man" argument that others, who disagree with the doctrine of Giving and Receiving as taught by Paul Crouch and his authorities, are only expressing their TRADITIONS, implying that they have no Biblical foundation for their claims, Paul Crouch then states that he can support his theology from the Bible. Paul Crouch uses the above listed authorities in his attempt to defend the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, yet he launches forward in an attempt to also find a Biblical foundation for the doctrine that has been created and taught by his sources. Paul Crouch claims that it is acceptable to "judge the message," so he should not object to a very close examination of the message that he presents, which he claims to have been "proved." PAUL CROUCH "I have spoken and written to you many times about the Word of God that came to me as I sought Him on this issue. My question was simple —"Dear Lord, can we bring a gift to you, with a need in our life, fully expecting you to meet that need?' God answered me with a word into my spirit as clearly as I have ever heart it — He said: 'Son, Did I give my only son to die on the Cross, EXPECTING NOTHING IN RETURN?' Ah, don't you see it. God had a need — He had lost His first son, Adam. He needed sons and daughters. So what did God do? He GAVE the very thing He needed — His only begotten Son, the best gift heaven could give! What did God receive? Yes, we know — billions of sons and daughters! God lives by His own law — you GIVE if you expect to RECEIVE! ON DOCTRINE COMMENT Paul Crouch attempts to establish the foundation for his doctrine, by appealing to those teachers on the TBN Network for secondary support, but then presents himself as the primary support because he claims that God spoke straight to him, stating a direct revelation regarding the validity of the teaching. Advancing the claim to authority proposed by all of his secondary authorities, who also claim direct revelations and words from God almost on a daily basis, Paul Crouch claims the doctrine is true because God specifically told him so. Did Paul Crouch receive a direct communication from God or not? Those who claim that God still gives continuing direct revelation, cannot deny that Paul Crouch received a revelation from God. In that theology, pastors, teachers and leaders claim revelations on a daily basis. Even those in the fellowship who are not pastors, teachers and leaders also claim revelations given to them by God, from the newest convert to the oldest. With that belief foundation in place, who can deny the claim of a direct revelation from God? In that theology, a person cannot use the Bible to judge the validity of a claimed revelation, because by definition, a revelation is that which was not known before, so the Bible cannot be used to assess the validity of a revelation which is not known in the Scripture itself. When a person believes in continuing direct revelation from God, the Bible is presumed not to apply to or have authority over those new revelations. If a person believes that there is current and continuing direct revelation from God, then they cannot deny the claim by Paul Crouch that God spoke to him. However, Paul Crouch claims that his doctrine is supported by the Scripture, so if what he claims is true, then it must be found in the Bible, according to his own statement. If the sources in the Bible that Paul Crouch present do not support his doctrine, then God did not speak to him or to any other "authority" regarding the validity of the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, and those who teach the doctrine are false teachers. There is one question that must be asked, "If the doctrine is already found in the Bible, then why did Paul Crouch appeal to a direct word from God to confirm it, instead of using the Scripture itself in order to present the teaching?" The first and primary key root of error in Paul Crouch's theology is his major premise, "God had a need..." The reality is that God has no needs. Nowhere in Scripture can it be found that God has a need that must be met. If God has needs that must be satisfied outside of Himself, then He is defective in His nature and is not sufficient within Himself to fulfill the totality of His own being. In addition, the character of God is also defective, because the requirement becomes a satisfaction of those needs through the means of human beings, who are the created and also the fallen. God is self-existing from eternity and as a result of His self-existence, He is also self-sufficient. "If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains." Psalm 50:12 (NAS)God has no need that is necessary to be fulfilled outside of Himself, because He created everything that is outside of Himself. No created entity can provide any satisfaction to God based on some assumed need that is claimed by that entity. "Because God is the self-existent One, He is independent of everything about Himself. Necessary self-sufficiency is another of His absolute and unrelated attributes. All created beings are dependent upon Him, but He himself is unconscious of need. He is self-subsisting within Himself. The Psalmist gives us a vivid description of this aspect of the divine nature in the words: 'If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: For the world is mine, and the fullness thereof," Psalm 50:12.The teaching that God has a need, is a necessary key premise that is used to justify the rest of the Giving and Receiving doctrine, yet, that key premise is a creation by the proponents of the doctrine, presented without Scriptural foundation, because there is none. The premise is presented within the appearance of a Biblical framework, but if a person does not bother to check, they will not realize that it is not a Biblical truth. If God does not have needs, then the teaching fails in its primary foundation and the doctrine of Giving and Receiving is proven to be false. Hoping to convince the reader that the Scripture proves his point, Paul Crouch ignores the very Scriptures that crush his self-created theology from the very beginning: "Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." ". . . Who then is he that can stand before Me? Who has given to Me that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine."The second error in Paul Crouch's theology is the secondary premise, that satisfaction for the supposed needs of God is provided by human beings, "He needed sons and daughters." God is the Creator who created every living being whether they be sons or daughters. God has no need of that which He has created. If God had needed sons and daughters, He could have created them, just as John the Baptist said, "...and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8. Paul Crouch would have a person believe that the sin of Adam and Eve caused God to be the loser. However, that is a great error, because it was Adam and the future human race that were the losers. God did not have the need, it was Adam and Eve who had a need for salvation, which they could not provide for themselves. They needed what only God could provide, and God needed absolutely nothing from them. In the theology of Paul Crouch and the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, it is God who has a need and it is man who provides the satisfaction. In Biblical theology, it is man who has the need and God who provides the satisfaction. As will be seen as Paul Crouch further develops his theology, everything is backward in the doctrine of Giving and Receiving. Paul Crouch, ever so subtly, introduces the teaching of Kenneth Copeland, who says, "God is the biggest failure in the Bible, The reason you've never thought that is because He never said He was one." God's absolute holiness is lowered to the level of humanity and man is exalted to the level of God, which suits very well the appeal of the Word of Faith teachers who embrace the Giving and Receiving doctrine for some very selfish reasons. PAUL CROUCH "I hope my dear brother reads this, and I wish I had time here to tell of how Solomon brought God the biggest offering ever in the face of his biggest need. Have the heretic hunters never read the next verse as God appeared to Solomon that very night and said: 'Ask me for anything and I will give it to you!' II Chron 1:7 TLB" ON DOCTRINE COMMENT Paul Crouch has stated that the incident regarding Solomon's offering to God indicates that he made the offering in the face of a need and expected God to meet that need as a result of the offering given. So, what does the Scripture say about the incident? "Now Solomon the son of David established himself securely over his kingdom, and the Lord his god was with him and exalted him greatly.Paul Crouch would indicate that this incident is an example of the doctrine of Giving and Receiving in action. Supposedly, Solomon gave an offering so that he could receive something in return from God. However, the Scripture does not state that to be the case, and nowhere is it indicated that the offering given had any connection with the action of God. Solomon made no request of God in relation to the offering that was given. It was God who came to Solomon and initiated the request, "Ask what I shall give you." If Solomon had already asked God for something specific, why does God command Solomon to state the request again? There is no indication that Solomon had ever made his requests known to God prior to the question by God. However, the major difficulty regarding the offering given, is the nature of the offering. There were a thousand BURNT offerings given, and that is the key. They were not offerings of money or goods presented as gifts by Solomon to the priests in order to finance their "ministry" so that he could get a 100-fold return on his money, but they were offerings of burnt animals. They were offerings commanded by God, which Solomon presented in obedience as his duty and not for means of personal monetary gain. If Paul Crouch wishes to claim that the offering of Solomon is the same as the offering given in the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, then he must teach that the offering given must be burned and consumed by fire for it to be accepted by God. This is not acceptable to Paul Crouch, because he wants to receive and use the money given in the offering, not see it burned into smoke as a real offering to God. At the point Solomon made his offering, he never asked God for anything. He never mentioned that he had a "need" or that he wished for God to grant him any request. It was God who brought up the subject of a request and asked Solomon to speak what would be his wish. Solomon DID NOT ASK for wealth, health or prosperity, but he asked for wisdom and knowledge, unlike Paul Crouch and his authorities who voice their requests based on the giving of money, creating hope in the giver that they will receive vast sums of money in return. In the theology of Paul Crouch, Giving and Receiving is about giving and receiving money, not giving burnt offerings in order to receive wisdom and knowledge. God praised Solomon for his request because he DID NOT ASK for "...riches, wealth or honor, or the life of those who hate you, nor have you even asked for long life..." How different was Solomon's request and God's compliment to him, in relation to the claims made during the TBN Praise-a-Thons, where it is promised that giving to TBN is the same as giving to God and He will give a 100-fold return on the MONEY that is given. How many thousands of times have the TBN teachers and preachers stated that a person should give their money to TBN so that God will cancel their debts, increase their wealth and make it possible for them to finally be happy because they are rich like God wants them to be? How many times have the TBN teachers and preachers stated that God gives a 100-fold return on credit, claiming that if a person does not have enough money to honor a certain pledge amount, they can send in a lesser amount as a down payment and God will treat it the same as the full amount? The real deep seated issue in God's praise to Solomon for not calling for the death of his enemies, is His condemnation of Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn who do call for the death of those who oppose them or call their doctrines into account. "God, we proclaim death to anything or anyone that will lift a hand against this network and this ministry that belongs to You, God. It is Your work, it is Your idea, it is Your property, it is Your airwaves, it is Your world, and we proclaim death to anything that would stand in the way of God's great voice of proclamation to the whole world. In the Name of Jesus, and all the people said Amen!"If Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn had tried to use the incident with Solomon as a means of getting what they wanted, God would have condemned them for the desire to kill those who they claim are their enemies. God granted Solomon's wishes based on the sovereign grace inherent in His character. God gave Solomon riches and honor as a result of the character of the unselfish request that Solomon made to God. Nowhere in the verses does God commend Solomon for his offering, nor does He indicate that his request is being granted as a result of that offering. The doctrine of Giving and Receiving is not taught in the Scripture regarding the offering of Solomon. In fact, the doctrine of Giving and Receiving as taught by Paul Crouch and the teachers and preachers on TBN is severely and specifically condemned by the direct words of God in this incident, because they ask for ALL of those things for which Solomon did not ask. Paul Crouch should have stayed far away from the incident regarding Solomon's offering in the attempt to use it as the model for his particular doctrine of Giving and Receiving. PAUL CROUCH "Have they never read of Abraham who, after giving to Melchizedek, in the next verse asks God, 'Now what will you give me?' God answered him and gave him that son, a few million acres of real estate, and great wealth of animals, silver and gold (Gen. 13-15)!" ON DOCTRINE COMMENT Paul Crouch distorts the record in Genesis and states as fact that which is not. Abram gave a tenth of what he owned to Melchizedek, but it was not in the next verse that he asks God, 'Now what will you give me?" Abram gave his offering to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:20, but he did not ask God about the gift until Genesis 15:2, which is six verses later. Paul Crouch misstates the sequence and, as a consequence, makes it appear that the offering Abram gave was connected with a request for a gift from God. Paul Crouch wrongly represents the case, because ABRAM DID NOT MAKE ANY REQUEST TO GOD REGARDING ANY WANT OR NEED! The six verses between the offering given in Genesis 14:20 and the question to God in Genesis 15:2 are very important, because they reveal that Abram made no request to God at the point of the offering to Melchizedek, regarding wealth, health, prosperity, long life or any other personal desire or want. Paul Crouch left out the major detail, that after the offering was made, the king of Sodom told Abram to take all of the possessions of the people of the city for himself, but Abram refused the offer. What greater confirmation of a request for riches could Abram have received, when standing by the altar during his offering, the king of Sodom offers him all the riches of the inhabitants of that city? If Abram had been giving his offering expecting a return of wealth, especially the wealth of the world, he would have taken the offer of the king of Sodom. Abram did not make that request, and the offer to give him riches was refused because that was not the reason for which he gave the offering. Abram was already a very rich man and had no need of additional wealth. Paul Crouch presents his case as if Abram made a request to God regarding some need or desire, which is not the case. Just as in the instance with Solomon, it was God who brought up the subject of a gift. "After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, 'Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great.'Abram did not ask FOR a reward, he asked WHAT the reward would be which God had stated he would receive. If Abram had aleady stated his request to God, why was he asking God what the reward would be that he had already requested? Had Abram so quickly forgotten the nature of his request? The same picture is presented in regards to Abram as was presented in regards to Solomon. Nowhere in the verses does God commend Abram for his offering, nor does He indicate that He is giving to Abram as a result of that offering. God gave to Abram as a result of the sovereign grace inherent in His character. Genesis 12 reveals that God gave rewards to Abram prior to any offering being given, even while he was still in his pagan country. "Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.'" Genesis 12:1-3 (NAS)Again, Genesis 12 reveals that God gave a reward to Abram before he made any offerings to God. Paul Crouch indicates that God gave Abram "...a few million acres of real estate..." as a result of the offering given to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:20. However, that was a confirmation of what God had already promised Abram in Genesis 12:7, prior to any offering being given. Abram made the offering in Genesis 12:7 AFTER the promise by God and not before. "The Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'To your descendants I will give this land.' So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him." Genesis 12:7 (NAS)Prior to any offerings being given by Abram, God had promised that he would have land and descendants. Since Abram was seventy-five years old when he left his homeland in Haran and had no children, inherent in the promise of God in Genesis 12:2, "'...and I will make you a great nation..,'" is the promise of children and especially a son. Paul Crouch also presumes that Abram's wealth was a result of the offering given to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:20, however, that is certainly not the case. Abram was a wealthy and powerful man prior to that offering being given, which is why he was able to raise an army, pursue the invading kings and recapture the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah who had been taken hostage. In Genesis 13:2, the statement is made, "Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold." This was directly after the incident with Pharaoh in which Abram lied to Pharaoh about his wife Sarai being his sister and prior to the offering given to Melchizedek. Nowhere in the Scripture is Abram's wealth stated to be connected with any offering that he gave. Genesis 13:14-18 also reveals that Abram presented his offering on an altar after God had promised that he would have descendants and would possess the land on which he stood. The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, 'Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered. Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you' Then Abram moved his tent and came and dwelt by the oaks of mamre, which are in Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord." Genesis 13:14-17The writer of Hebrews states the case as to why Abram received from God, and the reason has nothing to do with offerings or Giving and Receiving. It was his obedience coupled with his faith. "By FAITH Abraham, when he was called, OBEYED by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.PAUL CROUCH "How about King David who cried to God to heal his nation of an awful plague? He offered the Lord burnt offerings and peace offerings and the Word records, "THE LORD ANSWERED HIS PRAYER AND THE PLAGUE WAS STOPPED" (II Sam. 24:25 TLB). ON DOCTRINE COMMENT What was the reason for the offering that David presented and what was the nature of the offering? Just as in the case of Solomon, the offering was commanded by God and it consisted of many animals that were burned on the altar. In the case of David, it was a SIN offering that was necessary to cover the sin of king David, which he committed by numbering the people, because of his arrogance and pride. The pestilence that came on the land was caused by the judgment of God against king David himself, which was the outcome of one of three choices given to him by God, and was a result of his desire not to accept direct punishment on himself for his actions, 2 Samuel 24:10-15. Instead of accepting punishment on himself, he allowed the death of 70,000 persons. The offering was not a gift of money to the priests for use in their "ministry" and it was not because David wished to get something in return. The offering was made so that king David's sin could be covered in order that the prayer that he made to God would be heard. "David built the altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. Thus the Lord was moved by PRAYER for the land, and the plague was held back from Israel. 2 Samuel 24:25 (NAS)The reality is, the offerings made by David and by Solomon also, cannot be made today, because they are burnt offerings. There is no connection between the offerings of David and Solomon in relation to the offerings that are claimed to be a part of the Giving and Receiving doctrine. If Paul Crouch wishes to claim that burnt offerings can be made today, then he might be able to claim that the offerings of David and Solomon have some connection with those offerings made today, however, since Jesus Christ has taken the place of those burnt offerings and is the offering for sin made to God, and that offering was made once and for all, "...so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." Hebrews 9:28 (NAS) The offerings made in the doctrine of Giving and Receiving are voluntary donations of money, made with the specific purpose and goal of financing some "ministry" and obtaining a return for the giver and are accomplished exclusively through a transaction which has monetary value. No burnt offerings are given and no repentance for sin is part of the exchange. If the offering given by David is said to be the same type as that in the Giving and Receiving doctrine, then why are the elements inherent in that offering not claimed to be the same in the offerings said to be part of the Giving and Receiving doctrine? "Then David built an altar to the Lord there and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. and he called to the Lord and He answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.David's offering was destroyed by fire from heaven which indicated that it was accepted by God. "'Everything, O king, Araunah gives to the king.' And Araunah said to the king, 'May the Lord your God accept you.'" 2 Samuel 24:23 (NAS)Paul Crouch claims that the offerings in the Giving and Receiving doctrine are the same as that given by David, then why is the money being given to TBN not destroyed by fire from heaven when it is given, which is exactly what happened to David's offering? Of course, Paul Crouch cannot actually teach about the true elements and conclusion of the offering given by David, because he wants to use the money given to his ministry, not see it destroyed as a confirmation that the donor has been accepted by God. That action would not be acceptable to Paul Crouch at all, since he would never receive any money in order to power his empire. Paul Crouch must teach that the two offerings are of the same type, but he must ignore the actual final state of the offering by David, hoping that no one will actually read the Scriptures that deal with the incident. PAUL CROUCH "Dear Father, I could give you story after story from Jeptha, King Hezekiah, Samuel, even Jesus Himself who said, "If you give, you will get" (Luke 6:38 TLB)! ON DOCTRINE COMMENT This article cannot deal with Jeptha, King Hezekiah and Samuel, because Paul Crouch does not state what those specific incidents were or how they apply to his theology. However, the passage regarding Jesus Christ in Luke 6:38 can be discussed. In the On Doctrine discussion of Paul Crouch's comments in a previous Praise the Lord Newsletter, Volume 29, Number 10, Paul Crouch also attempts to equate the words of Jesus Christ in Luke 6:38 with the concept of giving money to a ministry; in this case to TBN. The quotation comes out of the teaching of Jesus Christ on the beattitudes. So what does the Scripture say? "Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."Once again, like the other "proof texts" used by the "prosperity teachers," at first it sounds so good and seems to confirm what is being said. But closer examination reveals the claims to be false, based on a wrong application of the verse and an assumption that there are elements inherent in the verse which are not present. The first point that Paul Crouch would have his readers assume is that the verse is about giving money. Not only giving money, but giving money to a specific ministry, such as TBN. However, the verse never mentions giving of money or giving to ministries or even the subject of a ministry. The only time money is mentioned in the section on the beatitudes is in verses 34 and 35, where it is mentioned in reference to lending money to others. If Paul Crouch wanted to make a point about receiving back more than was given, he should have used these verses instead. But they do not support his premise, because money given in the context of the verses would be a loan to a ministry which would have to be repaid along with interest. This is a concept that does not suit Paul Crouch at all, because he wants money that is a gift to TBN which never has to be repaid, and he wants God to dispense the reward. He wishes to have it both ways; money given to his organization for free, and someone else, namely God, to reward the giver so that TBN doesn't have to give money back in return. If the giver does not receive a return on the money given, Paul Crouch can then tell the person to take the issue to God, since He is supposed to be the one giving the return and not Paul Crouch. The entire section on the beatitudes is not about giving money to the ministry of Jesus Christ or any other ministry. It is about attitude, relationships and the giving of self to others, both to the Christian and the non-Christian alike. Verse 38 is not about giving money, but about giving of self to others in which there will be a reward for service. The verse implies that the reward is not of money, but the reward of new relationships, friendships and the realization of the accomplishments of God in the lives of other people. PAUL CROUCH "And one final thought here: The only one who went away from Jesus in sorrow was the "rich young ruler" who refused to give what Jesus had asked (Mark 10:22). Paul Crouch goes so far over the edge in his claims about the rich young ruler, that his theology regarding the nature and obtaining of salvation comes into question. Again, Paul Crouch confuses issues that are not related to each other in any manner. Paul Crouch very subtly hints that a person who refuses to give (ostensibly to TBN) will be rejected by God and will not obtain salvation, just like the rich young ruler. This is an allusion with a horrific assertion, which has no basis in fact. The command of Jesus Christ to the rich young ruler has nothing to do with the elements of giving in the doctrine of Giving and Receiving. Is one to assume that a person can buy salvation and happiness by giving a sum of money to the poor or to TBN, or that they cannot obtain salvation if they do not give money to the poor or to TBN? That is essentially the claim of Paul Crouch. In effect, Paul Crouch is stating that Jesus placed strings on the manner of salvation, as applied to the rich young ruler, that did not apply to any other person. In his case, salvation could not be obtained through faith, but by charitable donations. Paul Crouch knows very well why Jesus Christ asked the rich young ruler to give away all of his wealth, and why he refused to do so. The incident has nothing to do with offerings or the concept of Giving and Receiving, because if it does, then Jesus Christ was selling salvation through indulgences which is the old Catholic system of obtaining money. The command by Jesus Christ was not stated so that the man, by his giving, would receive salvation in return, but it was given so that his idolatry would be revealed. The god of the rich young ruler was money and his unwillingness to part with it and follow Jesus Christ, revealed how deeply he held to and loved that false god. His response to Jesus regarding the commandments, showed that what he claimed was his perfect performance in relation to those commandments was a sham and a lie. Paul Crouch used Mark 10 as his reference, however, the key issue regarding the rich young ruler is not stated there, but is found in Matthew 19. "Then he said to Him, 'Which ones?' And Jesus said, 'You shall not commit murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;The rich young ruler thought he had fooled Jesus Christ into believing that he had actually kept the 10 Commandments, but the command to give away his wealth revealed that he had violated the command of God in Leviticus 19:18, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF; I am the Lord." The rich young ruler was willing to spend his money on himself, because he loved himself, but he did not love his neighbor as himself as well. His unwillingness to love his neighbor in the same manner as himself was revealed by his unwillingness to give that money to his neighbors, who were the poor, and by that unwillingness was revealed the fact that he had failed in every point of the 10 Commandments (James 2:10-11). The fault was not in his wealth, but the fact that he loved himself and his wealth to the exclusion of love for his neighbors and, by definition, exclusion of love for the real God, which was his damnation. He had failed to obtain righteousness through his performance and Jesus Christ revealed that to him, giving ample opportunity for the man to ask for forgiveness and mercy, which he did not do. The rich young ruler was sad, because he found that he could not obtain eternal life in the spiritual condition in which he found himself and in which he wished to remain. The doctrine of Giving and Receiving is not the subject of the rich young ruler and it is not being taught or advocated by Jesus Christ in any way through His teaching regarding the incident. The attempt to turn the incident of the rich young ruler into a teaching about the doctrine of Giving and Receiving is a corruption of the Scriptural record and a perversion of the teaching of Jesus Christ. PAUL CROUCH "So why do the heretic hunters and other critics trash the 'seed faith' message? I'll tell you why — and here is the bottom-line for this whole letter. They are either ignorant of the Word, or bound by their traditions, OR — and this is frightening — some are, I believe, of their father the devil! "Strong words, Paul" — yes, but here is Satan's most cherished strategy. He knows that if he can keep this great truth on giving and receiving, sowing and reaping, seed faith, and taking the wealth of the world — HE HAS WON!" ON DOCTRINE COMMENT In direct contradiction to what Paul Crouch claims, the "heretic hunters" oppose the "Seed Faith" message and the doctrine of Giving and Receiving because they value correct doctrine, proper interpretation and the purity of the message given by God more than a desire for the wealth, health and happiness of this world. They are neither completely ignorant of God's Word nor are they part of the "straw man" argument that they are bound by their traditions. The bottom line in Paul Crouch's letter is that it attempts to support the doctrine of Giving and Receiving without a true biblical theology. What he has adopted is a theology which was built outside of the Scriptures as a means to obtain the operating money for various "ministries" and then the search was begun to find the verses that could be molded into giving the illusion that the Bible supported that particular theology. The Scriptures Paul Crouch give in order to support his doctrine, absolutely fail as a foundation because none of those Scriptures are examples of Giving and Receiving and none of them were placed in the Bible for the purpose of teaching that doctrine. The doctrine of Giving and Receiving was created for one purpose only; to provide financial income for teachers, preachers and the owners of television and radio broadcasting networks by means of obtaining those funds from donors. The doctrine is designed to appeal to the base instincts of people which are the desire for wealth, health, happiness and the personal gratification of wants and professed needs. The doctrine is the perfect medium for obtaining money from donors, because those who believe the doctrine are more than willing to give any specific amount of money when they believe they will receive not only more than they gave in return, but a 100-fold or greater return on that gift. If it is claimed that the return is guaranteed by God, what greater assurance is needed? However, donors will never receive a return on the funds that are given, because God does not operate in that manner. PAUL CROUCH "But when the body of Christ takes hold of these principles and laws of God that can TRANSFER THE WEALTH OF THIS WORLD into the hands of those who will USE IT to win the lost and do great damage to his kingdom — LOOK OUT! "KATIE, BAR THE DOOR!" He is aroused and will come at us with everything he has! He will inspire the heretic hunters to use THEIR TRADITIONS to keep us poor, sick, discouraged, and deceived! So dear CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS — the mask is OFF. We see clearly the subtle deceptive tactics of the evil one! Let's keep taking the wealth of the world — let's keep building TV stations, new networks, more satellites, the Internet, and more! ON DOCTRINE COMMENT How does this "taking the wealth of the world" work? Are there hundreds of thousands of Christians giving money to TBN, who are receiving millions of dollars back from unknown sources, so that they are all able to pay their debts and live the lives of kings? Are banks calling Christians on a daily basis saying that their loans have been paid in full by an unknown donor? Are non-Christian neighbors and relatives showering Christians with money, checks, stocks and bonds without reason? Are credit card institutions calling Christians on a daily basis saying that the massive debt on their cards has been cancelled by some unknown process? Where are all of these hundreds of thousands of Christians, who once lived in poverty and debt, who are now driving their new Mercedes' and BMW's which were given to them without cost by dealerships. Where are the tax returns indicating that the income of these multitudes of Christians has increased by an astonishing amount? Why hasn't the Internal Revenue Service instituted special audits to find out how thousands of Christians have suddenly become rich beyond belief and are able to purchase houses, cars and vacations that previously could only have been a dream. If this is the case, then how come the world has not found out about this monumental miracle and tried to make it work for them? An even better question is, if this is actually happening, how is it that the "heretic hunters" haven't seen this and abandoned their attack in order to also get in on the miracle wealth building program? As is always seen in teaching the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, the actual BOTTOM LINE goal of the message is always found at the end. The money is given to Paul Crouch and TBN so that he can "...keep building TV stations, new networks, more satellites, the Internet, and more!" PAUL CROUCH "How about one last nail in the coffin of the here[ti]c hunters— "IT IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE AWAY AND BECOME RICHER! IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE TO HOLD ON TOO TIGHTLY AND LOSE EVERYTHING. YES, THE LIBERAL MAN SHALL BE RICH! BY WATERING OTHERS HE WATERS HIMSELF." Prov. 11:24-25 TLB ON DOCTRINE COMMENT Paul Crouch has set up another "straw man" argument in which he claims that the "heretic hunters" all claim that there are no rewards in this life but they are all reserved for the "sweet by and by." He creates the "straw man" argument so that he can argue against that claim rather than what they actually say. There are some who would relegate rewards to be given in heaven, but those who are true biblical students would not claim that there are no rewards to be obtained in this life, but seriously deny that the rewards to be obtained are those claimed by Paul Crouch and those who teach the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, and there is the disagreement. Paul Crouch uses The Living Bible paraphrase because it put a more positive spin on the interpretation that he adopts, but it is not necessarily the most accurate. "There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more,The difficulty for Paul Crouch in these verses, is that the doctrine of Giving and Receiving as taught by Paul Crouch and his associates, is not found there. There is no "ministry" to which giving must be directed so that God can give a return on the gift. There are individuals to which the person "scatters" and "waters" but there is no organization, like TBN, to which he gives to accomplish the task. There is no indication of just what that "watering" and "scattering" is and there is no definition given as to what constitutes the prosperity of the man. Is it money that he gives away, or is it part of himself? Is the man a teacher, a preacher, a missionary or just a friend of many to which he gives much of his time and energy? Lest Paul Crouch would think that this "heretic hunter" would ever fit into his "straw man" argument, or one who is totally "ignorant of the Word," or one who is "bound by their traditions," or one who is "of their father the devil!" here is some help in his quest to find some support for his claims. Apparently in his haste to find his "proof texts," Paul Crouch didn't actually read the book of Proverbs and missed the best support for his doctrine in the entire Bible. So, here it is. "Honor the Lord from your wealthBefore someone thinks they have been given the definitive confirmation of the doctrine of Giving and Receiving, some serious issues must be addressed. If the doctrine of Giving and Receiving is true, then the following must also be true:
If the doctrine of Giving and Receiving is true, then it was missed by Jesus Christ, missed by the apostles, missed by the early church, missed by the reformers such as Martin Luther, Zacharias Ursinus and Theodore Beza, missed by many great theologians of the past such as Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Boston, John Owen, Augustus Toplady, Francis Turretin, Thomas Watson, George Whitefield, B.B Warfield, R.A. Torrey and Charles Spurgeon. But remarkably, it was finally discovered nineteen hundred years after the death of Christ, and resurrected as the "Seed Faith" doctrine by Oral Roberts, just in time to be used for gathering money by the Christian preachers, teachers and owners on TV networks when they needed it the most. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT A PERSON MAY TEACH, SAY OR WRITE, IT IS WHAT THEY DO THAT REVEALS THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE. A 100-fold return on the $5,000,000.00 estate that Paul Crouch recently purchased would go a long way toward giving more money to Paul Crouch than he could spend in a lifetime. (100-fold return on 5 million dollars is --- 500 million dollars!) If the doctrine of Giving and Receiving is true, am I to assume that Paul Crouch had enough money that he did not need to forego his 5 million dollar estate in order to receive a 500 million dollar payment from God? Why don't all of the Giving and Receiving ministers and teachers give their personal wealth to each one of them who has a "ministry" so they can all receive the 100-fold return on their gifts to each other. They would never have to spend valuable time on their programs asking for donations from listeners. Once they have received that 100-fold return, it could be given again for another 100-fold return and then given again and again. What is the mathematics of this doctrine? If a person gave $1,000.00 to a "ministry" and received a 100-fold return, and reinvested their entire principle and return only 4 more times, they would obtain $10,000,000,000,000.00 (10 trillion dollars). If only one person did this, the amount of money is staggering. But Giving and Receiving teachers claim that every Christian can do this, and hundreds of thousands of people give their money to TBN in order to obtain their reward. If these thousands of people are receiving so much money, there is not enough money in the entire world to supply the continuing 100-fold return that is claimed to be given. The claims are simply a great "pyramid scheme" in which investors are promised returns on their investments which eventually become greater than the entire wealth of the world can supply. The road to easy riches is not the way of God, and those who travel that road will find their riches diminished and not increased. by Gary A. Hand On Doctrine RESOURCES The Principle Of Single Meaning The Master's Seminary Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 33-47, Robert L. Thomas A Question About Tithing John F. MacArthur |
| . |
|
 COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |