Let us suppose that JDS teaching is truly erroneous. Though I believe that I and some others have presented the best case possible for its Scriptural and historical foundation, I am still not quick to say that I (and others) have settled this question to everyone's satisfaction. However, even if one could refute my whole case for it (and its possible), does this mean that JDS advocates are heretics and are bound for hell?

Motivation: God's Determining Factor For Judging

Many critics are ready to condemn those whom they believe are in error without looking to understand the reasons behind their doctrine. They automatically assume that the person teaching the so-called error is doing it for personal gain (for money, a following, etc.). They make these assumptions based on absolutely no information at all. Their disagreement with these teachers has brewed such hatred that they will assume a wrong motivation for teaching the so called error.

While I do not believe that God Himself is happy with any teaching of error in His name, I am quite convinced that God is more concerned with the motivation of the heart more than He is with the error itself. The critics seem to to believe that their supposedly correct doctrine or their perspective of God's redemptive work is what gives them favor with God and earns them a place in Heaven. They also tend to believe that those whose understanding of these things are different from their own are not in favor with God. They tend to believe that they are God's agents of judgment against these erroneous teachers.

For example, the Pharisees in Jesus day had all of the right doctrine and when they saw Jesus the man forgiving sins (because only God could do that) they accused Him of blasphemy (Matt. 9:1-3). Jesus said that this was the result of evil thinking in their hearts (Matt. 9:4). They were not concerned about Jesus' motivation or the fact that this lead to the healing of a paralyzed man (Matt. 9:6-8), but it was simply that Jesus did not adhere to their particular theology.

We see the same thing with the healing of the blind man in John 9. They did not care about the fact this man was delivered from years of not being able to see. All they care about is that Jesus did not follow their ways of doing things. We find this same attitude of Jesus healing the woman in Luke 13. They were not concerned with this woman's years of oppression but the fact that Jesus violated their doctrinal perspective by healing on the Sabbath day.

Jesus acknowledged that the Pharisees had the right doctrines but that their hearts and motivations were terribly wrong and keeping them from the Kingdom of God (Matt. 23:23-33). On the other hand, Jesus justifies those who may be wrong outwardly but are humble inwardly (Luke 18:9-14).

1 Corinthians 13 tells us that everything we do is to be motivated by love. This chapter condemns doing all of the right things without the love of God motivating it. We can go as far as giving all of our goods to the poor and even giving our bodies to be burned but will receive no profit if it is done for any other motivation than love (v. 4). Even in our financial giving, motivations are the thing that God is most concerned with (2 Cor. 9:6-8).

There is no doubt in my mind that an application can be made for the differences in doctrinal perspectives as well. Many critics of JDS worship so-called correct doctrine more than they do God themselves. Like the Pharisee in Luke 18, they look at those with whom they disagree with disdain. Yet, they believe themselves to be justified before God because they hold to "orthodox theology."

Matters of the Heart

The Bible teaches us that God uses His Word to judge the thoughts and intents of our hearts:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Heb. 4:12-13)

God is more concerned about the intent or the motivation of the person than He is about what they are doing or teaching. God looks at the heart while man looks at the fact that those they oppose are violating some common understanding of the Bible. God told the prophet Samuel, "... the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." (1 Sam. 16:7).

What is the heart intent or motivation of the Faith teachers in teaching what is now popularly classified as JDS? I am not God and so I cannot know what is really in their hearts but I do know from having read their writings that the motivation does not appear to be a desire to have a unique revelation or a large following or many of the other things these teachers are accused of having.

E. W. Kenyon is the one who is accused of having made the JDS teaching popular in our day. His book, "What Happened from the Cross to the Throne" shares his motivation as giving his readers a clearer understanding of what they have in Christ and as a defense against modernistic and rationalistic teaching in the church that destroyed the faith of God's people.[2] Professor Dale H. Simmons gives us an interesting observation concerning what he perceived to be Kenyon's motivation for teaching this doctrine:

The center of Kenyon's teaching, at this time and throughout his ministry, was a variety of messages expounding the theme of the "Finished Work of Christ." According to Kenyon, the unconverted soul is spiritually dead, which he further interpreted as being spiritually dead, which he further interpreted as being spiritually dead to God but spiritually alive to Satan, so that the sinner is literally a child of the devil. Consequently, "Fallen man is not judged by God for what he DOES, but because of what he is." Because sinners are completely unable to remedy their plight, Christ comes to assume responsibility for humanity's redemption. Curiously, to achieve this, Kenyon maintains that it was necessary for Jesus to become exactly as we are by Himself dying spiritually. This event is said to have occurred on the cross at the moment in which Jesus exclaimed, "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" Having died spiritually, Jesus took on a satanic nature and therefore He descended into hell, where He suffered all the horrors of that dread place for three days. To Kenyon these days of torment were absoluteley essential, because in his mind Christ had to endure the same penalty that we would or else He would not truly "pay the penalty" owed to justice. This radical theory of substitionary atonement of Christ is what Kenyon refers to as the legal side of redemption. The flip side of the finished work of Christ, designated by Kenyon as the vital side of redemption, is that the Christian enjoys all of the privileges, power, and responsibilities that Jesus enjoys. In other words, :He became as we were, so that we might become as He is." For years, Kenyon's messages in this were aimed primarily at the unconverted. It was as if Kenyon were saying, "See how far Christ went for you. He even went to hell for you. So why don't you come to Him?" Later on, as we shall see, these messages proved to be even more appealing as a means of empowerment for the already converted.[3] (Italics are mine)

Simmons, who is neither a fan of Kenyon nor of the modern Faith Teachers did see a more godly motivation in Kenyon's thoughts than Kenyon's more harsher critics. Simmons observes that Kenyon wanted the unsaved to so appreciate all that Christ went through in order to redeem them and He wanted to empower believers. Both of these are Biblical motivations and I believe that God can work better with a man whose motivations are in line with His Word than those whose doctrine seems to be right but motivations are far from godly.

If a person's heart is right but their doctrine is wrong God will eventually send the right person to correct the person as they prove to have humble hearts for God. This is proven in the case of Apollos, whose heart was right (but possibly was teaching some error) is said to have received better instruction: "Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." (Acts 18:26) and even some disciples of John the Baptist who later received better instruction from Paul (Acts 19:1-6).

Damnable Heresies

Now the Bible does teach that there is something called damnable heresies. These are teachings that will damn a person (2 Pet. 2:1). I have no doubt that denying the deity of Christ, the efficiency of His blood to save and redeem, and many other things that are taught among the cults can certainly have an impact upon one's salvation, no matter how sincere a person is in their hearts. Many leaders of many cults started off in all sincerity in teaching the unbiblical lies that they propagate among their followers.

However, can one consider JDS to be a damnable heresy? Not according to the Scriptural criteria I have found for the receiving of salvation. The Faith Teachers acknowledge the deity of Christ and the efficiency of His blood. The Bible has never made correct knowledge of what happened between the cross and the thrown the criteria for salvation. The criteria for salvation is outlined in the Scriptures as simply acknowledging that Jesus came from heaven to die for our sins, that He is Lord and that He was raised from the dead:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9-10)

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. (Acts 3:26)

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12)

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:15-18)

We can show the reader many more Scriptures to this effect. One thing that we can surely find in any Scripture that gives the requirements for salvation does not include a perfect knowledge of what happened during the three days and three nights that Jesus' body was in the tomb.

It's a terrible shame that Word-of-Faith critics have made this a bigger issue than is necessary. Nonetheless, it is the way of the Pharisee to deny salvation to those who violate their traditional understanding of the Bible (Matt. 15:1-7; Mark 7:1-13). Thankfully, we need not depend on the critics and their understanding of the Bible for our salvation.

False Accusations Doth Not A Heresy Make

I can affirm that due to the above passages of Scripture and many others that I have not quoted here that indeed it is NOT heretical to believe in JDS. However, this does not so easily settle the issue. The critic of Word-Faith who digs until he cam find a nugget of heresy to condemn his opponent is not so easily swayed by the facts presented here.

In order for these critics of JDS to condone their hateful attitudes toward JDS advocates and to justify their condemnation of them, they have invented a number of false charges concerning this teaching. They claim that either the JDS advocates teach these very things or that the propagation of JDS leads to these conclusions claimed by the opponents.

Rather than seeing this as simply a difference in understanding concerning what the JDS Advocates teach on this matter, their opponents have trumped up several charges against this teaching and its teachers. Many of these charges are misunderstandings concerning this teaching and most of them are false charges designed to destroy the credibility of the teachers.

In this Appendix I want to answer the most frequent objections against JDS. Though I have attempted to cover many of these very same objections throughout this whole series of essays, I will attempt to deal with them systematically here.

1. Faith Teachers attribute their JDS teachings to "revelation knowledge" in order to persuade their followers.

This is an attempt to accuse the Faith Teachers who advocate JDS of having ulterior motives. The assumption is made that that the Faith Teachers are simply claiming to have received their understanding of this issue directly from God and not through a thorough study of the Scriptures themselves. The implication is that the Faith Teachers are preaching extrabiblical revelation. If this can be proven then their opponents can feel justified in labeling the Faith Teachers as heretical and cultic.

Though many Faith Teachers have claimed revelation knowledge for their teachings, it certainly is not what their opponents want to imply. They believe that as they have studied the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit illuminated certain things to them from the Scriptures.[4] The Faith Teachers believe that their understanding of the JDS issue was derived from a study of the Scriptures with insight from the Spirit of God.

When Word-Faith opponents use the phrase "revelation knowledge" in an accusatory and derogatory manner, it makes me wonder who do they believe is giving them their understanding of the Bible. If their understanding of Scriptures is not derived from the Spirit of God Himself, perhaps we might have to wonder who the true heretics really are in God's eyes. It seems that traditional interpretation rules in some so called apologetic ministries. They do not believe that God gives fresh insight into His Word. This is a subtle form of cessationism.

Whether one agrees with the Faith Teachers or not, one must agree that they attempt to derive their understanding of their teaching from the Scriptures themselves. I have been with this movement for nearly 18 years and one thing I know for certain is that the Word-Faith teachers have a sincere reverence for the Bible and will not preach anything that cannot be backed by it. This may not be true of everyone that claims to be a Word-Faith teacher, but it is true of those that I am familiar with.

2. Faith Teachers Twist the Scriptures in order to teach JDS.

This accusation is certainly one that would be humorous if it were not deceptive. I seriously doubt that one could carefully read the Scriptures used by the Faith teachers and claim that they are twisting them. If anything, the Faith Teachers might be accused of interpreting Scripture too literally.

This is not to say that some Word-Faith teachers are not guilty of doing twisting Scripture at times to prove their point. Many ministers from just about all circles of theological influence have done this. For example, many Calvinists twist Scripture to prove their doctrine Limited Atonement. This false doctrine claims that God has predestined some to be saved and He has predestined other for hell. In order for this to be taught the advocates of this doctrine find it necessary to twist plain Scripture that teach God's willingness to save anyone who places faith in the redemptive work of Christ. Yet, I have heard one particular radio apologist who has made a name for himself by attacking Faith Teachers say that "limited atonement" teaching was within the pale of orthodoxy.

Scripture twisting to prove one's theological viewpoint is wrong for anyone to do regardless of whether they are Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Pentecostal, Third Wave, Word-Faith or anyone else. And I will agree that perhaps some of us in the Faith Movement have been guilty of this sin. However, for the most part I believe that Faith Teachers are more guilty of being literalists more than anything else – and I believe that this can actually be a good thing to be guilty of. While the Faith Teachers take God at His Word literally, many of their opponents find it necessary to refute the Faith Teachers by finding some other meaning in in their prooftexts than what is actually stated. Let me show the reader an example:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)[5]

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21)

This is just a small example of how most Word-Faith teachers have been literal while their opponents have actually had to change the meaning of a text to explain their own position. Now when we see the contrast between the positions held by the adherents and their opponents, who could rightfully be accused of twisting Scripture. If we in the Faith Movement are reading the above.

There are some opponents who do not believe that Jesus went to hell after His spirit left His body in spite of the many passages that allude to this. They take some Scriptures where Jesus says that He is "going to His Father" and from this conclude that He went straight to heaven after He died. This would not explain so many passages that specifically teach that the Lord entered Hades itself. Whether one believes that He suffered there or not is not the issue but the simple fact that the Scriptures plainly teach that He went there is enough to show that opponents of JDS are doing the very thing that they accuse the Faith Teachers of doing. Yet, even those who believe that Jesus did enter Hades (but did not suffer there) are quicker to condemn Faith Teachers who say that He suffered there than they are to rebuke those who say He never went at all. I smell double standard!

3. JDS Advocates deny the blood of Jesus

We have refuted this false accusation in our previous articles (see Part Three for a full understanding of the WoF view of the redeeming blood and Appendix D for what the Faith Teachers have said about the blood of Jesus). This is clearly a malicious lie by WoF advocates to entice the rest of the church to condemn the Faith Movement as cultic and outside the bounds of orthodoxy. If this argument could prove successful then opponents of faith teaching can show that the movement is no better than Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and other Judeo Christian cults that deny the blood of Jesus as the means of our salvation.

Nevertheless, I have found that the Faith Teachers have more reverence for the blood of Jesus and its effectiveness to save, redeem, remit, sanctify, and cleanse more than any other group of Christians that I know. The Faith Teachers believe in the power of the blood.

The problem is not as much with the Faith Teachers on this issue as it is with their opponents. Their opponents obviously have an agenda to malign them, otherwise they would have attempted to understand their view on the subject. Instead, they have taken statements by Faith Teachers out of context and have used them to make a false implication that the Faith Teachers deny the efficacy of the blood of Jesus to redeem us.

While the Word-Faith opponents limit all of the necessary work of redemption to the cross alone, the Faith Teachers believe that the redemptive work of Christ was complete upon His entering into the Holy of Holies upon His Ascension into heaven:

Once for all time he took blood into that Most Holy Place, but not the blood of goats and calves. He took his own blood, and with it secured our salvation forever. (Heb. 9:12; New Living Translation)

It was upon entering into the Most Holy Place that the Lord presented His blood which secured our eternal redemption. In doing this, the Lord was fulfilling the typology of the Old Testament priesthood as taught to us in the book of Leviticus. If one disagrees with the Faith teachers they should perhaps give their understanding of Hebrews 9:12 and the teachings in Leviticus before assigning a heretic, aberrant, or cultic label to these teachers. Furthermore, the burden of proof would fall upon them to show us why these things cannot be interpreted literally.

We can also add that if everything is done at the cross then why is it that we are expected to acknowledge the resurrection of Christ in order to receive salvation (Acts 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10)? One must also ask that if Jesus had never rose from the dead could we really be redeemed? What would be the implications concerning our salvation if Jesus had not ascended? We are told that the Holy Spirit could not be given until Jesus was glorified (John 7:39; 16:7) and indeed the Holy Spirit did not come until Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 1:4-9; 2:1-4). Isn't the Holy Spirit Himself the agent of salvation?

If all that was necessary for the completion of our redemption was done at the cross then in effect, the opponents of Faith Teaching are telling us that the resurrection and the ascension was not necessary and that we could be saved apart from them. What amazes me that in my research I have found that for centuries the majority of the church believed that all of this was necessary for redemption. I have found that those who teach redemption at the cross alone fall into a small minority in the Evangelical church. One may have to ask oneself who is really the ones teaching heresy?

4. JDS Advocates deny the bodily death of the Lord

Or one may better qualify this as the JDS advocates deny that Jesus suffered only a physical death. I am sure that the critics realize that Faith Teachers in no way deny His bodily death though they will imply that we add another aspect to the atonement which is a spiritual death. The faith teachers certainly believe that the cross and the physical suffering was necessary but they feel that the spiritual aspect of Christ’s suffering and death has been neglected. Therefore they put more emphasis on this.

Perhaps we should turn this statement around and say that JDS critics deny the spiritual death of the Lord. The Bible alludes to this and as we have seen above, the JDS critics turn a blind eye to the evidence. These opponents of JDS will cite the many Scriptures that refer to Christ's sacrifice of His body on the cross as if this alone is enough to refute the position of the Faith Teachers and to prove them heretics. If you would listen to these critics you will be lead to believe that the JDS Advocates deny the truth of these passages. Yet that is totally untrue. As stated above, they certainly believe in the necessity of the physical death. They have just felt it necessary to emphasize a truth that is not taught often in the church.

One must ask if sin is a physical thing or a spiritual thing? Is God's punishment for sin only in the physical or in the spiritual as well? These questions are vitally important because the judgment of heresy and orthodoxy hangs on the answer to these questions.

First of all, the Bible, at least the King James Version (which is the most widely read and quoted from version) does not use the phrases physical death and spiritual death. Yet, it does distinguish between the two. Within the context of the Scripture one can discern whether a passage is dealing with one or the other. In Ephesians 2:1 and 5 we read, “And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins … Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”

Now those of us who are familiar with KJV vernacular realize that the word “quicken” means made alive. However, even though the word “dead” means the same thing now that it meant in 1611 when the KJV was translated, people would still have to have to understand the context in which this word is being used. Since our sins separate us from God who is the source of life (Isa. 59:1-2), we must conclude that what is being spoken of here is spiritual death. Some modern versions have been bold enough to state it in just this way:

In the past you were spiritually dead because of your sins and the things you did against God. Though we were spiritually dead because of the things we did against God, he gave us new life with Christ. You have been saved by God's grace. (Eph. 2:1, 5; New Century Version)

In the past you were spiritually dead because of your disobedience and sins.that while we were spiritually dead in our disobedience he brought us to life with Christ. It is by God's grace that you have been saved. (Eph. 2:1, 5; Today’s English Version)

To you, who were spiritually dead all the time that you drifted along on the stream of this world's ideas of living, and obeyed its unseen ruler (who is still operating in those who do not respond to the truth of God), to you Christ has given life! We all lived like that in the past, and followed the impulses and imaginations of our evil nature, being in fact under the wrath of God by nature, like everyone else. (Eph. 2:1-3; J B Phillips New Testament)

It’s obvious from reading even the KJV that the people that Paul is speaking to were not physically dead. Therefore, the only thing that he could be making reference to is spiritual death, or separation from God. Further reading in Ephesians chapter 2 shows that we were without Christ but it was He that broke down the wall of separation between God and us.

Therefore, if being spiritually dead is the result of our trespasses and sins then sin itself is more than just a physical thing. Sin is a spiritual thing that according to verses 2 and 3 of the second chapter of Ephesians is a part of the nature of the those who have not accepted Christ. This is why God found it necessary to replace the old nature with a new one (Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). Thus the reason for a new birth (John 3:3-7; 1 Pet. 1:23) and the need to become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

Furthermore, Ephesians 2:2 shows us that there is a spiritual personality behind sin (also see John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8-9). The Bible also speaks of sin as a personality that could enslave us if we let it (Rom. 6:14-18; Gen. 4:7). Sin is described symbolically as darkness (Ps. 82:5; Isa. 9:2; 50:10; 59:1-10; Micah 7:8-9; Matt. 6:23; John 3:19-20; Rom. 13:12; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:4-5; 1 John 1:5-6). These Scriptural analogies are enough to teach us that sin in itself is spiritual. People sin because they have a sin nature (Eph. 2:1-5; Col. 2:13). Sins wages are death of a spiritual kind (Prov. 10:16; Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; James 1:15). All of this teaches us that sin is more than just an act of transgression against God. It is that and more.

So once again the critics must ask themselves if sin is a physical thing or a spiritual thing? Is God's punishment for sin only in the physical or in the spiritual as well? Seeing that the Bible teaches that the penalty for sin is a spiritual and eternal separation from God, many preachers like the late Calvinist preacher, John Gill believed that, "... he tasted of the death of afflictions, being a man of sorrows all his days, and a corporeal death, and what was equivalent to an eternal one."[6] One popular Evangelical preacher from the last century, G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945) believed that Jesus actually suffered a spiritual death:

The hour was come, and He had accomplished all that was within the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. He had entered into, and passed through, the deep mystery of spiritual death. In that experienced He had cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?" and in that mystic cry revealed all that it is possible for men to know of that experience. All was over, except the physical dissolution which was the sacramental symbol of the spiritual death.[7]

Even some modern day Evangelicals who would not otherwise agree with Word-Faith teaching believe that Jesus actually suffered a spiritual death. You will find the majority of these quotes in Appendix A. However, John MacArthur who has been one of the biggest critics of the Faith Movement (and other Charismatics) is worth quoting on this:

Well, spiritual death is usually defined as separation from God. In that sense, I would say, yes, Christ did die spiritually. We know He died physically; I mean, that’s obvious, because they crucified Him and He yielded up His spirit, right? And they ran a spear into His side and out came the pericardial fluid, mixed with blood, which indicated probably that His heart had burst. And so we know He died physically.

What, beyond that, what He experienced was a separation from God. And, I believe, in that sense, there was a spiritual alienation-there was a spiritual death. Spiritual death is alienation from God, and Jesus articulated that when He said, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?’ I think, in the experience of bearing sin in His own body--literally, Paul says, ‘Being made sin for us’--the separation occurred.”[8]

It should be noted that JDS advocates do not deny the physical sufferings of Christ. They simply believe that the punishment that Jesus bore for us went beyond the "physical only" teaching that is promoted by the critics of JDS. If those JDS advocates who are in the Faith Movement were to deny the physical sufferings of our Lord then they would have to deny our teaching that divine healing is indeed a part of the benefits that Christ purchased for us in redemption:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Pet. 2:24)

We know that the punishment for sin is borne in the body through sickness (James 5:14-15), which the Bible declares to be a form of death (Deut. 30:15, 19). When the spiritual aspect of sin is dealt with, the result is often seen in the body (Mark 2:5-12). Didn't Jesus teach us the parallel between sin and sickness when He said, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17)

Here is the problem that I find with the "Jesus Suffered Physically Only" advocates. Many of them (not all) will deny the physical aspects of Christ's redemptive work such as what has been called "healing in the atonement." Many of them teach that 1 Peter 2:24 is only dealing with "spiritual healing." Yet, this is one of their main prooftexts to use against JDS teaching. They are teaching that Christ redemption was only physical but His benefits are only spiritual. It personally makes no sense to me.

Kenyon's Error

Though I believe that the critics are wrong on many things, they are correct in one area. Kenyon did err in a statement that he made concerning this issue. Kenyon said, "In the crucifixion of Christ, they saw only His physical suffering. They knew nothing of the spiritual suffering of Christ as His spirit was made sin."[9]

As much as I would like to vindicate Kenyon on this issue, I could not find any way to do so in light of the Scriptures. There really is nothing in the Scriptures that teach that His spirit was made sin. While I might be able to accept that He experienced a separation from God due to having borne our sins (in light of Matthew 27:46), I can find nothing in the Scriptures that would teach that our Lord's spirit became sin. The plain truth is that according to 1 Pet. 2:24, He bore our sins in His body.

It is true that Paul tells us that He was made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). Many scholars have been divided over the literal meaning of the phrase made sin. Some have attempted to soften the meaning by saying that Jesus was only a sin-offering, but several scholars dispute such an interpretation.[10] Therefore, while there is still some mystery as to how Jesus became sin, we can find no statement that His "spirit" became sin.

Though this is a possible interpretation (due to the belief by many Word-Faith teachers that man is a spirit, has a soul, and lives in a body – 1 Thess. 5:23), we do not have any direct statement in Scripture that would even imply that Christ's spirit was made sin. I think highly of Kenyon and I have been immensely blessed by his writings, but I am afraid that I could not justly defend him in this area.

Does this make Kenyon a heretic? Not in my sanctified opinion. Again, motives matter. Kenyon taught the Scriptures as he understood them. Even one Word-Faith critic acknowledges Kenyon's deep respect for the Bible.[11] Kenyon attempted to teach that Christ had done all that was necessary for our redemption. Perhaps he went too far and said something that could not be supported by a clear Scriptural passage. Besides, Kenyon was not the first to teach this. One of the most famous scholars among the early brethren and the one that some believe to be the father of dispensationalism, J. N. Darby, taught a similar doctrine:

No divinely taught mind ... will ... fail to distinguish from all else the reality of Christ's own soul as made sin for us, exposed to and enduring God's righteous dealing with sin and being forsaken of Him.[12]

Should we condemn Darby as a heretic along with Kenyon? If we do then we will have to reject all of Darby's other teachings as heretical and we will have to judge all dispensationalists as heretics. Are we willing to do that?

If Kenyon were to be judged as a heretic because of a few statements that were not in line with the Scriptures then I suggest that we judge every other Christian for statements that did not clearly line up with Scripture. In spite of a few things that I do not agree with Kenyon, I would not reject all of his teachings on the basis of a few. I reject Charles Spurgeon's leanings toward Calvinism, yet I certainly enjoy many of his teachings where he has not advocated such a position. The same is even true of some near hyper-calvinists such as A. W. Pink. Though I have cringed at some of his teachings on God's sovereignty, I have benefitted spiritually from many of his other writings.

Why judge a man as a heretic because he may have made some statements we do not agree with. Why reject everything a man taught because his humanity showed some flaws in two or three areas of teaching. Are we not all subject to these types of failings? As far as I am concerned, many who condemn Kenyon on the basis of some errors as though their own doctrine was pure and error free are full of pride and arrogance. They lack genuine love. Their only desire is to prove that they are right and the other wrong. Their goal is condemnation rather than restoration. This is why many of us in the Word-Faith movement find it difficult to receive from them, even if they might be correct on one or two areas. A better attitude would probably win an audience with us. Scare tactics will only drive us away. Thankfully, in those areas where we are finding ourselves wrong, those corrections are being made within the movement and not from outsiders who want to tear us down rather than build us up.[13]

5. JDS Advocates deny the Trinity

This is a silly argument against JDS teaching. This is due to the fact that Faith Teachers (and many others) believe in a literal interpretation of Matthew 27:46. They believe that when the sins of the world came upon the sinless Lamb of God and He became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), the Father of necessity forsook His Son because He cannot look upon sin:

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? (Hab. 1:13)

The Contemporary English Version translates the first part as, "But you can't stand sin or wrong." Due to the fact that God who is Holy cannot stand sin, He must separate it from His presence: "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." (Isa. 59:2)

As Adam and Eve learned, sin separates us from God. Separation from God is what the Bible defines as spiritual death (Eph. 2:1-3). As we point out in Part 1 of this series, Jesus experienced everything that was due to us, including a separation from God Himself when He took on our sin and became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13).

Due to this belief, JDS critics accuse those who advocate JDS of denying the Trinity. They ask, "How can God be separated from God?" or "How can God separate Himself?" I find this an amusing question coming from those who claim to believe that God can do anything due to the fact that He is a sovereign God. Yet, they deny this very teaching when they ask such questions.

Allow me to first answer their question with some questions: Was there ever a separation in the Trinity before Christ experienced death? If we use the same logic that JDS critics use in this argument we would have to say, "Yes." It was not until Jesus was baptized in water that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32-33). The Bible tells us that God had to anoint Jesus with the Holy Ghost and power (Acts 10:38) which implies that Jesus did not have this anointing during part of His earthly existence. If (using the JDS critic logic) Jesus had to have the Spirit descend upon Him like a dove during His baptism and to be anointed that would mean that (again according to JDS critic logic) for a certain amount of time there was a separation in the Trinity.

Nevertheless, one need not bow to the JDS critic's fear tactics. One common definition of the Trinity as used in most Evangelical churches is that God is one God in three person. Three distinct individuals but one God. While the JDS critics like to emphasize the one God aspect of of the Trinity definition we should also remember the fact that they are still three distinct individuals. When we can remember this aspect of the Trinity we will not find it difficult to understand how for a short period of time the Father forsook His Son for a short period of time in order for our Lord to bear every single punishment due to us for our sins.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches it is impossible for the individuals in the Godhead to be separated. While there are some things that the Bible teaches us that God simply cannot do (lie, be tempted, deny Himself, etc.), we are never taught that the Trinity cannot experience separation or isolation from one another. The problems that people have with this aspect of JDS is merely theological and not Biblical. They cannot refute this aspect of JDS with plain Scripture so they sense the need to conjure up theological and intellectual arguments as if this were enough to refute the literal understanding of Jesus' cry in Matthew 27:46.

If you still have trouble with this then ask yourself another question: How can mere human beings kill God physically? If you find the fact that Jesus could die spiritually an impossibility, could not this same impossibility be applied to the physical? The fact is that Jesus said that no man takes His life but He gives it of His own free will. Jesus knew all that this sacrifice on our behalf would entail but for us He was willing to endure it. If this meant being for a short time losing the glory He once shared with the Father, He was willing to do so, knowing that it would be restored to Him again (John 17:5).

6. JDS advocates are ADDING to the Gospel

This has to be the most ridiculous accusation thrown at JDS teaching. The argument states that because some JDS teachers supposedly teach that Jesus, in addition to having died on the cross also had to suffer in hell in order to bring about man's redemption, that they are indeed adding to the gospel. In this sense, those who advocate JDS are preaching another gospel. Since they are preaching a different gospel they should be regarded as heretics and cultic and outside of the body of Christ. Let us take a moment to thank our God that He did not choose these critics as His Board of Representatives who makes decisions as to who will be excluded from Christ's body.

The basis of this argument comes from Paul's strong rebuke to the Galatians in which some came to the Galatians and added an additional requirement to their salvation which was the need to be circumcised. This angered Paul and He warned the Galatians that this was another gospel and an intent to pervert the gospel of Christ. Paul said that anyone who preached a gospel that was different than the one he presented is to be accursed (see Gal. 1:6-9).

The opponents of JDS teaching take these passages and say that because some JDS teachers have taught that Christ suffered in hell as part of the redemptive price, they are adding a requirement to the gospel and should therefore be accursed. This assumes that the critics are preaching the gospel as Paul presented it and the JDS teachers are not. It's a wild assumption considering how they have already managed to twist Paul's words in Galatians to fit their agenda to destroy the Faith Movement. Let us examine their argument.

The perpetrator that Paul was making reference to in Galatians was basically teaching faith in Christ plus works in order to be saved. They taught that the Galatians could not be true children of God until they have received the rite of circumcision. Paul knew that this was placing them back under the law. This would cause them to place their faith in the works of the law rather than in the redemptive work of Christ. Paul knew the danger in this and strongly admonished them for having accepted this teaching.

Are the Faith Teachers who advocate JDS teaching the same thing? By no means at all. First of all, by teaching that Christ died physically, was separated from the Father, suffered the torments of hell, defeated Satan and his demons, and then rose again from the dead, they are saying that Christ Himself has done all that is necessary for one's redemption. They attempt to glorify Christ by basically saying that Christ literally went through "hell" for us.

The only requirement that any Faith Teacher has ever given to their listeners is that they place their faith in what Jesus has done for them. Though some of them may teach that Christ went to hell for them, they have not ever taught that it is essential to one's salvation to believe this teaching. Not once have we ever heard any JDS teacher say such a thing. They have taught this to people they believed were already blood bought because they believed that an understanding of this doctrine would enable them to see that their enemy, Satan, was thoroughly defeated in every way possible. They believed that this understanding would give them a greater boldness to claim their rights in Christ and to live victoriously.

Furthermore, the teaching that Christ suffered in hell is based on the teaching of Peter in Acts 2. We covered this in Part Two of this series but let us briefly touch on it again:

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. (Acts 2:24-31)

As I pointed out in Part Two of this series, The Jewish New Testament translates verse 24 this way: "But God has raised him up from the suffering of death." The Duoay Rheims Translation says, "having loosed the sorrows of hell." The teachers who emphasize that Christ suffered in hell as part of the redemptive price can certainly make a good case from this passage in Acts. They also have some scholarly backing (in a sense) since some scholars and teachers have taught that the passages above can be literally interpreted as someone being trapped by death.[14] J. Sidlow Baxter, a well known Baptist preacher in England has presented a position that is similar to those in the Word-Faith movement who advocate the JDS position:

... he allowed himself to expire on the cross himself to expire on the cross. He allowed his body to become a corpse and to be buried. He allowed himself in disembodied manhood to pass into Hades. In the fullest sense, therefore, he underwent the dissolution of death.

Similarly, in the fullest sense he overcame it. Hades had no warrant to imprison that sinless One. The grave had no right to disintegrate that undefiled body. As the apostle Peter said in in his Pentecost sermon, "It was not possible that he should be holden" (Acts 2:24, KJV) of death. Our Lord's resurrection is not only an historical reality, but it was also a moral necessity. Death had no right to him; for although he had died a judicially vicarious death as Sinbearer on behalf of others, he himself was sinless. Satan was foiled. Death, which had impatiently claimed the crucified Messiah as its victim, now suddenly became powerless to hold him. Satan had expended all his arts and wiles of temptation upon the guileless Man of Galilee and had failed. Jesus, the second Adam, had proved himself – even in his human nature – morally stronger than Lucifer.

So now Jesus the victim became Jesus the victor. He wrested from Diabolos the keys of Hades. Then, with this victorious new authority, he vacated Hades and entered the sepulchre where his own corpse lay. He reoccupied and reanimated his crucified body and reappeared on earth to his astonished disciples. Yes, indeed, in that sense Jesus defeated and destroyed and "abolished" death when he utterly broke its power over himself.[15]

Here we have a Baptist, non-WoF preacher advocating a teaching that many want to claim is strictly WoF. We may agree or disagree with this teaching but we should be careful about labeling a group of preachers as heretics unless we are willing to do the same with some other groups.

I have not been dogmatic about the issue of Christ suffering in hell. I still have trouble with the concept myself. I have stated in Part Two of this series that a case could be made for and against this. I personally believe that this is a nonessential. For example anyone who denies the virgin birth of Christ and the need for His shed blood should be regarded as outside the body. You see, neither of these teachings are based on any scripture but are actually a denial of Scripture.

On the other hand I believe that the Limited Atonement teaching, though it is false, should not be enough to declare someone a heretic. The teaching is based on certain Calvinistic understanding of particular passages that deal with predestination. The good thing about many Calvinists is that they believe that since they do not know who is one of those predestined to be saved, they still must preach the gospel to everyone. Those who respond are one of the elect. Those who do not were predestined for hell in the first place. As reprehensible as I find this teaching, I still regard its adherents as my brothers and sisters because they, like myself, agree with the essentials of the faith.

The teaching that Christ suffered in hell has some slim Scriptural support but there is enough that those who disagree with it should simply just disagree agreeably without attempting to destroy those who advocate this position. The belief or disbelief in this teaching has no effect upon one's salvation. None whatsoever. The belief in this teaching does nothing to annul a belief in the virgin birth, the shed blood of Jesus, or salvation by grace through faith. No one has yet been able to prove that it does. They have made arguments about what they believe that this teaching does to one's salvation, but they have not been able to refute a literal interpretation of Acts 2 as stated above and they have had to twist other passages of Scriptures such as Galatians 1 to make an illegitimate case.

Perhaps it is the JDS critics who are adding to the gospel by telling the rest of us that we must believe the Scripture as they interpret it or our salvation is in question. I must ask again: who should we truly consider to be the real heretics in these case?

7. JDS Advocates teach that Jesus took on the Nature of Satan

I must admit from the outset that this is a more difficult one to defend. Kenneth Copeland in particular has alluded to this in his teachings. Here is a quote provided to me by one of Copeland’s critics:

"God was manifested in the flesh and justified in the spirit. Now you can't get somebody justified and made righteous in the spirit if it wasn't first unrighteous. Jesus accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit. Why do you think Moses, obeying the instruction of God, hung the serpent upon the pole instead of a lamb? That used to bug me. I said, 'Why in the world would you want to put a snake up there--the sign of Satan? Why didn't you put a lamb on that pole?' And the Lord said, 'Because it was the sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross.' He said, 'I accepted in my own spirit spiritual death and the light was turned off.'"[16]

Many are offended by this quote due to religious sensibilities. I can sympathize with them to a certain extent. What I do NOT sympathize with is how they express their disagreement with Copeland. The vitriolic hatred that has been unleashed upon Copeland because of statements like these make me wonder if his critics are truly real Christians or just simply religious pharisaical zealots. We should be able to disagree and even express our offense at a teaching without resorting to the name-calling and condemnation that is familiar with Copeland’s critics.

However it is clear what Copeland is alluding to in this teaching (which he believes to have received by divine revelation). We have mentioned that the Faith Teachers and many, many others before them believed in a literal separation between God and the Father occurred when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). So many scholars and Bible teachers within and outside of the Faith Movement believe that this is the moment that Jesus took our sin upon Himself, “..he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21a).

The penalty for sin is spiritual death. This is why Copeland believes that Jesus had spoken this to him in a prayer conversation. However, Copeland goes beyond the limited and less offensive language of the scholars and Bible teachers outside of the Faith Movement who may agree that Jesus did indeed suffer some type of spiritual death.

The Bible itself does go further to teach that those who are spiritually dead have the nature of Satan:

And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Eph. 2:1-2)

The New Living Translation translates verse 2 this way, “Once you were dead, doomed forever because of your many sins. You used to live just like the rest of the world, full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God.”

Jesus told the religious Pharisees of his day that they were of their father the devil (John 8:44). John tells us that anyone who commits sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8). These are some of the passages that help us to understand that spiritual death is something more than just being separated from God. It is actually being under Satan’s control. Ephesians 2:3 tells us that we were by nature the children of wrath or (as the New Living Translation puts it) we were born with an evil nature.

We take this a step further when we read Jesus’ words to Nicodemus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” (1 John 3:14). The thing that bothered Copeland is the fact that the serpent usually represents Satan (Gen. 3:1-14; Rev. 12:9). So in the conversation Copeland says that he had with the Lord, he came to the conclusions in the quote(s) above.

Although I am not in anyway ecstatic about Copeland’s statement I do not believe that Copeland set out to offend anyone and certainly not the Lord. From the little that I know about Copeland, this man truly loves Jesus and his heart is set on serving the Lord and ministering to God’s people. If anyone wonders why I defend Copeland. (and the question has been brought to me), then my reason has just been stated. I believe that his heart is right with God. Copeland, like Kenyon, simply wanted to show both sinner and saint all that he believes that Christ suffered and went through on their behalf. Copeland wants people to see that Jesus was so in love with His creation that He was willing to “take on the nature of His enemy” if necessary.

I can understand why people might disagree with Copeland and since we cannot produce a clear Scripture that says, “Jesus partook of Satan’s nature.” It is left to each person in how they interpret the passages of Scripture used in defense of this teaching. However, I stand against anyone who would demean Copeland and call him a heretic because of their disagreement with him. If one would call Copeland a heretic then he or she must do the same with Martin Luther who said:

And this, no doubt, all the prophets did forsee in spirit, that Christ should be accounted the greatest transgressor that could be, having all sins imputed to Him. For He being made a sacrifice for sin, yea for the sins of the whole world, is not now the Son of God born of the virgin Mary, but a sinner who hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer and a persecutor; of Peter who denied Him; of David who was an adulterer and a murderer; and briefly, who hath and beareth all the sins of all men in His body; not that He is Himself guilty of any, but that He received them, being committed or done by us, and laid upon His own body, that He might make satisfaction for them with His own blood (Isa. 53:5).

But some men will say, it is absurd and slanderous to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer, if thou be wilt deny Him to be a sinner and accursed, deny also that He was crucified and dead. For it is no less absurd to say that the Son of God (as our faith professesth and believeth) was crucified and suffered the pains of sin and death, than to say that He is a sinner and accursed. But if it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say also that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest.[17]

Whether or not one may agree with how Martin Luther phrased this, we should attempt to understand his point. I certainly agree with his point even if I may not like how he said it. Perhaps Copeland's language nd Luther's language may offend one's religious sensibilities, but the truth is, the Bible does not present a pretty picture of what Christ became on that cross either:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal. 3:13)

The word "made" as used in this passage means "to cause to be" or "to come into being." Jesus was literally made a CURSE. There is no watering down this passage as many critics want to do with 2 Corinthians 5:21. The critics want to give us some art painting type of picture concerning Christ's death that we find in Museums, the type that looks beautiful and does not offend.

A curse is a terrible things. It is a loss of God's blessing and presence (see Deut. 28-30). You become an anathema to heaven and hell. The very serpent that is later the picture that Jesus gives of Himself was cursed by God in the beginning. This is a serious thing and it is not pretty. If we truly went into the depths of what it meant for Christ to be made a curse, we may not be so quick to judge Copeland. As far as I am concerned, what Martin Luther said could not be any less offensive than Copeland. Even more, if critics of JDS truly understood what it meant for Christ to be cursed, they may get equally offended with the Apostle Paul..

Martin Luther was a great man and if it were not for him, who is to know how long it would have taken to free the church from a system “salvation by works.” Surely we can take offense at calling Christ a “sinner” but why not take the time to understand what he meant? Why not also remember the good he has done and be slow to judge him as a heretic?

Here is the problem: Many actually are willing to do the above for Luther. They are willing to extend this charity to him. Yet, these same people are willing to condemn Copeland without mercy. This kind of partiality should not be known in the church that Jesus shed His blood for.

8. JDS Advocates say that the Devil and Demons Dragged Jesus into Hell and Tormented Him.

As I pointed out in Part 4 of this series, the devil certainly had some involvement in the death of our Lord. This is affirmed by many scholars and Bible teachers past and present. This may not sit well with many JDS critics who just can't conceive of the devil having experienced any kind of victory, or seeming victory. Yet, we read in Genesis 3:15 that Satan would have some opportunity to bruise Christ's heel before finally having his head crushed.

The Faith teachers are often criticized harshly without the critics making any attempt to understand the basis for this teaching. The teaching is based on a passage from the Messianic Psalm often used in the JDS controversy: "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." (Ps. 22:16). Prior to this we read:

Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. (Ps. 22:12-13)

These passages could be possible references to the devil and demons. Further in the Psalm we read:

Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. (Ps. 22:20, 21)

We see symbolism used in this Psalm to describe what is happening to the Lord. We see symbols of bulls, dogs, unicorns, and lions. The devil is said to be "... as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." (1 Pet. 5:8). Furthermore, we see a description of a dog that actually has power. The dog may very well be in reference to the Roman soldiers[18] but there is no doubt that Satan is the power motivating them. Matthew Henry saw these verses as referring to Satan himself:

Save me from the power of the dog, and from the lion's mouth." This seems to be meant of Satan, that old enemy who bruised the heel of the seed of the woman, the prince of this world, with whom he was to engage in close combat and whom he saw coming, "Lord, save me from being overpowered by his terrors." He pleads, "Thou hast formerly heard me from the horns of the unicorn," that is, "saved me from him in answer to my prayer."[19]

Henry, whose commentaries are widely read today felt that the symbols here are in reference to Satan himself. Lest anyone believes that Henry was alone in this belief, let us quote two other classic preachers whose works are still widely read:

... he being forsaken by God, and deserted by his disciples; his soul was in darkness, sorrow, and distress, wherefore he prays it might be delivered "from the power of the dog"; either Satan is so called for his malice and envy, who had put it into the heart of Judas to betray him, and had filled the Pharisees with envy at him, and who through it delivered him to Pilate; or the impure, cruel, and wicked Roman soldiers, and in short all his crucifiers; called in the plural number "dogs" (John Gill)[20]

The dog may mean Satan, that infernal Cerberus, that cursed and cursing cur; or else the whole company of Christ's foes, who though many in number were as unanimous as if there were but one, and with one consent sought to rend him in pieces. If Jesus cried for help against the dog of hell, much more may we. (Charles H. Spurgeon)[21]

The quotes above certainly prove that the Faith Teachers are not alone in believing that the references to dogs and lions in Psalms have something to do with Satan. Yet, I am not sure how far we can go in teaching that Christ was dragged into hell by devils and demons. One French Bible teacher from the seventeenth century, Louis Chardon, believed that God made use of humans and devils in the redemption process:

"... thus one must conclude that there never was and never will be a subject on whom God has poured out the effects of his anger with such severity. God, the heavenly Father, avails himself of executioners and demons to accomplish the outwards martyrdom of his Son, while he reserves being the immediate cause of his inward passion for himself.[22]

Chardon may have presented the best possible interpretation of the events that occurred on Calvary according to Evangelical standards. However, his (and other older lights) acknowledgment of Satan's involvement in Christ's sufferings goes beyond the beautiful poetic picture that JDS critics desire to paint. Although I do not believe that it is necessary for us to say that Satan and demons dragged Christ in to hell, I do believe that the Faith preachers are closer to the truth than their critics since they teach the spiritual warfare aspect of Christ's work.

As far as His being tormented in hell, it all depends on how one interprets certain passages of Scripture. Acts 2:24 tells us, Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Some scholars believe that Death in this verse is being portrayed as a huntsman who is setting traps or snares for his prey.[23] Psalms 91:3 portrays Satan as a hunter who snares his prey (see also 2 Tim. 2:26). Keep in mind also that Death and Hades are portrayed as demonic spirits that seem to have been under Satan's control before Jesus destroyed him (Rev. 6:8; Heb. 2:14; Rev. 1:18).

The Word-Faith position is not without some Scriptural merit, more than that which is presented by their critics to refute them. I do not endorse every statement made by the faith teachers (some of them made during the excitement that comes as one is preaching or teaching). Some of them cannot be reconciled with a clear Biblical passage. While I believe that some of my fellow Faith Preachers can be careless (as I can be myself, that's what makes us human), the charge of heresy or even aberrancy is far from being accurate. Some critics seem to believe that they have reached perfection in their theology and that they have the right to be judge and jury in passing their verdicts upon these teachers. Yet, their own writings have proven their attitude to be ungodly as well as their theology to be out of sync with plain Scripture.

Conclusion

Those who oppose JDS teaching have not done so out of a genuine concern for those that they disagree with but only with a desire to make them into heretics. They have lowered themselves to the most ungodly tactics by misrepresenting the JDS position. They have gone beyond a simple doctrinal disagreement by presenting themselves as right and anyone who opposes them as wrong and in many cases, hellbound.

Many of those who oppose JDS teach heresy themselves by claiming that all that was necessary for salvation was accomplished at the cross. Yet, we are taught in so many places that a resurrection of Jesus was necessary for our salvation and new birth, "By His boundless mercy we have been born again to an ever-living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Pet. 1:3; Amplified Bible)

Those who oppose JDS have disregarded the tons of evidence have neglected all literal interpretations of certain passages of Scripture and have condemned those who disagree with their own interpretations of certain JDS prooftexts. They have disregarded the proof given that many scholars and Bible teachers have taught this concept. They claim that this was a teaching invented by Kenyon due to Gnostic and Metaphysical cult beliefs that they claim that he held (which he did not). If given proof that contradicts this position they will either deny the proof or aggressively assert their arrogant position by claiming that the historical person is also a heretic (as one person implied concerning Martin Luther when I showed them a quote by him). This leads to elitism and the everyone is wrong but our group attitude.

There is nothing in the Scriptures that teach us that we must hold to someone's so called orthodox theology of the atonement in order to be saved. The Bible tells us that the requirement for salvation is an acknowledgment of Christ's death, shed blood, and His resurrection. While the JDS advocates have a different understanding of Christ's redemption work than their critics, they clearly believe in the work on the cross, the necessity of the shed blood, and the essentiality of the resurrection (something that their critics do not find very important in this issue). A person's belief about what happened between the cross and the throne is not essential to one's salvation.

Are the Word-Faith Preachers who advocate JDS heretics? From my understanding of the Scriptures, I state a resounding NO!

Notes

1. Meyer, Frederick B Tried by Fire: Exposition of the First Epistle of Peter (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade) p. 118

2. Kenyon, Essek W. What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969). On page 11 Kenyon writes, "The faith problem is becoming very acute. Waves of unbelief are sweeping over the church. Many of our readers have been swept into the whirlpool of modernism .... Today there is a demand for a definite, well defined path that the bewildered minds of this troubled age may find their way into the realm of faith." It appears to me that Kenyon was concerned about helping people to recover hope in the gospel of Christ. He did not seem to be looking to come up with a new revelation. His book is full of Scripture which shows his reverence for the Bible. He truly believed that he was presenting what he saw in the Scriptures themselves in order to help his readers.

3. Simmons, Dale H. E. W. Kenyon and the Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Plenty (Lanham, MA: Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1997), pp. 28, 29

4. See my article on Revelation Knowledge.

5. The great reformer, Martin Luther took the words of Christ literally when he said, "In the eyes (of God) also, Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one damned, even if he is without sin and without guilt. The fact that he says "you have abandoned me" is certainly not a joke, a game, or hypocrisy. He is truly abandoned in all, as is the sinner when he sins..." (As quoted in Gerard Rosse's excellent theological work, The Cry of Jesus on the Cross: A Biblical and Theological Study (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 83, 84). More in the 21^st century we find R. C. Sproul saying, "Let me say this, if Jesus was not really forsaken on the cross you are still in your sins. You have no redemption. You have no salvation." (R.C. Sproul, The Cross of Christ, Audio Series). It is quite humorous to me that men who are considered to be the standard of orthodoxy are teaching the very type of doctrine that is most hated by Word-Faith critics. I often smile when I see them attempt to squirm and justify the quotes by these men.

6. Gill, John John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer)

7. Morgan, G. Campbell Life Applications from Every Chapter of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1926), p. 325 Moragn was considered to be one of the leading Bible teachers in his day and even considered today as the “prince of expositors.” I don’t think anyone would be too quick to label him a heretic. What is more interesting is that Morgan is clearly anti-Pentecostal as he considered this movement “the last vomit of Satan.” (see Synan, Vinson The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 143, 144.

8. MacArthur Jr, John. tape, GC 70-15, titled "Bible Questions and Answers" The reason for my quotes by Morgan and MacArthur should be obvious. Both are anti-Pentecostal and anti-Charismatic. Yet they both believe that5 Jesus experienced a spiritual death. This is something Word-Faith critics neglect to tell their readers as they use this very premise to judge Word-Faith as heretical.

9. Kenyon, Essek W. The Bible in the Light of Our Redemption (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969), p. 163

10. For example, Godbey says, "'He made Him heir who knew no sin, in our behalf, that we may become the righteousness of God in Him.' This verse is wonderful and paradoxical in the extreme. Translators generally soften it by inserting 'sin offering,' which is not in the original and will not do, because it breaks up the antithesis with righteousness." See Godbey, William Baxter Godbey's New Testament Commentaries Volume IV – Corinthians-Galatians (Paul, The Champion Theologian) (Spokane, WA: Holiness Data Ministry).

11. Bowman Jr., Robert M The Word-Faith Controversy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001), see p. 232, note 52. In response to an implication by D. R. McConnell that Kenyon did not regard the Bible as the basis for faith, Bowman says, "It is obvious to anyone reading Kenyon that he took the Bible at face value as truth (however badly he misinterpreted it)." The "misinterpretation" is in the eye of the theological beholder. Bowman has already made it clear that he is neither Pentecostal nor Charismatic (see pp. 10 and 11) and this will of course reflect in what he sees as a "misinterpretation." Nevertheless, Bowman shows much more integrity than other Word-Faith critics as he honestly acknowledges Kenyon's respect for the Bible as God's truth.

12. Darby, John Nelson The Sufferings of Christ (London: G. Morrish, 1959), p. 20-21. As quoted in McIntyre, Joe E.W. Kenyon: The True Story (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1997), p. 184

13. Some of the efforts for bringing correction within the Faith Movement by many its proponents can be seen in Kenneth Hagin's balanced approached towards prosperity. See his book The Midas Touch (Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 2000) and also Dr. Fred Price's book, The Purpose of Prosperity (Los Angelos, CA: Faith One Publishing, 2001). For a needed balance against extremes in faith teaching, see Dr. Price's book, Faith, Foolishness or Presumption (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1979) and Kenneth Hagin Jr.'s book, Another Look at Faith (Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 1996). For an exhortation for balance in other areas of faith teaching see two books by Dr. Roy Hicks titled, Praying Beyond God's Ability (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1977) and more recently Avoiding Ditches (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1995). These books prove a diligent effort to bring balance into the Word-Faith teaching by some of its major proponents.

14. See Part Two in this series and also Appendix C.

15. Evans, W. Glyn (Editor) Christ is Victor (Vally Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1977), p. 23. J. Sidlow Baxter contributed a chapter to the series of essays in this book about Christ's redemptive work. His chapter is titled, "Death Abolished!" Baxter puts significant importance upon the resurrection of Christ.

16. Copeland, Kenneth, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (tape, side 2), as quoted to me by a heresy hunter during a debate on one of the internet forums. Kenneth Hagin comes very close to alluding to this as well on page 31 of his book, The Name of Jesus (Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 1996) though he stops very short of saying that Jesus took on the nature of Satan (however, he does seem to imply this). Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement, they would be foolish to dismiss the otherwise excellent revelation of the right we have to use the name of Jesus in prayer and spiritual warfare that this book teaches. I believe both Copeland and Hagin to be true servants of God and I do not feel that I have to agree with them on every point in order to hold them in high esteem.

17. Luther, Martin Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI Kregel Publications), edited by John Price Fallowes, M.A.

18. Stedman, Ray C. Psalms of Faith (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1973), p. 77. Stedman says that "dogs" was "... the common Jewish term for Gentiles, and especially for the Romans."

19. Henry, Matthew Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Comes with the e-sword program which can be downloaded from http://www.e-sword.net)

20. Gill, John John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer)

21. Spurgeon, Charles H. The Treasury of David (available at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/TreasuryofDavid/)

22. Chardon, Louis Le Croix De Jesus (Paris, CERF: 1937), p. 155. As quoted in The Cry of Jesus on the Cross: A Biblical and Theological Study (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987), p. 86 by Gerard Rosse.

23. Vincent, Marvin, Vincent's Word Studies (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net). Vincent writes, "... where the Hebrew word for snares is rendered by the word used here, pains; and that, therefore, it should be rendered snares of death; the figure being that of escape from the snare of a huntsman." Robertson adds, "... the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey." Robertson, A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures In The New Testament (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net).

E-mail: victoryword@yahoo.com

Back to Home

Go to Ten Reasons

Return to Contents Page

(c) Copyright 2002 by Troy J. Edwards and Victory through the Word Ministries