Opening Statement

My review is in regards to the work authored by Chad Marinelli, “God in a Box?” Dr. Marinelli offers an apologetic for the Word Faith Movement’s view on God’s sovereignty and how man fits in to that sovereignty.

The Review

“The Cloudy Waters” is the title of chapter one. I will demonstrate that it is Dr. Marinelli who is muddying the waters and not those who consider themselves orthodox believers.

Dr. Marinelli starts off in his introduction by explaining first that the critics do not understand Word Faith. Rightfully, Dr. Marinelli identifies the gospel based on scripture. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. He then says, “Anything that contradicts these basic elements of the Gospel is “heresy”, but we should resist going beyond these in pursuit of heresy.” (P. 7). The author seems to be ignorant of both history and competing belief systems. The Church created confessions that represent scripture due to the numerous errors it had to defend against. These confessions discuss the Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, and many other doctrines related to the Church and Man. Groups that get these wrong include: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and the Oneness Pentecostals. So, history has demonstrated that the Church has had to go beyond what the author believes to be necessary. Would Dr. Marinelli dare raise these points against the Early Church Fathers?

Your assertions that the “Church” has had to “go beyond what the author believes is necessary” to prove what doctrines are damnable indicates a bias toward creedal Christianity (also makes me a little concerned about your views on the sufficiency of scripture).  Of course, we as Evangelicals believe that the canonicity of scripture was validated through a formal group of Christian leaders.  Yet, we must be careful how far to extend creedal Christianity, lest we commit the sin of the Catholic Church (i.e. Bible PLUS Tradition = Authority).  There are many competing “Creeds” and “Confessions” amongst all of the historic sects and branches of Christianity (For those of you new to the study of historical Christianity, go to,  http://64.33.81.65/index.htm -- You’ll notice there are many more than the eclectic link below), which indicates to me that our reliance on them may not be much surer than our reliance on a diligent personal study of the Word.  One could blindly say, “I agree with the Synod of Dort, and thus all modern day Arminians are heretics!” Can you not see the dilemma? Just because a group of Christians gets together and makes a decision does not indicate doctrinal canonicity.  In addition, interpretational choices are made even when we align with those creeds (e.g. “descended into Hell” in the Apostles’ Creed).  Every WoF teacher I know completely and entirely agrees with and advocates the points in the early creeds:  Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian.  Yet, others would claim that they are interpreting those creeds wrongly.  Lastly, we must not forget that the Early Church Fathers would definitely be bashed in a heterodoxy forum if they were alive today.  Many taught baptismal regeneration and a pointed works & faith soteriology. Dare I quote a few:

Clement:  “Almsgiving is excellent as a repentance for sin; fasting is better than prayer; but almsgiving is better than either, -- for almsgiving becomes a lightening of the burden of sins.” (Homily of Clement, XVI, 4).

Hermas: “If you can do more than that God commands, you will earn more glory for yourself and you will have more honor before God.” (Similitude, V, 3, 3)

So let’s not lean too heavily on Church Fathers either. 

My main point in my book is that we need to be united in the main tenets of 1 Cor 15:1-4.  These main points are:  1)  “Christ” (Jesus is the Messiah, the Masshiach – Dan 9:25, Ps 2:2, 7ff), 2) “Died” (Jesus really died), 3) “For our sins” (in a substitutionary manner), “according to the scriptures” (as revealed in prophecy and atonement types in the Law), “He was buried and … rose again … and … was seen” (Jesus physically rose from the dead).  If we receive this by faith, we are saved (v2).  Anyone holding to this is not holding to any “damnable” heresy, else they could not be saved.  Therefore, discussions beyond this should at least be kept to charges less than “damnable” heresy.  Maybe we’ll stick to “non-damnable heresy” J

These confessions can be seen at: http://www.light-after-darkness.org/index.php?page=OB.

On page 11, foot note 6, Dr. Marinelli discusses, in short, one of the two main heretical teachings found within the Word Faith Movement. Known as JDS, Jesus Died Spiritually, or BAJ, the Born-Again Jesus Doctrine, this doctrine teaches that Christ took on Satan’s nature and had to be Born-Again.

This heretical idea comes from E.W. Kenyon and marches straight through Word Faith history, being taught by Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and many of their offspring. This teaching is well documented in early works such as:

The Born-Again Jesus of the Faith Movement, Judith Matta
JDS: The Jesus Died Spiritually Heresy, Hobart Freeman

Other writers also discussed this topic. They are Gordon Fee, D.R. McConnell, Hank Haanegraft, and Robert Bowman.

Now, setting the stage, Dr. Marinelli would rather muddy the waters by saying, “The point being made here is that many historical evangelicals have taught that Christ was “forsaken”, or separated from the Father’s fellowship on the cross, and viewed as a sinner.” He intentionally tries to imply that the JDS/BAJ doctrine is similar to orthodox positions held by many within the Church because similar terminology is used. Dr. Marinelli glosses over the re-defining that is made by Word Faith teachers have done regarding “Spiritual Death”. They have re-defined it by saying Christ took on Satan’s nature.

First, it is upsetting to me that my disagreement with Christ’s sufferings in Hell is not even mentioned here (though mentioned in the same footnote).  It’s as if you are trying to destroy anyone who defends any aspect of the WoF, without any regard to their proximity to “Evangelicalism”.  Sad!!

Secondly, I do not try to skirt over the issue.  The reason I am brief is because my book is not about JDS, but about Faith and Sovereignty (See my Introduction – about 2/3 of the way down). And even when I do mention the issue, I am not skirting over anything.  Here is the entire footnote:

“However, Calvin didn’t believe Christ suffered in Hell after he died, as many faith teachers do.  I do not necessarily defend the position that Christ suffered in Hell, either.  The point being made here is that many historical evangelicals have taught that Christ was “forsaken”, or separated from the Father’s fellowship on the cross, and viewed as a sinner.  Even Martin Luther remarked that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.  Word of Faith teachers call it a spiritual death, just as natural death is a severing of spirit from body.  The degree of Christ’s spiritual death is taken to differing levels among faith teachers. Kenyon’s teaching, which has Christ taking on our actual sinful nature, is seemingly the most severe.  Yet, even Kenyon would never deny the Holiness of Christ during His spiritual death.  He wrote, “Psalm 88 gives us the picture of a righteous man in Hell” (Bible in the Light of Our Redemption, P. 166).  He also wrote how the disciples only saw the physical side of His sufferings, “They didn't see demons take that beautiful spirit [Christ] and carry it away” (Advanced Bible Course, P. 277).”

Now, let’s see if I said anything dishonest here. 

Have many historical evangelicals taught that Christ was forsaken?  Yes.  For example, Gill claims that Jesus was estranged from the “presence” of God and experienced a sense of wrath, but was not estranged from the Father’s love, favor, or godhead. Henry explains it similarly.  Clarke, in an attempt to eradicate any notion of genuine estrangement, explains the cry of Jesus in Matthew 27:46 as being the cry of His humanity while His Deity restrains consolatory support. JFB claims that the estrangement was “a total eclipse of the felt sense of God's presence” and that at this time “horror of great darkness that invested His own spirit.”

Did I state that evangelicals call Christ’s experience in Matthew 27:46 a “Spiritual death”?  No.  I specifically stated, “Word of Faith teachers call it [Christ’s estrangement from the Father] a spiritual death.”  And that is a common thread among WoFer’s.  However, there is a spectrum amongst WoFer’s as to the degree of this alienation from God; a view such as mine (or Mike Bruno, or Hagin Jr.) being the least metaphysical, up to a view of EW Kenyon’s (or Copeland’s) being the most metaphysical (i.e. Christ’s change in nature). This was my point in the footnote.  Even if I had stated that some evangelicals call Christ’s experience a “Spiritual Death”, I would not have been lying.  John MacArthur wrote, “Yet even that physical death could not have bought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Mat. 27:46).” (MacArthur, I Believe in the Precious Blood, 1988).

So I apologize for any miscommunication.  I added the footnote to show a distinction between Calvin’s and Kenyon’s beliefs; for surely I would have been condemned for not adding a footnote at all J

The position held by the Reformers is that “Spiritual Death” is falling out of favor with God. Many other evangelicals teach that “Spiritual Death” is a separation from God. Can the casual reader see the difference between the orthodox believers and the Word Faith teachers?

Calvin explicitly states, “As Adam's spiritual life would have consisted in remaining united and bound to his Maker, so estrangement from him was the death of his soul” (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 5).  Sure, “falling out of favor with God” is bound up in this understanding, but it’s more than just a loss of favor.  Biblically, “spiritual death”, is “being alienated from the life [not favor] of God” (Eph 2:1, 5, 4:18). 

You will find this tactic used by Word Faith apologists regularly. They have a presupposition regarding a doctrine, and then they hunt and peck to find scriptures and other others who have seemingly taught the same thing. Ted Clore, of Light-After-Darkness (http://www.light-after-darkness.org/ ), writes in response to this tactic, “I am not commenting on the authenticity or the motive of the translations, but instead pointing out how Word-Faith apologist and theology operates, seeking from any source something that confirms its assumptions. Building his apology by finding sources he can read his presupposition into. Any source will do, and if it says what the apologist’s assumes in his belief, it is appealed to for authority to legitimize his theology. The stated purpose and intent of those that have supplied the materials is discarded, and the eclectic reads his views into the sources.”

I agree with this 100%, but not just for WoFer’s.  It applies to every theologian that ever existed.  Once we formulate our theology based on a sum total of evidence, we then tend to defend it to the core.  It becomes a presupposition (although I have changed my views on various doctrines as hard as it has been).  For example, I have been debating with a Calvinist friend for ten years.  I truly believe that he uses eisegesis regularly, and I’m sure he thinks the same of me.  It’s the “interpretational choice” problem.  I start with a straight forward interpretation of apostasy passages in Hebrews, and then interpret Rom 8:29-30 as Wesley does.  My buddy first interprets Rom 8:29-30 as an unconditional forward chain, and then reinterprets all of the apostasy passages in Hebrews to be more obscure in meaning.  We cannot deny that a host of passages have interpretational flexibility.  A quick glance through commentaries quickly exposes this.  Glance through all the commentaries on 2 Cor 5:21 and you’ll quickly see why we’re in the mess we’re in.

This eclectic hermeneutic is also used in creation of this second heretical doctrine held by the Word Faith Movement that you are a god. Dr. Marinelli defends Kenneth Copeland by using a quote by Athanasius on pages 11 and 12, “Yet, Athanasius claimed, ‘God became man that we might be made God.’ Why was he not condemned for deifying man, as Kenneth Copeland was for calling believers ‘little gods’. (sic)”

Let’s first look at what the Bible teaches regarding man being a god. Jesus answered a group of Jews and said, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods.’” Does this mean that humans can become God?

This text should not be used to support the view that we are (or can become) little gods, for such an interpretation is contrary to the overall context. Jesus is not speaking to pantheists (who believe that God is everything and everything is God) or polytheists (who believe in many gods). Rather, he is addressing strict Jewish monotheists who believe that only the Creator of the universe is God. So, his statement should not be wrenched out of this monotheistic context and given a pantheistic or polytheistic twist. The obvious understanding is that as a “Judge”, one presides over others as like God.

Additionally, scripture further clarifies the subject with Acts 14:11-15 (NIV)
11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.

Based on the previous scriptural quote, perhaps Dr. Marinelli should have heeded his own words from page 49, “Therefore the only safe historical point of reference to use is that of the book of Acts – a history of the first converts.

Unbelievable!  If you read my footnote, you’ll see that I’m actually saying that Copeland didn’t mean you can become “God” (capital G)?  He is referring to the same meaning Jesus and the Jews understood (i.e. authority/judge). The footnote states:

“Copeland clarified by saying “now you take the word ‘god’ with a little ‘g’ just simply means authority … Man is not a sovereign being. You’re subject to something.  You are … subject to God” – 1993 South West Believer’s Convention, Video #3 G-63-0307

For further info, check out:  http://wordoffaithanswers.com/littleGodsJDS.aspx

So you’re preaching to the choir my friend.

Now the quote in total that Dr. Marinelli uses, “The Orthodox concept of salvation as deification undergirded the contemplative methodology implied in the illumination view. Only the "pure in heart" see God, and purity comes only by divine grace in the economy of redemption. Those who are redeemed through the incarnation, whom the NT designates "sons of God" and "partakers of the divine nature," are deified; that is, they become created, in contrast to uncreated, gods. "God became man that we might be made God," said Athanasius of Alexandria; and Maximus Confessor declared: "All that God is, except for an identity in nature, one becomes when one is deified by grace." With this personalistic view of salvation, Orthodoxy diverged from the juridical emphasis which the West inherited through Augustine of Hippo, whom Orthodoxy could not comfortably accept as a Doctor of the Church. Orthodox theology viewed man as called to know God and share his life, to be saved, not by God's external activity or by one's understanding of propositional truths, but by being himself deified.” The idea of man literally becoming a god is not implied in the text.

My point was not to get into the matters of Athanasius’ meaning versus Copeland’s exact meaning, but rather to convey that the term “god” is used in different circles.  I then showed (in my ignored footnote) Copeland’s meaning. 

No where do they have powers to create with their tongues something out of nothing. These men simply see themselves as partaking of the Divine nature and having had their natures changed. Bowman pointed out 20 years ago that the doctrines of deification allegedly taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church were not from the aspect of man 'becoming' a god but from the aspect of a man (such as Moses) manifesting the power of God.

Apparently, you missed my reconstruction in my book on page 116:

“Some Word of Faith teachers claim that words release energy from your mouth which can create ex nihilo.  Admittedly, some reconstruction needs to take place in this teaching to make it more balanced.  I do not accept any presumptuous notion that words literally are containers of a tangible energy, nor that words autonomously create anything.  For God alone is the sole creator who can speak things into existence ex nihilo.  All verses that refer to such an ability are solely speaking of God (Rom 4:17, Ps 33:6).  Even though we are called to imitate Jesus and do the works He did, our words do not autonomously possess creative forces, exactly as do God’s words.  If such were the case, everything we say would come to pass exactly as stated immediately upon being spoken.  Neither man nor his words have autonomous power apart from God.  Jesus said, “For without me ye can do nothing” (Jn 15:5).  God has set all spiritual laws in motion.  He is actively involved in every verbal transaction that occurs, whether it is a prayer, rebuke, command, Gospel presentation, idle word, spoken blessing, or cursing.  For it is God who bows the heavens in response to our words (Ps 18:6-9), responding either in a causative or permissive  manner.  Not a single word slips by His careful analysis and response.  God told the lamenting Israelites, “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?” (Lam 3:37).  Their chiding and disbelief got them in the mess they were in, of course.  Every time the Gospel is spoken, the Holy Spirit quickens the words to the hearers (Jn 6:63).  Without Him, the words are useless.  Even when Joshua commanded the sun to stop, notice that the words were heeded and performed by God (Josh 10:12-14).  Every time a demon or sickness is rebuked, it is fleeing from the mere mention of the name of Christ, not necessarily from some invisible energy in the words that zaps it.  However, this theocentric view does not lessen the power of words.”

The term was thus clearly metaphorical. Now, I will add, Kenneth Copeland comes from a westernized Protestant background. To use the Eastern Orthodox to support his errant theology is a red herring.

Starting chapter two, page 15, Dr. Marinelli says, “Similarly, we uphold the fact that God alone is the supreme sovereign ruler of the universe. God has created the universe and every natural law, spiritual law, and commandment in existence, based on His good pleasure. Within our failure to meet the conditions of these laws and commandments, God remains sovereign.”

Later in chapter two, the author sets the stage by committing the sin that he accuses the Word Faith critics of making. In his discussion, Dr. Marinelli misrepresents Calvinism with a Straw-man argument. And, he quotes only part of what Calvin writes. This has been the M.O. of many of Word Faith apologists. One of the endorsers of his book is Word Faith apologist Troy Edwards Sr. of “Victory through the Word Ministries”, who employs this very same tactic. Please visit CARM, the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry at www.christiandiscussionforums.org to witness for yourself. To read, go to the Word Faith section located in the Heterodox Forums.

Dr. Marinelli claims that Calvinism teaches that God forces unbelievers to go to Hell. Dr. Marinelli says on page 18, “He supposedly never draws the Hell-bound folks to grace, forcing them to remain in their helpless state of spiritual death.” (emphasis mine)

I quote from the Westminster Confession Faith (Dr. Marinelli also used the W.C.F. as a source):

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Rom_9:15, Rom_9:18; Rom_11:33; Eph_1:11; Heb_6:17): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (Jam_1:13, Jam_1:17; 1Jo_1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Pro_16:33; Mat_17:12; Joh_19:11; Act_2:23; Act_4:27, Act_4:28). WCF 3:1

Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions (Mat_11:21, Mat_11:23; Act_15:18; 1Sa_23:11, 1Sa_23:12), yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:13, Rom_9:16, Rom_9:18). WCF 3:2

The WCF clearly demonstrates the Reformed position that Dr. Marinelli chose to ignore in his research.

Actually, that’s the exact Calvinism I know and understand (I learned straight from Calvinistic professors at Grove City College by the way) J

Unless the proponents of this confession were Middle Knowledge Arminians (who advocate that God truly created other “movers” with truly free agency), which I know they were not, then such a posted text is merely deception. True Calvinism teaches that God is the only “mover”, and that everything else is an effect (no matter how much it appears like a cause)-- A spiritual version of B.F. Skinners behavioral model.

Thus, the first paragraph of the confession is a plea for antinome.  It’s like saying, “I ate the apple at lunch that I didn’t eat.”  To truly say that God is not the author of sin necessitates other “first moral causes” (as Norman Geisler proposes in Chosen but Free).  If the confession really meant that, then the writers would have been Arminian – not Calvinist. 

The second paragraph is a plea to soften the determinism by resting on middle knowledge.  Folks, middle knowledge is a moot point when God is the sole orchestrator and decider of every event in every potential scenario. According to Calvin, He only foreknows that which He decrees.  This is night and day from Arminian middle knowledge.

So, I’m sorry, but this confession does not tame the true Calvinism that Calvin taught. I refer anyone to Shank’s work, Elect in the Son, to see a host of references to Calvin, Berkhoff, and other modern reformers, showing that their beliefs entirely line up with the statements in my book (TULIP model).

He also makes the logical jump that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin. Dr. Marinelli says, “God does not ordain every sin we commit as Christians, as Calvinism teaches. This would make God the author of sin.” The following is Footnote 15 on page 20:

“God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should … I confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam’s fall, and therefore foreknew he had ordained it so by his own decree” (Calvin’s Institutes, book 3, chapter 23, section 7).

You will note that the author only took a small piece of the quote. Here is the whole quote:

7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt.50[5] As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: "Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do," (August. Enchir. ad Laurent).

I’ve heard this all before – God’s two wills (secret vs. revealed), God at His “pleasure” arranging the ruin of Adam’s posterity.  Notice the phrase “rather than not permit evil to be”.  If God is the only “mover”, and thus the mover of men’s wills, then permission and authorship are synonymous. Yet, if Calvin truly meant “free-will” as free, then they are not synonymous.  I contend that Calvin himself was confused.  He rides a rocking horse of indeterminism vs. indeterminism, and thus self-imposed irrationality.  For example:

INDETERMINISM:  “…That cannot be done without His will which is yet done contrary to His will.  For it would not be done if He did not permit it, and permission is given, not without, but by His will.” (E.P. 4)

DETERMINISM: “…How foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will, but merely by His permission … It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them.” (E.P. 10:11)

In my book, I leaned more toward the deterministic side of Calvin’s teachings.  For if his indeterministic side (which I learned later) was really his position, he would essentially be teaching something closer to middle knowledge Arminianism.  But we know that’s not true, or his later friends at the Synod of Dort wouldn’t have been so harsh on the Remonstrance.  So I’ll stick with my deterministic understanding of Calvinism for now, unless someone dare reconcile every one of Calvin’s contradicting references (See Shank, Elect in the Son, Pages 138-140)

John Calvin’s point was summed up in the quote of Augustine.
Whether the good Doctor agrees or disagrees with Calvinism, he needs to do better research and give an accurate view of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that man has no interest in God (Romans 1 and 2). And, if God does not make alive a man’s spirit (Ephesians 2:1, 8-9), he will continue in his unbelief and continue lacking any desire to serve God.

And there we have it right from Calvin’s lips (or pen), which completely corresponds to my statement:  “He supposedly never draws the Hell-bound folks to grace, forcing them to remain in their helpless state of spiritual death.”  I certainly was not lying about Calvin’s view concerning reprobates.

At this point, I will let the reader know that this is a ploy by the Word Faith apologist to place blame on Calvinists for the criticism of their doctrines. Orthodox Apologists like to call this playing the “C” card. It is so much easier to blame Reformed believers than to take a serious look at their doctrine. As a side note, the other “C” card that is often played is the Cessation-ist card. This is where defenders of Word Faith will claim that a critic doesn’t understand because they have not had the Pentecostal/Charismatic experience. Therefore, they can’t experience or understand this revelation knowledge.

Having said this “C”-card stuff, the first critics of Word Faith has been Charismatics themselves – Gordon Fee, D.R. McConnell, and Hobart Freeman. In fact, when I was in the Word Faith Movement, I got my warnings from other Word Faith Charismatics. Most non-Charismatics were ignorant of the movement.

Sorry, but Calvin’s (deterministic) thinking is at the root of today’s thinking on sovereignty, whether Christians know it or not.

The rest of chapter two is setting up the straw man and beating it down. Dr. Marinelli does it numerous times..

Chapter six, Sovereignty, Suffering, and Sickness, can be a difficult subject. Most Christians believe that God answers prayers including healing. The Word Faith position is that a believer should live a life free of illness. It really comes down to your being sick is somehow your fault. Either you lack faith, committed some sin, are ignorant, or are being attacked by Satan.

Now, I agree that all four can be a reason for illness. Yet, even when we are doing well in the Word Faith checklist, illness does occur.

I wholeheartedly agree.  Regarding children being sick at birth, I wrote on Page 159:

“The most distant relative – Adam:  Obviously, not all defective children are afflicted because of the sins of their parents or grandparents (Jn 9:2-4). All people are born with the stain of Adam's sin, which is the direct cause for the presence of sickness in the human race.”

Admittedly, I have recently applied the same reasoning to Job’s afflictions  (http://wordoffaithanswers.com/EnoughFaith.aspx)

I recommend you read the whole article to see a more balanced WoF perspective on healing.

We are subject to headaches caused by changes in the weather, to colds and flues that spread during the winter months. Our digestive system can get out of whack even when eating healthy foods. You will not find an honest Word Faith person who denies experiencing these things over the last year or two.

Please understand that just because someone teaches something doesn’t mean they themselves are perfected.  All pastors teach holiness, yet sin sometimes.  Does that invalidate their teaching?  No.

The only thing to keep them quiet would be their fear of a negative confession. You may have heard from Word Faith circles, “Your confession is your possession.”

It’s interesting how you mock a simple truth that is unarguably Biblical, at least to some extent (Prov 18:21, James 3:2-11, etc.).  So, though our words may not contain a tangible metaphysical energy, they certainly contain power, in the sense that they “affect an outcome”.

Job became the whipping boy of the Word Faith Movement early on. Despite Dr. Marinelli’s more respectable approach, he still comes down on Job. He admits on Page 145 that “He (Satan) viciously enters the presence of God looking for permission to destroy.” Interestingly enough, Dr. Marinelli’s Footnote 108 adds, “Of course, we have already established that Satan has permission to destroy, being the prince and powers of the air, the god of this age, who legally took, Adam’s dominion.” Dr. Marinelli also is quick to point out that Job had fear (Job 3:25) and this is what opened the door for Satan.

Satan needed God’s permission to attack Job. Despite the crowing of Word Faith supporters, Satan admitted that Job had a hedge of protection around him (Job 1:9). It is obvious that God removed that hedge of protection in order for Satan to attack.

Exactly, you just quoted a footnote in which I entirely agree with this point.  The issue in the WoF teachings has not been whether or not God removed the hedge, but what the reason for the removal was.  As stated above, I now agree that Job’s hedge was removed simply because Satan, who has authority over this realm, asked for it to be removed. 

Remember also, God told Satan everything of Job’s is yours. Do not touch him. So the first attack was against everything that Job had except his wife. Why, because Satan did not have permission to do anything else. The second time, Satan had permission to attack Job’s flesh. But he could not kill him. Each time, God was asked by Satan for permission.

Job is far more than Dr. Marinelli can understand using his Word Faith perspective. He was a man who had control of his thoughts, Job 31:1. His sacrifices for his children are considered acts of fear. Yet, Abraham and Noah made the same types of sacrifices. See Genesis 8:20; 15:9-10. Also note that each time Job was attacked, he did not sin (Job 1:22 and 2:10) Even when God had chastised Job for his self-righteousness, God did not require a sacrifice for Job, only his friends (Job 42:7). I would like to also point out, each time Dr. Marinelli quoted Job when one of his friends were speaking, they were considered to be errant by God.

How righteous was Job? Well God clearly places him right up there with Daniel and Noah in Ezekiel 14:14 and 20. A New Testament writer, James, points out Job’s patience demonstrated during his suffering (James 5:11).

Themes of Job could be, “The Problem of Suffering of a Righteous Person” or “The Purpose of Chastening in the Hands of a Sovereign God”. Job clearly saw the sovereignty of God at the end, “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:1)” If were up to Word Faith, the theme of Job would be, “It’s really your entire fault.”

As I have already stated, I think that Job was afflicted for no other reason than Satan’s targeting of him (which was a consequence of the fall of Adam).  It was not of God’s plan or purpose, nor was it a chastisement. God even told Satan, “thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” God had no reason to allow Job’s affliction other than to legally grant Satan his request.  Now, regarding what happens after the afflictions  -- Of course, Job did not sin at first (Job 1:22, 2:10 – notice these are very early on).  But self-righteousness (as you admit yourself), despair, and anger do set in, and it is quite presumptuous to assume that any of these sins were okay on the grounds that God didn’t require a sacrifice.  The problem was that Job protested his innocence so loudly that he was beginning to sound like he didn't suffer from sin as a condition (i.e. Satan’s legal authority transfer from the fall). So, I believe it’s possible that this sin lengthened his suffering; For God immediately removed the suffering when Job realized he was speaking “without knowledge”.  But thank God Job pulled through.  Who knows what any of us would do if such devastation struck.

As chapter six continues, Dr. Marinelli says on page 151, “The destroyer was the direct executor of the plague, not God.” I am not sure why Dr. Marinelli has to go to such extent to absolve God from being directly involved with the Destroyer. Let’s see what the scriptures say, “This is what the Lord says; ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the first born son of the slave girl…’” (Exodus 11:4). Exodus 15:26 clearly has God admitting to causing the diseases that Egypt had experienced. Dr. Marinelli does later agree that God does create destroyers for specific purposes. Yet, the Egyptian example he tries to leave God out of the fray. I should remind Dr. Marinelli that God will one day judge all created beings and will do far worse to the non-elect than some plague.

You are confusing execution with involvement.  I never claim that God, in His judgments, refrains from any direct involvement (i.e. permission) with the executing agent.  You’re assuming that’s what I meant.  In other places I affirm this involvement.

So, by your understanding of Exodus 11:4 and Exodus 15:26, you are forced to admit that God and the destroyer are synonymous.  As my book advocates, the Destroyer and God are two distinct entities in Ex 12:23, and this verse clearly states that the Destroyer executes the actual plague. Thus, the verse references you include must be speaking idiomatically (God speaking as the agent when really He is only indirectly involved in or permitting the event).  God speaks in such a fashion concerning various events:

Based on Word Faith interpretation (Page 153), Ananias and Saphira are placed into the hands of Satan after they lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). Why would Satan want to destroy someone who has just done his bidding to God? This was a Holy judgment by the Holy Spirit. God could not have people lying to him in front of everyone. His holiness was violated. So the judge of all mankind made a judgment.

Exegetical Failure:  Swaying your audience with a rhetorical/philosophical plea. 

Scripture never states that Satan only targets the righteous.  This is presumptuous. Our sins and failures often open the door to his destruction (e.g. 1 Cor 5:5 – “destruction of the flesh”).  Israel, as a theocracy was a stiff necked people, who as a nation violated the very covenants that promised them temporal protection from sickness, destruction, and bondage (E.g. Deut 28).  In fact they ended up in bondage to the Roman government as a result.  They certainly weren’t in a position of favor, as a people. Then Jesus arrived on the scene to find the whole region of Palestine littered with demons, and sickness (which were likely demonic related as well – Ac 10:38).  So where was the devil actively destroying? In the regions of the disobedient! He enjoys destroying the low hanging fruit just as much as the others (1 Pet 5:8).

I do agree that Acts 5 is an example of Judgment. Nowhere in my book do I advocate that God is not the sovereign judge over all of our actions, whether or not He is the direct causal agent in the consequences of that judgment. 

A similar event happened in the Old Testament. The Ark was being brought back to David (2 Samuel 6:7) and Uzzah touched it before it was to hit the ground. Uzzah violated God’s holiness and he was struck down. This was God’s doing, not Satan’s.

You are comparing non-parallel events.  In my book I was speaking of God’s judgments against sin.  The instance of the Ark is not an instance of judgment, but of an unholy man who exposed himself to the glory of God.  No man could approach God and live (Ex 33:20).  Nowhere in my book do I state that God never directly afflicts, or that ALL afflictions are directly from the destroyer.  Apparently you glanced over pages 20-21, which state:

“Can God’s sovereign purpose ever include destruction?  Of course, we know that “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov 16:4).  The Lord told Isaiah, “I make peace, and create evil” (Isa 45:7).  The Hebrew word for “evil” is also generically used throughout the Old Testament to render “trouble”, “affliction”, and “harm”.  So we see that God has created affliction, but not ALL afflictions.  In the past, we see God’s plan including the destruction of wicked cities, even the entire world with a flood.  In the end times, God will cast the wicked into the lake of fire.  But notice that all of these instances are judgments against free moral agents who were clearly warned beforehand to change their ways.  A key attribute of God is His justice.  He is bound to judge free agents based on His own nature.  However, we must know that it is never His heart to destroy. “For he doth not afflict willingly [literally ‘of the heart’] nor grieve the children of men” (Lam 3:33).  He has no other choice but to grant the wicked their own desire to be separated from God.”

Final Comments and Summary

As you read this book, you will begin to see that Dr. Marinelli’s doctorate is from a diploma mill. He lacks in his hermeneutic approach, research abilities, and exegetic skills. At best, he is a neophyte in the world of theology. Being a neophyte myself, it is easy to see those who charade as doctors. Very few of the Doctor’s sources are from a scholarly level.

Must it always end in attacks in integrity?  This is a shame.  Anyhow, Master’s International School of Divinity is a seminary – not a diploma mill.  http://mdivs.edu/credibility.html.  Liberty University, the LARGEST Christian University, recognizes all credits from Master's.  They have affiliated status with DoE recognized Association For Biblical Higher Education.

God is not sovereign in Word Faith Theology.

Below are some issues that Dr Marinelli should have grappled with including the following concepts espoused by the Word Faith Fathers:

E.W. Kenyon

“It seems that God is limited by our prayer life, that He can do nothing for humanity unless someone asks Him to do it. Why this is, I do not know.” (“The Two Kinds of Faith,” p. 42).

Kenneth Hagin

a. “Originally, God made the earth and the fullness thereof, giving Adam dominion over all the works of His hands. In other words, Adam was the god of this world. (Kenneth Hagin, “The Believer’s Authority, 1987, p. 19)

b. Therefore, Adam had dominion upon this earth and in this world. He was originally, in a sense, god of this world. But Satan came and lied to Adam. Adam committed high treason and sold out to Satan. Then Satan became the god of this world. (Hagin, “The Art of Intercession,” 1980, p.3; reissued as “The Art of Prayer” both 1992 and 2000 editions contain the same teaching.

c. “I began to examine the Bible to find out why, if God wants to do something for humanity, He cannot unless somebody asks Him.” (Hagin, Ibid, p. 1).

d. “God cannot legally and justly move in and take away that dominion from the devil. The devil has dominion here. He has a right. He has Adam’s lease. And God cannot do anything unless somebody down here asks Him.” (Ibid, p. 3).

Kenneth Copeland

a. “God’s reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself. I mean a reproduction of Himself, and in the Garden of Eden He did just that.” (“Following the Faith of Abraham,” side 1).

b. (speaking after the Fall) “God had no avenue of lasting faith or moving in the earth. He had to have covenant with somebody. He had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn’t come.” (“God’s Covenants With Man II,” side 1).

c. (Speaking about God and Abraham – God speaking) “I’m making a proposition to you. You can tell me to bug off if you don’t like it.” (Ibid, side 2).

Charles Capps

a. “God said, “Let us make man IN OUR IMAGE AFTER OUR LIKENESS.” The word, likeness, in the original Hebrew meant ‘an exact duplication in kind.’ (“Authority In Three Worlds,” p. 17).

Fred Price

“God can’t do anything in this earth realm except what we, the body of Christ, allow Him to do.” (Audiotape PR #11)

Source Quotes supplied by Bill Brown of D.T.S. (http://www.christiandiscussionforums...ad.php?t=84069 )

I would like to now close this series with a final comment. Dr. Marinelli's work had so many errors that it would have taken a book of equal volume to correct his mistakes. I chose to select the most obvious errors. I hope that you will take the time to compare my series with the actual work of Dr. Chad Marinelli found elsewhere in this site.

Dr. Marinelli's Thesis: http://www.light-after-darkness.org/index.php?page=wof

First of all, WoF is not the only movement that believes God has exercised His sovereignty in a self limited fashion (In control over all, rather than in all things).  Dan Gracely, in Calvinism – A Closer Look (an anti – WoF apologist by the way), comments:

“This is why Evangelicalism needs to turn 180º away from its meaningless and contradictory apologetic that does itself and the world no real good. And it needs to proceed instead unto a biblical model to explain the problem of evil, for otherwise it cannot hope to achieve a real unity within itself nor present to a skeptical world the gospel with any significant, divine power and blessing. Such falsehood always creates improper division and weakness in the saints of the Church. So let us turn away from all such false teaching. For only a God who is sovereign over all things, not in all things, can affect the malady of our time.”

So when you say “God is not sovereign in Word of Faith theology” you are speaking relative to your definition of sovereignty.  Gracely, in discussing God’s permission for Job to exercise his free will in afflicting Job, defines Biblical sovereignty:

At this point someone will object, “But if God gives Satan power to do something which He doesn’t really want the Devil to do, then Satan is ruling a part of the universe in which God is not absolutely and totally sovereign.” Exactly! In fact, that’s an example of what free will in the universe looks like when God allows its physical effects. But even regardless of physical effects, men and angels exercise their own will (intention). Therefore God cannot be accused in their sin, and thus He is removed as a factor from the problem of evil. This does not mean that God ceases to be God, as some claim. God ultimately brings all angels and men into judgment for their intentions and actions. But we must allow God to describe Himself, not some theological system that differs from the Bible. As a friend of mine has pointed out, when Christians allow the latter, they end up going to church and worshiping theology (i.e., so called) rather than the God of the Bible. The point here is that Job teaches us that God is not sovereign in everything, but rather sovereign over everything. To be sovereign in everything would mean God foreordains ‘whatsoever comes to pass.’ To be sovereign over everything means God will ultimately judge how others have been sovereign in their own sphere of decisions.

God’s sovereignty, as properly (biblically) understood, means that God rules over men and angels and sometimes limits the effects of their free will. This means that God is sovereign in the same sense that a human king is sovereign, only on a much grander scale. A king does not make the choices of people; rather, people make their own choices but are subject to the king’s punishment if they do evil (or conversely, subject to the king’s blessing if they are righteous). Unfortunately, many in Evangelicalism have taken the word ’sovereign’ and changed its meaning so that God makes the events of history. Again, this is not how the Bible defines the concept of divine sovereignty in the first two chapters of Job, that is, once they are understood in their proper context. Thus, true biblical sovereignty could be defined as the following:

1. God foreknows everything, but does not make all the events of history.

2. God may limit the effects of a person’s free will upon another person or thing, but He never limits any person’s intention (free will).

3. God limits the degree and duration of every trial facing the Christian, so that the believer need not be tried above his endurance.

4. God, because of what He prepares for the believer’s future, knows that the suffering of the Christian in this world is not worthy to be compared to the glory which He shall reveal in the believer in the hereafter.

5. God will condemn the sin of every fallen man and fallen angel at a future and final judgment. No one can avoid or resist these judgments.

Gracely’s entire book is a great read actually (find it at xcalvinist.com), and it shows that other evangelicals deny sovereignty (at least your understanding of meticulous sovereignty) as well.  Such a view of sovereignty suggests that the choices of free will agents are not irresistible and inevitable, but God’s judgments of those choices are.  Such a view teaches that foreknowledge is simple (simply seeing what will be), rather than based on pre-ordination (as Calvin suggests). 

Secondly, you failed to mention the following reconstruction in my book on Page 141:

“There have been some strong statements made by faith teachers concerning God’s limitations in the earth.  Some have taught that God cannot do anything apart from man’s faith.  Two reconstructions are necessary to this idea.  First of all, the word “cannot” should be replaced with “will not”.  God is omnipotent.  He is displeased by a lack of faith and therefore chooses not to respond to it.   Secondly, the word “anything” should be replaced with “anything which God has conditioned upon man’s faith”.  God will not do anything conditioned upon man’s faith apart from man’s faith.  I do not advocate the belief that God “cannot” move in the earth apart from man’s faith.  This is a presumptuous teaching that does not line up with scripture.  Not all of God’s activity in the human sphere is conditioned on man’s faith.  There are clear instances in scripture where God providentially moved in the earth apart from any prayer, supplication, or act of man.  Some examples are God’s election of the Old Testament patriarchs and of Israel as His chosen nation (Deut 7:7-8), and His upholding of every natural law in the universe (Jer 31:35-36).”

The fact that you failed to mention this reconstruction makes me wonder if there is any hope for an acceptance of anything short of your EXACT position.  Sad!!

Even in light of my proposed reconstruction, I don’t entirely fault WoF teachers for using such strong language about God’s self-limiting activity in the earth; for such language has been used years before the WoFer’s:

"Beware in your prayers, above everything else, of limiting God, not only by unbelief, but by fancying that you know what He can do. Expect unexpected things 'above all that we ask or think.'" - Andrew Murray

“Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen; such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of heaven on earth. God does nothing but in answer to prayer.” - John Wesley

“All that God is, and all that God has, is at the disposal of prayer. Prayer can do anything that God can do, and as God can do everything, prayer is omnipotent.” - R. A. Torrey

“We tread altogether too gingerly upon the great and precious promises of God, and too often we ignore them wholly. The promise is the ground on which faith stands in asking of God. This is the one basis of prayer. We limit God's ability. We measure God's ability and willingness to answer prayer by the standard of men. We limit the Holy One of Israel.” - EM Bounds

For we must not assume that WoF teachers mean anything different than the above quoted legends; For to say that “God can do nothing for humanity” apart from prayer and faith is not to imply that God isn’t omnipotent.  It is rather to mean that “God WILL do nothing for humanity”, or “God CHOOSES not to do anything for humanity”.  This stated inability is nothing more than idiomatic language.  For example, I may tell someone, “I can not come to your wedding because I have a previous engagement”.  I am physically able to go to the wedding, but choose not to violate a previous engagement.  The Bible uses the word “cannot” (Gr. Dunamai) to really mean “choose not” or “will not” in many verses:

Mt 20:22  But Jesus answered and said, You know not what you ask. Are you able (Gr. dunasthe) to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say to him, We are able.  (Surely He meant “are you willing?”)

Mt 22:46  And no man was able (Gr. edunato) to answer him a word, neither dared any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.  (Sure they had the ability to speak words to him, but chose not to in fear of being humiliated)

Mk 2:19  And Jesus said to them, Can (Gr. dunantai) the children of the bridal chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.  (Of course they are able to fast, but choose not to while Jesus is with them)

Mk 6:5  And he could (Gr. edunato) there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them. (Dare we say that Christ is not omnipotent?  Of course not.  He chose, in His kenosis, to operate through the power of the Holy Ghost and in response to faith)

Lk 11:7  And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give you. (Sure, the man was able to get up.  He means that he chooses not to get up and risk waking his whole family.)

Lk 14:20  And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. (Surely he is physically able to come.  Yet, he chooses not to abandon his new bride to follow Christ.)

Acts 4:20  For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Of course their mouths were able to speak other things.  Yet, in their excitement and compulsion to serve God, they choose to continually speak the Gospel.)

Therefore, with Mark 6:5 being a capstone example, we must understand the faith teachers’ statements as pointers to God’s self limitation and free decision to respond to humanity conditionally – faith unto blessing, disobedience unto cursing.  For every faith teacher fully regards the omnipotence of God!