... Atheists love to hurl the No True Scotsman fallacy at Christians. Why? Christians assert that not all who profess to be Christians are, in fact, Christians. Contrary to what atheists believe, such an assertion is not fallacious because there is an objective standard by which Christians can assert who they believe are saved and who they believe are not saved. Granted, no one can know the heart of another person with 100% certainty. However, the Word of God, the objective standard by which Christianity is defined and the validity of ones faith is weighed, does make it clear that both Christians and non-Christians are known by their fruit (Matthew 7:15-20; Galatians 5:16-26), and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34; Luke 6:45). In addition, Christians are called to examine and test themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5), and to examine one another for the same reason (2 Corinthians 13:6-10). The reason I assert that Vallottons 7 Signs of a Poor Gospel is erroneously built upon the No True Scotsman fallacy is that he does not have as his standard the objective Word of God, but rather his subjective opinion based on an eisegetical mishandling of the Word of God. Sign #1: A poor gospel identifies with peoples pain but has no power to deliver them from it. Now to Vallottons first sign. He describes a poor gospel as one that has no power to deliver people from physical or emotional pain. Vallotton begins his seven-point false gospel by showing either his ignorance to what the true gospel is, or his intentions to redefine the gospel to fit his needs and his chosen beliefs. One thing is certain: he employs yet another logical fallacy in an attempt to make his case. This time it is the fallacy of equivocation. Vallotton equivocates by changing the pain from which the now-saved person is relieved, the pain of sin and death (Romans 8:1-11), to mere physical or emotional pain. God promises salvation from the former (sin and death), but never promises relief from the latter (physical and emotional pain). Does God heal? Does God, at times, relieve his beloved, born-again children from the physical and emotional maladies that come with living in a fallen world and still being clothed in fallible, finite, sinful flesh? Yes he does! But such temporal relief is not a promise of the gospel, and to assert that it is (as Vallotton and others and Bethel Church do) is to present an anathematized gospel contrary to what Jesus and Paul preached (Galatians 1:6-10). Men of God, faithful men of God--men like Paul, Epaphroditus, and Timothy--men who were saved when they responded by faith to the gospel they heard (Romans 1:16; Romans 10:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; 1 John 1:1-4), were not promised by Christ perfect emotional, spiritual, and/or physical health. Paul had his thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7), Timothy had issues with his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23), and Epaphroditus almost died during his mission of mercy to Paul, who was imprisoned in Rome (Philippians 2:25-30). None of these men suffered illness or hardship; none of them suffered privation or persecution because they lacked faith. None of them had believed what Bill Johnson and Kris Vallotton would see as a false gospel of sickness and lack. They believed the true gospel of Jesus Christ--a gospel of Jesuss propitiatory sacrifice for sinners (Romans 3:21-26), a gospel of a future hope secured for them in heaven by God (1 Peter 1:3-9), a gospel of present-day joy in the midst of trials (James 1:2-4), a gospel that includes God-ordained endurance in the midst of the temptations of life (1 Corinthians 10:13), a gospel filled with the promise of predestined justification and glorification (Romans 8:29-30), and a gospel filled with the promise of never being separated from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39). What great and glorious news the true gospel is! The problem with Kris Vallotton and false teachers like him is that the gospel is never enough. Jesus is never enough. Salvation is never enough. And Gods grace is never sufficient for Vallotton, false teachers like him, and those who have been duped into following him. But for the true Christian, Gods grace is more than sufficient in any circumstance (2 Corinthians 12:9), especially when God sovereignly and, yes, lovingly allows His children to experience pain, suffering, sickness, tragedy, persecution, or any other form of sorrow. What Vallotton describes as a poor gospel is the only gospel that has the power to save. Tragically, untold numbers of people flock to false teachers like Vallotton and false churches like Bethel Redding. They make professions of faith in Jesus, based on an anathematized gospel that rejects the true Jesus. They see Jesus as little more than a conduit for reaching what they really want--false promises of health, wealth, prosperity, authority, and power from the Holy Spirit whom they do not know, but yet treat like a divine butler or a genie in a bottle. Sign #2: A poor gospel loves the sinner but cant transform them into a saint. Once again Vallotton employs the fallacy of equivocation. He uses a common Christian term, saint, but uses it in a way contrary to its biblical meaning in order to support his claim. The only explanation for Vallottons assertion must be seen in the light of the Dominion Theology to which he and other false teachers in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) ascribe. In other words, Vallotton is asserting in Sign #2 that a poor gospel is one that does not transform the saved sinner into a dominionist. Dominionism, while in my opinion is aberrant theology, it is not heretical. However, Vallotton and Bethel Church use Dominionism as a means to their unbiblical end--as a means of convincing people they can attain a level of greatness, power, and authority in this life that God does not promise in His Word. Bethel Church in Redding is going as far as to propagate the lies of the NAR brand of Dominionism upon small children, go so far as to impart anointing on children to take dominion. I want to be careful, here. At this point a distinction needs to be made. Since I have several Christ-loving, gospel-believing, gospel-preaching friends who ascribe to Dominionism, it is important to note that my friends would be very quick to separate themselves from Seven Mountains Dominionists like Vallotton and others in the false NAR movement. Prior to publishing this article, I advised several of my brothers in Christ who hold to reconstructionist or dominionist theology that I would be making mention of not only the theological construct, but the distinction between the NAR and Christians who hold to it. In response, I received the following email from my brother in Christ, Marcus Pittman, which I share here with his permission: I to stand with you in the fight against the NAR. The distinction is pretty clear. One one hand you have Charismatics looking for Super Apostles to lead. They are looking for men to rule who speak to God directly and hear from them as the Old Testament prophets [did]. On the other hand, you have reformed brethren, who want to use Scripture as the authority for all things and run their businesses, jobs, and families accordingly as good stewards. Thanks for being willing to make that distinction. I know a number of men like Marcus--men who are born again, love Jesus Christ, love His gospel and all of His Word, love the Church, and love the lost--men with whom I have eschatological and philosophical disagreement in some areas, but who are no less brothers to me than those with whom I seemingly have full theological agreement. And the glue that binds us together is the common bond of worshiping the same Jesus and believing and preaching the same gospel. There is no such adhesive to bind me to those who lead the NAR and/or ascribe to its teaching, for the NAR presents a different Jesus and preaches a different gospel. My Dominionist friends worship Jesus in spirit and in truth. The Seven Mountain dominionists in the NAR do not. The issue is not whether or not the kind of Dominionism to which some reformed Christians ascribe is a valid theological construct. At least thats not my purpose for addressing Dominionism in this article. The issue is that Vallotton and other NAR teachers hold to their brand of Dominionism and hold it out to professed Christians and unbelievers like some kind of power-giving, super-spiritual carrot--as if it is a gospel-relate promise to all who are called saints--born-again followers of Jesus Christ. It is not. Returning now to the subject of biblical sainthood: Matt Slick, of the Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry provides a succinct and biblical definition of a saint. A saint is a very holy person with a special anointing from God. The word saint comes from the Greek hagio which means holy ones. Christians are holy because of the work of Christ. In the New Testament the word occurs numerous times (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1, etc) and is a designation of Christians. The Bible speaks of saints in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament it is found such verses as Psalm 16:3, Psalm 132:9. Sometimes it is translated as godly ones. Again, Vallotton is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation as he uses the term saint in a way that strays from its true meaning by asserting that a saint is not merely a person who has been made holy by God (as if that were not enough), but one who must take dominion. According to the biblical definition, a saint is made a saint based solely on what God does through His sovereign, saving, redemptive work. A person is not, as Vallotton asserts, transformed into a saint by the quasi-spiritual and/or physical act of taking dominion. Even a cursory look at the post-resurrection, apostolic, first century...
Posted on: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:38:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015