POSTMILLENNIALISM GONE SOUTH

The old historic postmillennial position attributed to Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) and the classical variations of postmillennialism56 all dreamt of an evangelized, Christianized world before the return of Christ. They taught that this would be accomplished by the spread of Christianity through Gospel preaching.

According to the postmillennial view, the Gospel of Christ is still the power of God unto salvation and the old foundations are recognized. Additionally, this preaching would produce a world of peace and universal virtues of the fruit of the Spirit with no more wars (Isaiah, chapters 2 and 11). All of this was to usher in the return of Jesus in the typical postmillennial framework.

Sounding almost like he has a touch of megalomania and for no apparent reason, Joyner states that we are to preach the last trump message of Revelation 11:15. He writes:

“Those who live in the reality and power of His kingdom now will preach the message of the kingdom. We do not wait for the millennium for Jesus to reign over us. His kingdom is already ‘at hand.’”57

He then claims that God instructed him that in building his Moravian Falls Community: “What you build will need to last for a thousand years!”58

This “kingdom now” message, according to Joyner is bigger than any other message:

“His message was the kingdom, and this is the message we have been given to preach. This does not belittle the importance of our salvation, nor negate the high place of the church in His plan. However, the message of the kingdom is bigger than these.”59

Joyner’s emphasis on the kingdom is noticeably similar to the gospel message of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who ignore the King in their quest for the kingdom. However, strikingly different from the Watchtower is that this radical charismatic postmillennialism has created an illusionary scenario where miracle workers take over society and the wealth of the world through the power of signs, wonders and creative miracles. The sheer miracle power and dynamism of Joyner’s prophetic “blues” will obliterate the opposition. Nevertheless, Joyner has yet to walk on water, raise the dead or multiply food to authenticate his Millennium Now message.

At times Joyner sounds a lot like metaphysician E.W. Kenyon, who was a follower of New Thought heresies. Metaphysicians, like Kenyon, believe in tapping into “spiritual laws” for dramatic results. Joyner teaches in true metaphysical fashion that:

“There are spiritual principles at work in the spiritual realm just as there are natural laws at work in the natural realm. These spiritual principles will work for anyone that uses them. In fact Satan’s power is completely dependent upon God-ordained principles of spiritual power.”60

D.R. McConnell speaks of Kenyon in words that could apply directly to Joyner:

“Through his ‘Revelation Knowledge,’ Kenyon hoped to create ‘supermen,’ a master race of Christians no longer bound by ‘Sense Knowledge’ or by demons, disease and poverty. This hope is a central thrust of all Kenyon’s writings.”61

MANY MORE QUIRKS

Joyner teaches that one’s personal prophecies do not have to be connected to the ????ures at all. For example, he claims that, “Some argue that personal prophecy should always come as confirmation based on the ????ure. ... This misconception is simply the result of faulty hermeneutics.”62 Knowingly or unknowingly, he is degrading and disrespecting God’s Word and putting impressions, mystical leadings, promptings and imagination above it.

Still going further afield, Joyner warns that cult research is dangerous and ought not to be pursued. This would surely keep the discerning off his case. As much warning as there is in the Bible against false religions and heresies (e.g., “test the spirits,” 1 John 4:1), Joyner’s words are ill-advised and foolish:

“Few who devote themselves to studying cults or deviant doctrines are able to distinguish the true word of the Lord, and usually their hearts are ultimately darkened by the very evil they seek to expose. We will be changed into that which we are beholding (II Corinthians 3:18). There is an implied warning in the Lord’s message to the church in Thyatira about ‘knowing the deep things of Satan’ (Revelation 2:24). The more we focus on what is wrong, or the practices of the evil one, the more we, ourselves, will be changed into the nature of what we are seeing.”63

Thus, according to Joyner, to be discerning — to be a Berean — is to go into darkness. That’s what Jehovah’s Witnesses say of Bible study apart from their literature — they too discourage any type of discernment. Once again Joyner sounds more cultic than Christian.

Moreover, in the above citation, Joyner demonstrates yet another example of his frightful handling of God’s Word. The people of Thyatira did not “know [know by experience] the depths of Satan,” which in the context was idolatry and sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20), simply because they were discerning! They did not practice these things since they were able to discern their evil nature and avoid them. Knowing the depth of Satan is not the study of false teachers like Joyner but the practice (knowing by experience) and promotion of immorality and idolatry.

A PROPHET WITHOUT DISCERNMENT

Though Joyner claims to be a prophet, at times he seems to be just winging it and is really unaware of the misinformation he is disseminating. Joyner would have us believe that one of the models of discernment and truth was Germany’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945). Bonhoeffer, a German theologian, was part of the resistance movement against Hitler in the early 1940s.64 He was involved in a failed plan to assassinate Hitler, was sent to prison and was hanged there for treason. At age 39, Bonhoeffer, just before going to prison, proposed marriage to a 17-year-old parishioner.65 His story is very sad. From a human standpoint he was justified in helping Jews and being against fascism but that is not the problem.

Joyner applauds Bonhoeffer for having “an extraordinary grip on the truth” and goes on to say:

“Bonhoeffer’s life is one of the twentieth century’s greatest examples of how a few who hold to the truth without compromise, standing against the most powerful political and military machines in history with nothing but spiritual power, will ultimately prevail. What was said of the righteous Abel can now be said of Bonhoeffer, ‘Though he is dead, he still speaks.’”66

Did Bonhoeffer have a “grip on the truth”? Did he “hold to truth without compromise”? What kind of legacy did Bonhoeffer leave in his books?

By Bonhoeffer’s own admission (in his writings), he did not hold to biblical truth. He was ambiguous about the resurrection of Jesus and outspoken in his denials of major fundamental doctrines of the faith.

In an article, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Rejected Classical Christianity,” David Becker investigates the writing of Bonhoeffer and states:

“I don’t mean to be critical of people, but I do want to speak the truth in love, and one of my pet peeves is when I see people, especially those who consider themselves to be, and present themselves as, theologically conservative, praise Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer espoused a so-called religionless Christianity, and expressed doubt about God as a working hypothesis. He was a father of the so-called ‘death of God’ ‘fad’ of a few years ago. He wrote a lot and also wrote some things that sounded orthodox but he consistently had a low view of the Bible, considering a lot of it myth.”67

In reviewing one of Bonhoeffer’s books, Becker writes:

“In his book, Christ the Center (1960, Harper & Row), Bonhoeffer wrote: ‘So if we speak of Jesus Christ as God, we may not speak of him as the representative of an idea of God who possesses the properties of omniscience and omnipotence (there is no such thing as this abstract divine nature!)’ (p. 108). So Bonhoeffer didn’t really believe that Jesus is God. ... Bonhoeffer didn’t think that Jesus is sinless either. ‘The assertion of the sinlessness of Jesus fails if it has in mind observable acts of Jesus. His deeds are done in the likeness of flesh. They are not sinless, but ambiguous. One can and should see good and bad in them’ (p. 113). ... So Bonhoeffer rejected classical christology, had a low view of the Bible, denied the deity of Christ, doubted the virgin birth of Christ, denied the sinlessness of Christ, and doubted the physical resurrection of Christ.”68

How can Joyner be trusted when he upholds someone as a paragon of discernment, virtue and truth and that person does not even hold to the essentials of the Christian faith? Joyner is a flawed false prophet with no discernment or wisdom. His claims and boasted position are false. No wonder he discourages discernment among his followers.

FORGIVENESS WITHOUT REPENTANCE

Apparently Joyner believes that some can be saved apart from repentance and confession of sin. Some can be saved apart from the preaching of the Gospel. Unlike Joyner, the Apostle John declared that forgiveness and cleansing were based on confession of sin (1 John 1:7).

Is anyone automatically forgiven somehow? Joyner teaches:

“Jesus looked down from the cross at His tormentors without wrath or retaliation ... but with mercy. He prayed, ‘Father forgive them; they don’t know what they’re doing’ (Luke 23:34). These were not idle words — He meant it! He is not waiting until He comes again to get even. He forgave them.”69

It is unhealthy and totally misses the point to even use the words “waiting to come again to get even.” The opposite of that is not forgiveness since Christ does not have to “get even” as an alternative. However, the larger and more important question is, did Jesus automatically forgive those who crucified Him? Is it true that “He forgave them”? If not, then what did He really mean?

It is unlikely that Jesus would have forgiven them and then taken it back, yet Peter says to those very people in Jerusalem: “Him ... you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death” (Acts 2:23). He then calls on them to “repent,” in verse 28. If they were already forgiven, as Joyner suggests, why do they have to repent for crucifying Jesus? According to Peter, they were not forgiven but needed to be forgiven and saved.

The only possible way to understand the words of Jesus in Luke 23:34 is to understand them from the standpoint of potential forgiveness. All sins can be forgiven, even one as heinous as consenting and even participating in the very death of Jesus. Jesus held out hope to them and a potential forgiveness that was realized on the day of Pentecost and based on their repentance and acceptance of Christ. Even Christ killers can find forgiveness. This is the only understanding that fits with the rest of ????ure. We must be careful to properly define the true meaning of “forgiveness.” It is a common misconception that as Christians we are “to forgive and forget” even if our forgiveness is not sought. We need remember that “forgiveness” is a transaction (1 John 1:9).

In a chapter titled, “Forgiveness is Conditional,” Dr. Jay Adams delves into the issue of Christ’s prayer on the cross:

“If, indeed, Jesus unconditionally forgave those who crucified Him, then, of course, that would mean they had been forgiven without hearing or believing the Gospel. Clearly that teaching is heretical. ... On the cross, Jesus did not forgive; He prayed. The same is true of Steven. If forgiveness is unconditional, Jesus, Stephen, and others would have forgiven their murderers rather than use what, if true, would be a roundabout way to do so. ...we believe also that His prayer was answered. How could that be? Not apart from the means, but by them. Jesus’ prayer was answered in the response to the preaching of Peter and the apostles on the day of Pentecost, ... They were not forgiven the sin of crucifying the Saviour apart from believing that He was dying for their sins, but precisely by doing so in response to the faithful preaching of the Gospel in Jerusalem. We do not have to resort to some strange doctrine of the forgiveness of sins apart from faith in Christ in order to explain Christ’s prayer.”70

MANIFEST SONS OF SATAN

It is chilling to hear Joyner use words that apply to and are addressed to Satan and address them to believers. Isaiah 14:13-14 reveals the awful pride and arrogance of Lucifer:

“I will ascend to heaven. I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the sides of the north. I will ascend the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

To be like God was the delusion held out to Eve by the serpent in the garden (Genesis 3:5). Yet Joyner, after having addressed the prideful inclinations of Satan and the deception of Eve, without a blush says:

“Let us understand, the Lord wants us to ascend to heaven; He wants us to sit on the mount of the assembly; He wants us to be raised above the heights of the clouds, and He wants us to be like Him (to have His nature).”71

Here Joyner gives away his orientation toward Manifest Sons and Little God doctrines. Why was what was off-limits to the devil any less off-limits to us? Ezekiel 28 gives God’s answer to Lucifer and the five “I wills” of Isaiah 14 are responded with the five “I wills” of God’s judgment for wanting to usurp the very throne of God and become like God.

DENIAL OF THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS

Joyner’s false teachings abound and multiply. It may be sloppy writing or unclear theology but it becomes even more serious as Joyner slips into teachings that would be welcome in a Kingdom Hall.

How should we view Jesus? We should view Him as the Bible does. John 2:21-22 and Luke 24:39 make it abundantly clear that Jesus arose in His physical body. The bodily resurrection is a foundational truth in the Christian faith. Jesus, as our mediator, exists in a glorified resurrected body. He is forever the God-man.

This truth of the two natures of Christ is called the hypostatic union and has always been defended by the Church. Christ exists in two natures, human and divine (Philippians 2:6-7).

Apparently Joyner either denies this or simply does not understand it. He proposes:

“There is a tendency to continue relating to Him as ‘the MAN from Galilee.’ Jesus is not a man. He was and is Spirit. He took the form of a servant and became a man for a brief time.”72

Joyner couldn’t be clearer in his declaration: “Jesus is not a man. He was and is Spirit” (emphasis added). Joyner finds himself closely aligned with Gnosticism, one of the most threatening heresies of the early Church. More specifically, he is bordering on a form of Docetism, a view which denies Christ’s true humanity by saying that Christ only appeared to have a physical body. However, based on a multitude of ????ures, theologian Louis Berkhof summarizes the view of historical orthodoxy:

“The incarnation constituted Him a complex person, constituted of two natures. He is the God-man. ... The one divine person, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both.”73

Surely no true prophet of God would deny the human nature of Christ or that Jesus is in a resurrected glorified body. Paul reminds us in 1 Timothy 2:5, “There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” How can Joyner say, “Jesus is not a man”? If we accept Prophet Joyner, then we have eroded the doctrinal truths that separate Christianity from the cults.

AND IT JUST DOESN’T GET ANY BETTER

Joyner may not know much about neo-Orthodoxy and Karl Barth but his view of faith is amazingly close to it and biblically off the mark. He takes us down the path to neo-Orthodoxy or what is called new liberalism.

While Joyner contends that “True faith can only come with spiritual vision,”74 God says that “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). Our faith is founded on the Word of God and flourishes and grows on God’s Word. Faith is trust in God’s Word.

Joyner would deny this and says, “Faith is not just believing the words of the Lord, but believing the Word Himself.”75 Again, Joyner demeans the ????ures and sets up a false dichotomy between Jesus as the Word and the written Word. He plays this incorrect dichotomy out when he says that, “It would be impossible to put a value on this most marvelous gift the Lord has given to us, but the Bible was given to lead us to Jesus, not to take His place.”76

How can we separate the words of the Lord in ????ure from the Word (Jesus) since the words in ????ure are His words and he uttered them. If you love someone, you love their words as well and there is no false distinction between the two. Joyner is subtly suggesting that we can get a fresher word, a more up-to-date word right now and directly from the Spirit Jesus in an unmediated way. So again the Bible is belittled.

Joyner also parallels neo-Orthodoxy and Karl Barth in Barth’s demeaning ????ure with his view of God creating a contact point in man where He can give special direct divine revelation. Barth’s separation of the Word (the Bible) from the Word (Jesus) is similar, if not the same as Joyner’s emphasis.77

All the words that Jesus spoke will judge us in the last day: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him — the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). The Church has always looked upon the ????ures as God’s means of grace. Joyner is trying to rob us of that means.

It is truly amazing to hear Joyner say the following:

“The Church must be ruled and guided by the Head rather than by formulas. He is purposely vague concerning even important issues so that we have to seek Him. The New Testament is full of the best counsel the world has ever heard, but the Lord and His apostles were careful not to lay down many general rules and regulations for the churches. They knew that every rule could prevent that church from seeking the Lord for themselves.”78

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul states the purpose of his letter:

“I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Jesus’ message — His “rules and regulations” — to the churches is given in Revelation 1-3. Matthew 18 gives us directives for discipline and conflict resolution. First Corinthians gives rules and confronts error helping to straighten out their doctrine. The book of Titus structures church life some more. Every Epistle is designed to direct the Church in some way. It is appalling to hear Joyner claim, “the Lord and the Apostles were careful not to lay down many general rules.” Joyner misses also that when God directs, He also gives grace as motivation and empowerment to obey.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE CONCLUSION

Rick Joyner is neither a true prophet nor apostle. He teaches too much error to be either. He holds out (by his many books) an appearance of taking us to higher ground when in reality he robs us of a rich doctrinal heritage as well as the Bible. His dominionism is false and utopian and he confuses the resurrection and reign of Christ with the present state of the Church, thereby misleading Christians with false hope.

Joyner’s claims of revelation knowledge produce a dulling effect in regard to a desire for the ????ures. He is a “broken reed” and will pass away like other purveyors of error. He will leave them with nothing but “rabbit trails,” distractions and illusions. Our Bibles are a far safer bet. Joyner’s books are a jumble of confusion. One has to wade through a lot of sludge to find a few nuggets of truth.

The CRN Journal says that Joyner is peddling a “dark mysticism” and they conclude:

“Joyner leaves us no middle way. Either we treat him as God’s chosen super-prophet for the end-times, or we treat him as a man in the grip of evil deceit and seek to expose him as such.”79

© 2000 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. This article may not be stored on BBS or Internet sites without permission. Reproduction is prohibited, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes. For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.