FALSE TEACHINGS OF NEIL ANDERSON PDF

Preview

Summary

FALSE TEACHINGS OF NEIL ANDERSON By: Angela G. Shirley I. INTRODUCTION Neil Anderson’s Freedom in Christ Ministries was recently introduced to my church. I did not have the exact arguments but knew that there was something wrong with it. I searched the Internet and found many sound reviews by Bible....

Description

FALSE TEACHINGS OF NEIL ANDERSON By: Angela G. Shirley I. INTRODUCTION Neil Anderson’s Freedom in Christ Ministries was recently introduced to my church. I did not have the exact arguments but knew that there was something wrong with it. I searched the Internet and found many sound reviews by Bible.org, Equip.org, Christiandiscernment.com and others. I showed these to my pastor, but he discredited them and wanted me to show him precisely in the book (Bondage Breaker) where erroneous statements were made. The problem was that all the critiques were done on the 1990 edition of the book but my pastor was using the 2000 edition.1 Neil Anderson had altered all the places where direct statements were critiqued and had rearranged the material in many places. I could not find any reviews that referred to the 2000 version. I am no writer or theologian but in a labour of love for my church I set about to analyse Anderson’s teaching myself and discovered that, although much of the 1990 edition of Bondage Breaker was altered, the heart of his teaching remains the same. I present my findings here for the benefit of the Christian community. In this paper I examine the message of Bondage Breaker chiefly in the light of Elliot Miller’s very insightful review.2 Miller summarizes the problems: Controversial components in Anderson’s message include not only his teaching that Christians can have demons but also his belief that Christians should speak to the devil, that they must specifically identify and renounce past sins in order to be free of them, that they do not possess a sin nature, that correct self-perception is the key to sanctified living, and that satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder are common problems caused by a vast satanic conspiracy. Also subject to criticism are his methods for finding scriptural, historical, and contemporary support for his claims. . . . Many Christian leaders have endorsed his message without fully understandin g its controversial dimensions. . . . Although Anderson persuasively projects the image of a responsible, balanced teacher, he often does not deliver on the substance of the same.3 Anderson’s teachings are a deceptive blending of truth and error, which makes it hard for the trusting believer to discern his errors. In addition, he masterfully preempts criticism by frequently speaking against the very excesses that might be linked to him. Here are some false teachings:

1

Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers, 2000). The 1990 edition is available online at http://selfdefinition.org/hearing-voices/Neil-T-Anderson-The-Bondage-Breaker.pdf. 2 Elliot Miller, Christian Research Journal, volume 21, numbers 1- 4 (1998-99), article ID’s DA081- 4. 3 Elliot Miller, “The Bondage Maker: Examining the Message and Method of Neil T. Anderson (Part One),” http://www.equip.org/article/the-bondage-maker-examining-the-message-and-method-of-neil-t-anderson-part-one (accessed July 1, 2015).

1

II. ANDERSON’S TEACHINGS ON SANCTIFICATION A. Anderson’s view on sin Anderson’s view on sin is expressed in part one of his 1990 edition of Bondage Breaker under the section ‘You Are Changed from Sinner to Saint’: If you see yourself as a sinner you will sin; . . . Is that who you really are? No way! The Bible doesn't refer to believers as sinners, not even sinners saved by grace. Believers are called saints—holy ones—who occasionally sin. . . . But appropriating by faith the radical transformation of your core identity from sinner to saint will have a powerful, positive effect on your daily resistance to sin and Satan. . . . You had a sinful nature before your conversion, but now you are a partaker of Christ's divine nature.4 All this has been omitted/changed in the 2000 edition where he merely writes: “You were a sinner but you are now a saint according to the Bible.”5 Who can argue with that? Yet Miller points out: When Anderson states that saints only occasionally sin he demonstrates a surprising lack of appreciation for the scope of sin (it includes the thoughts of the heart as well as deeds; acts of omission as well as commission; indeed, anything that falls short of God’s perfect holiness, . . . its depth— even within the Christian’s heart, and the frequency with which it manifests itself.6 Anderson creates a ‘sinner or saint’ dilemma and neglects to mention here that “all Christians are saints (holy ones) in that they are positionally ‘set apart’ to God and experientially being made increasingly (progressively) ‘holy’ by the Holy Spirit.”7 In his interpretation of Rom 6:1-11 Anderson says, “It doesn't matter whether you feel dead to sin or not; you are to consider it so because it is so. . . . When we choose to believe what is true about ourselves and sin, and walk on the basis of what we believe, our right relationship with sin will work out in our experience.”8 Miller comments: Anderson takes forensic (legal) language from Romans 6 and related passages (the crucifixion of the “old man” with Christ) as describing the literal abolishing of the believer’s sin nature: . . . He also interprets New Testament references to Christians as saints (holy ones) more as referring to an imparted (actual) holiness than to an imputed (legally transferred from Christ’s account) holiness.9 Section D will look more closely at the correct interpretation of Rom 6:1-11. It is because Anderson consistently uses biblical terms without stating his precise meaning and often takes verses out of context without preserving the line of thought intended in the passage that he gains leeway to introduce his false teachings.

4

Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers, 1990), 44- 45. Bondage (2000), 48. 6 Miller (Part 1), 9. 7 NIV Study Bible note on Rom 1:7 8 Bondage (1990), 47; abbreviated in Bondage (2000), 51. 9 Miller (Part 1), 7 5

2

Anderson attributes sin more to an external cause (demons) than to the believers own sinful nature. Under a section entitled “You can be free from the power of sin,” Anderson goes on to recount his conversation with a man called Dan: “If a dog came along and bit you on the leg, would you beat on yourself or beat on the dog? ‘On the dog,’”10 Dan answers, bringing home Anderson’s point that we should beat up on Satan rather than ourselves in our struggle against sin. In his 2000 edition he changes his conversation with Dan (was this a fictitious or real account; and what about all the other stories in his book?) and asks instead: “Suppose there is a talking dog on the other side of a closed door and the dog is saying, come on, let me in . . .” Anderson is careful now to add, “Just beating on the dog is not enough,” and throws in “we can learn to walk by faith in the power of the Holy Spirit.”11 Though the material is rearranged, a reading of these sections and his steps to freedom will show that Anderson’s implications are still there. The obvious question is why all the alteration of content? In the acknowledgments of his 2000 edition of Bondage Breaker Anderson thanks three theologians for offering important suggestions to help him “refine” the message of freedom in Christ, but has he admitted to errors in his first book and to a change in theology or has he deceitfully omitted/edited statements that directly reveal these errors so as to evade criticism? In sanitizing his writing he weakens the foundation for his arguments; nevertheless he continues to build on that crumbled foundation arriving at the same faulty conclusions. B. Anderson’s view of flesh– sin-trained vs sinful Anderson neglects to teach the inherent depravity of the human heart from the moment of conception. He defines the flesh as ‘learned independence from God’, saying: “When God created Adam, he was totally alive—physically and spiritually. But because of Adam's sin and subsequent spiritual death, every person who comes into the world is born physically alive but spiritually dead. Being separated from God, you lacked the presence and wisdom of God in your life, so you learned to live independent of God, centering your interests on yourself. This learned independence from God is referred to in Scripture as the flesh.12 Anderson drops his definition of flesh from this section of his 2000 edition but still says in the next section “At salvation your old self, which was motivated to live independent of God and was therefore characterized by sin died (Romans 6:6)”13 To Anderson sinfulness is a behavior man learns as a result of the separation from God into which he was born. Anderson’s concept of a sintrained flesh is more fully developed in his book Victory over the Darkness.14 Miller remarks: Anderson employs language never found in Scripture when he writes of the fleshly man indulging “his physical appetites at the whim of his sin-trained flesh” and later comments that the new Christian “is still the unwitting victim of a thoroughly-trained flesh which only knows how to operate independent of God.” . . . Scripture, however, tells us that the flesh is inherently 10

Bondage (1990), 51. Bondage (2000), 56-57. 12 Bondage (1990), 43, omitted from Bondage (2000), 47. 13 Bondage (2000), 49; (1990), 45. 14 Neil T. Anderson, Victory over the Darkness (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990), 94-98.

11

3

hostile to God and the things of the Spirit (Gal. 5:17; Rom. 8:7). The flesh is sinful, not sintrained. Given Anderson’s definition of the flesh, it is no wonder that in teaching on sanctification his central emphasis is the “renewing of the mind.” Despite his verbal assent to crucifying the flesh, he does not truly call for crucifying it but rather reforming (i.e., reprogramming) it.15 Since Christians must only contend with these ingrained patterns of thought and behavior (“you still have learned habit patterns of thought and previously conditioned responses ingrained in your brain that prompt you to focus on your own interests”16) a reprogramming of the mind becomes the essence of Anderson’s sanctification. But Miller points out, “If the flesh is not merely residual conditioning but an ongoing natural, powerful drive toward evil, then renewing the mind with positive scriptural affirmations — as Anderson teaches — will eventually prove inadequate. . . . The biblical answer to the flesh is far more radical: it needs to be put to death.”17 C. Anderson’s emphasis on Self-Perception Having laid the foundation that Christians are not sinners but saints who occasionally sin, Anderson proceeds to build his ministry on that premise. (Even if he has taken out some of the more controversial statements he still hangs his message on them). Miller explains Anderson’s theology: “The believer’s correct understanding of his or her identity in Christ is the critical issue in Christian sanctification. Christians continue to sin not so much for moral reasons as perceptual: they view themselves as sinners rather than as saints. . . . His key emphasis is that believers need to understand who they really are in Christ.18 Anderson says, “Nothing is more foundational to your freedom from Satan's bondage than understanding and affirming what God has done for you in Christ and who you are as a result.”19 He provides a series of positive self-affirmations, based on Scripture, that form the foundation for ‘freedom in Christ’ (e.g., “I am the light of the world . . . I am a child of God . . . I am a joint heir with Christ, sharing His inheritance with him). The believer must read these aloud often.20 Miller responds: No doubt one’s perception of oneself or others will to some extent influence behavior, and there is a place for affirming one’s own identity in Christ (properly understood) and being affirmative with others. But the Bible appeals much more to one’s conscience (sense of obligation to do what is right in God’s sight) and spiritual need as incentives for behavioral change (e.g., Eph. 4:17—5:17; 1 Thess. 4:1–12; Titus 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:3–11). . . . Anderson has to a large extent psychologized the Christian life.21 Miller continues, “Anderson is correct that being “in Christ” is the core theological foundation for discipleship and counseling. For Paul, however, this phrase does not so much speak about who we

15

Miller (Part 1), 8. Bondage (2000), 50. 17 Miller (Part1), 10. 18 Miller (Part 1), 2, 11. 19 Bondage (2000), 46. 20 Bondage (2000), 43; (1990), 229. 21 Miller (Part1), 12. 16

4

are as who we are in. Self-perception is not the key issue, but rather relationship.”22 Though he has omitted the line “if you see yourself as a sinner you will sin” from his 2000 edition of Bondage Breaker, Anderson still teaches it. This is in contrast to Paul and the great saints of the Bible who saw themselves as great sinners but constantly fought against the power of the flesh. D. Proper Exegesis of Rom 6:1-11 Anderson’s discussion of the term “died to sin” in Rom 6:2 is based on a popular misunderstanding of the phrase. He says, “Today as He (Jesus) sits at the Father’s right hand, there is no sin on Him. Since we are seated in the heavenlies in Christ, we too have died to sin.”23 He does not say exactly how he interprets the expression ‘died to sin,’ but here is an excerpt from his Daily in Christ devotional: But when your old self died with Christ on the cross, your relationship with sin ended forever. You are no longer "in the flesh" but "in Christ" (Romans 8:9). Your old self (the sinner) and your old nature (characterized by the sin which was inevitable since you were separated from God) are gone forever because you are no longer separated from God. . . . Even though the old self, which you were in Adam, is dead, you still have to contend with the flesh. The way you learned to live your life before Christ is still programmed into your mind.24 Theologian John Stott explores popular misunderstandings of the expression ‘died to sin’ and gives us Paul’s true meaning: “Whenever sin and death are coupled in the Bible . . . the essential nexus between them is that death is sin’s penalty. . . . Take Christ first: ‘the death he died, he died to sin once for all’ (10). The natural and obvious meaning of this is that Christ bore sin’s condemnation, namely death. . . . We too have ‘died to sin’, in the sense that through union with Christ we may be said to have borne its penalty. . . . So the New Testament tells us not only that Christ died instead of us, as our substitute, so that we will never need to die for our sins, but also he died for us, as our representative, so that we may be said to have died in and through him. As Paul wrote elsewhere, for example, ‘we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.’ That is, by being united to him, his death became their death. Among the commentators, only Robert Haldane appears to understand Paul this way. ‘To explain the expression “dead to sin” as meaning dead to the influence and love of sin’, he writes, ‘is entirely erroneous.’ Paul is referring not to a death to the power of sin, but to a death to its guilt, that is to our justification.”25 Stott concludes that Rom 6:2 is the answer to the antinomian question of Rom 6:1, ‘It is not the literal impossibility of sin in believers which Paul is declaring, but the moral incongruity of it.” Stott goes on to explain the rest of Rom 6:1-11, “The phrase ‘our old self was crucified’ (6) is 22

Ibid. Bondage (2000), 50. 24 http://www.christianity.com/devotionals/daily-in-christ-neil-anderson/daily-in-christ-3-or-17-544426.html, accessed 25/06/2015. 25 John Stott, The message of Romans, (Nottingham, UK: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 171-172. 23

5

equivalent to ‘we died to sin’ (2). . . . So surely verse 7 should be translated, “he who has died has been justified from sin. But exactly how are our death and consequent justification (7) the basis of our liberation from sin (6)?”26 Stott answers: Our death and resurrection render it inconceivable that we should go back. It is in this sense our sinful self has been deprived of power and we have been set free. . . . Our old life terminated with the judicial death it deserved; our new life began with a resurrection (10). . . . We are not to pretend that our old nature has died when we know perfectly well it has not. Instead we are to realize and remember that our former self did die with Christ, thus putting an end to its career. We are to consider what in fact we are, namely dead to sin and alive to God (11), like Christ (10). Once we grasp this, that our old life has ended, with the score settled, the debt paid and the law satisfied, we shall want to have nothing more to do with it.”27 It is fitting then that Paul concludes, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires” (Rom 6:12). Whereas Rom 6:6 describes something that has happened to us, Rom 6:12 refers to something that we ourselves must do. Stott explains: There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ (e.g. Rom 6:2, 6); the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ (e.g. Gal 5:24). On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion. The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin. The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily.28 Anderson’s interpretation of Rom 8:1-2 is also off. He says: “The law of sin and the law of death are still present, and that is why Paul used the word “law.” You cannot do away with a law, but you can overcome it with a greater law.”29 It is not, however the law of sin and the law of death but the law of sin and death (i.e. God’s law/Torah), because it occasioned both sin and death. “In this case,” Stott writes, “to be liberated from the law of sin and death through Christ is to be no longer ‘under the law’, that is to give up looking to the law for either justification or sanctification.” Stott explains “for over against indwelling sin . . . Paul now sets the indwelling Spirit, who is both our liberator from the law of sin and death (8:2) and the guarantee of resurrection and eternal glory in the end.”30 It is the Holy Spirit that gives believers victory over sin. Despite occasional attempts to bring balance, this fact is little emphasized in Anderson’s treatment of sanctification. Also absent is the mortification (putting evil to death) called for in Rom 8:13.

26

Stott, 169; 176-177. Stott, 177-179. 28 Stott, 176. 29 Bondage 2000, 50. 30 Stott, 218, 216. 27

6

Anderson strings verses together without proper exegesis and comes up with a faulty view of sanctification. Why not go through to a systematic study of sin and sanctification instead of Anderson’s simplistic, roundabout piecing together of ideas? Many good Christian discipleship resources are available for those who truly want to grow in Christ and teach others. III. ANDERSON’S SPIRITUAL WARFARE TEACHINGS A. Overstating Satan’s authority Anderson places little emphasis on the believer’s ingrained sinfulness and puts much of the blame for Christians’ problems on evil spirits. Miller summarizes: Included among the problems with Neil T. Anderson’s spiritual warfare teachings are his overstatement of the devil’s authority, including his assertion that Satan has dominion over the earth and its creatures; his overstatement of the devil’s role in the believer’s life, including his claim that gaining victory over the devil requires learning how to verbally address and “bind” him.31 Anderson grounds his spiritual warfare teachings in his teachings on sanctification and the believer’s identity in Christ with statements such as: Others of us are cowering in the corner pleading, “O God, please help us! The devil ...